An Easter story with a happy ending

Once upon a time there was a publication called the Mail on Sunday.  It pretended to be a newspaper.  Its editor hated poor people, and published lots of stories about how they were all too lazy to work and got lots of money for doing nothing.  The people who worked at the paper particularly hated food banks because they showed that some people were so poor that they had no food.  And the Trussell Trust which ran food banks angered the paper's best friend, a man called Iain Duncan Smith who was Secretary of State; he didn't like anyone who said he was wrong.
So the Mail had an idea.  It sent two people called "reporters" to food banks in Nottingham and London to make up lots of stories.  One reporter, called Ross Slater, went to the CAB in Nottingham and told lots of lies to get a voucher.  He took that to the Trussell Trust food bank and was asked some more questions, so he told more lies.  He was given about £40 worth of groceries.  When the reporters took their story back to the Mail, the sub-editors added some more lies, such as "no questions asked", and "vouchers for sob stories" and this was published in the paper.
But the Mail had not realised that this particular Sunday was special.  It was Easter Sunday.  And they had not realised that many people in this country would get angry at the lies.  On Twitter lots of real journalists started making up headlines for the Mail of 2,000 years ago, like "Outrage as carpenter feeds 5,000 people with no questions asked".  The Mail reporters didn't understand this, but they knew that people were angry.  So Ross Slater tweeted, "All food returned to saint Philip church Notts at 0930 plus small donation".  (Despite calling himself a journalist he did not understand punctuation.)  This did not help, because many people answered him with insults.
Some people had a good idea.  They tweeted that if people were angry about the Mail's lies they should give money to the Trussell Trust, and they gave the Trust's JustGiving page.  This brought in lots of donations, more than the Trust had ever had in one day, and they were very pleased.
But no one lived happily ever after, because the Mail went on making up stories.

A troubled week

Mike Penning, the Disabilities Minister, seems to be in the wrong job.  In a debate in Parliament on the mess around work capability assessments, Penning apologised.  Doesn't he know that he's not supposed to do that?  True, he was confronted with the story of Sheila Holt, the woman who was pursued by Seetec and Atos even though she was in a coma.  The sorry tale was originally told by the Mirror on 12 February.  Penning, perhaps, had no option but to apologise; but he's rather letting the side down by doing so.  His boss, Iain Duncan Smith, and his colleague Esther McVey would, I'm sure, simply have brushed the story aside.  He has probably been told that he must not see this as a precedent.  Ministers at the DWP have a motto; never apologise, never explain.
So there hasn't been a peep out of them about another horror story, this time from David Cameron's constituency.  It was covered in the Oxford Mail and headlined: "Man starved after benefits were cut".  Mark Wood, aged 44, had multiple problems which made him very vulnerable; but Atos declared him fit for work.  All his benefits were stopped except his disability allowance.  He couldn't pay his bills and apparently starved to death.  As well as being appalled, we should note a contradiction which emerges from the story.  Wood's GP "said he had not been contacted by either Atos or DWP about Mr Wood’s medical history, and revealed that if they had asked for his professional opinion he would have said Mr Wood was unfit for work."  But the obligatory arrogant comment from the DWP spokesperson says: “A decision on whether someone is well enough to work is taken following a thorough assessment and after consideration of all the supporting medical evidence from the claimant’s GP or medical specialist.”  Someone is making it up, and I don't think it's the GP.  (For the first time this mysterious spokesperson is named; it's Ann Rimell, who is Senior Press Officer at the DWP.)
As if it wasn't enough that one contract was in a shambles, a report came out from the National Audit Office showing that a newer one, the PIP assessments done by Atos and Capita, was heading the same way.  A piece in the Guardian reports that a backlog of 92,000 cases has built up, three times the expected number, and only 16% of cases have received a decision.  Neither company is anywhere near meeting its contractual requirements.  But the DWP spokesman said, in effect, "No problem".
As well as leaving it to others to deal with the Atos affair, IDS has also been ignoring the growing unrest about sanctions.  West Dunbartonshire CAB produced a scathing report which makes all the points many have been making for quite a while.  But the DWP's response was to confirm to Inside Housing that under Universal Credit housing benefit could be subject to sanctions.  This is because people who get working tax credits or HB but not JSA or ESA can only be punished by hitting that benefit.  Then on Friday the Herald newspaper in Scotland published a report of a piece of analysis done by an academic which brings up to date some of the stats on sanctions.  We knew that from October 2012 to September 2013 the success rate for appeals against sanctions was 58%.  But Dr Webster says that this has risen dramatically in the most recent quarter, to 87%.  However, only 2.44% of those who were penalised actually appealed in the last 3 months.  IDS would claim, of course, that this means that the vast majority of sanctions are justified; but Dr Webster maintains that the low appeal rate is down to the difficulty so many claimants have with the appeal process.  And he makes an interesting point: "To date, Work Programme contractors have been responsible for twice as many sanctions on the people referred to them as they have produced 'job outcomes' ."
Duncan Smith had a project which he's been forced to drop by his own colleagues.  He wanted to redefine poverty.  At the moment poverty is defined as having an income less than 60% of the country's average income.  So it's relative, but it's based firmly on the idea that poverty is about not having enough money.  IDS wanted to include other factors, like "worklessness" and addiction.  This was a terrible idea, for several reasons, admirably expressed by Bernadette Meaden on the Ekklesia website and by Andreas Whittam Smith of the Independent.  
Duncan Smith's recent appearance before the Work & Pensions Select Committee astonished many people, because his attitude was so disgraceful.  One of the Labour members of that committee, Teresa Pearce, has described her feelings about it on the International Business Times website.  She calls him "downright rude and quite abusive".
And finally - I've lost the link to this, but it's memorable.  In the debate on the bedroom tax Labour brought up the evidence to show that IDS's estimate of the numbers wrongly penalised was a wild stab in the dark and completely inaccurate.  Now Smith doesn't like to be contradicted.  But I detect something else in what happened next; panic at the very idea of maths.  Having accused Chris Bryant of mathematical incompetence he said that one in twenty of something-or-other .... "One in twenty - that's a fifth ..."  Er, no.  (If your maths is as bad as his, one in twenty is 5%.  A fifth is 20%.)

"I don't believe it"

There are two big stories to look at today.  First let's look at:

SANCTIONS FIGURES
The latest sanctions figures have, at last, been published.  Between October 2012 and June 2013 they show a rise of 6% on the same period a year before, to 580,000.  Think about that - more than half a million.  The BBC website explains the new rules, and says that 53% of the decisions were at the lowest level, up to 13 weeks, for such failures as not attending an appointment.  Then it says that about 1 in 5 were for failing to keep an appointment with an adviser.  Esther McVey is trotted out to speak for the DWP, saying that sanctions were only used against those who were "wilfully rejecting support for no good reason".
In another piece the BBC's Sean Clare looks at "Life when the Jobcentre says you broke the rules".  It brings out some of the absurdities and injustices of the system, with several horror stories.  The CAB is quoted as saying that they've seen a 64% rise in people coming to them because of sanctions.  The PCS union, whose members have to administer the regime, says, "There's no question that there is an overarching pressure to enforce the sanctions regime as strictly as possible."  The DWP, of course "flatly denies" this.  But the article has stories which cannot be brushed aside in this way.

"UP TO THE JOB?"
BBC Radio 4 did a "File on 4" programme yesterday on the Work Programme, which gives me my title for this post.  It seems that Esther McVey has rapidly absorbed her boss's approach to uncomfortable facts; three times her response was to say that she didn't believe it.
The programme started in Eastbourne, where unemployment is a lot lower than the national average, but the local MP Stephen Lloyd (a Lib Dem) is angry at the number of people who have done their 2-year stint on the WP and been failed by it.  One 47-year-old man said that there was no respect and he was treated like a child.  A woman said she'd seen her advisor only once a month.
The WP providers there are Avanta and G4S.  One older woman who had a good experience (and found a job) through a sub-contractor of G4S was interviewed.  But the programme then turned to Richard Johnson, formerly of Ingeus (didn't he work for Serco too?).  He said that the quality of the contract was deteriorating because case-loads were now up to 240 per adviser.  McVey said she didn't believe it.  The official figure is 80 - 140.  And, she said, people can make a complaint.
The point which emerged was that of the just under 2.5 million who are unemployed, 900,000 have been out of work for a year or more and these, along with those with medical problems, are not being helped.  A consultant, a chap called Grimes, said that the sanctions against the worst-performing providers (the 5% "market shift") are inadequate.  The DWP should remove their contracts altogether, but the providers know that this is not going to happen.
The attachment fees are due to end in April 2014.  Johnson spoke about the discounts of 30% or more offered by some of the providers when they bid.  These are back-loaded to years 4 and 5 (i.e. at this point the providers will get 30% less for outcomes) on the assumption by the providers that the government would never let this happen.  The contracts, he said, are not viable at this price.  Deloitte's, who partnered with Ingeus, are now trying to sell their shares, and Johnson thinks it's because they understand the implications of the discounts.  "I don't believe that", said McVey.  She thinks Deloitte's want out because they are doing very well.
Turning to those on ESA, the programme highlighted a man who had been sent to Triage Central.  In 7 visits he saw an advisor only once and got no help at all.  He said that the emphasis was on what he was doing wrong.  Disability Rights UK said that the Work Programme isn't working for disabled people, and a 90% failure rate is not acceptable.  Once again, McVey said, "I don't believe it."
More or less the last word came from Grimes, who said that the long-term unemployed were at the back of the queue and moving backwards.

Lots to comment on, I think.

That fraud case, a report and a couple of memos

First, there's an update on the court case against the nine former A4e employees charged with fraud.  They were in court again yesterday and have all been bailed to return for further hearings at the Crown Court, seven of them on 25 November and two on 3 February.

Second, there's a report out from the Manchester CAB, entitled Punishing Poverty?  A review of benefits sanctions and their impacts on clients and claimants.  It can be accessed from here.  It's packed with information which IDS, Freud and the rest should be compelled to read and answer questions on.  One interesting fact:- in 2009 the number of claimants sanctioned was 139,000, in line with previous years; by 2011 it had jumped to 508,000.  What the report doesn't mention is that we still haven't had the 2012 figures, and it's becoming ever clearer why not.  Other points to note include the fact that under Universal Credit the "hardship payments" when someone is being punished become effectively loans, to be repaid from any future benefits.  When did that little gem slip in?  There's really too much to summarise in the report, but it backs up what many of us have been saying for some time.

Third, there are a couple of what the DWP calls "live running memos" which are of interest.  One refers to changes and clarifications in provider guidance, and includes under "Raising a compliance doubt" the statement that "providers should be putting the contact details of the referring advisor on the WP08 referral."  How odd (or perhaps not) that some have been doing it anonymously.  The other memo is more serious in its implications, and can be found here.  There has been a vigorous campaign to persuade people to withhold their consent to data sharing by refusing to sign the consent form.  The aim, as the DWP recognises, is to prevent the WP provider from claiming a job outcome fee.  Not any more.  They have been pushing through the legal authority to contact employers without the client's permission.  They say it's "to improve the delivery of our interventions".  If you think you can still thwart this by not telling the Jobcentre where you're working, or even why you're signing off, I suspect the DWP can get the information through the tax office.  It's another instance of this government regarding data protection, or any other legal rights, as not applying to those dependent on benefits.

Helpless - and furious

I feel increasingly helpless.  I'm getting more and more comments, often on old posts, from people who are desperate because they, or someone in their family, has had their benefits stopped.  It's heart-rending, and there's virtually nothing I can do except advise them to go to the CAB.
The situation is made very clear in an article in the Observer online today by the food critic Jay Rayner about "Food Bank Britain".  He doesn't just focus on the Trussell Trust, although they feature.  He also looks at the Real Aid charity in Hull.  The experience is the same.  And Chris Johns of Oxfam's UK Poverty Programme is clear why it's happening.  It's not just changing benefits provision, he says, but "the way government agencies temporarily remove benefits for perceived misdemeanours: a failure to sign the right paperwork, or apply for the right training scheme."  And then the same agency that sanctioned them gives them a food bank voucher.  In Fulham there's a woman getting food from the Trussell Trust who is her husband's full-time carer and has three children.  The benefits agency discovered an overpayment of £600 in 2009, they insist (although the woman says she would have noticed) and have stopped their benefits for a month to recoup it.  (Just as an aside, it used to be the case that overpayments couldn't be reclaimed if the mistake was not made by the client.)  Other cases are cited.  In Hull, Real Aid don't use vouchers, but charge £1.50 for the food.  A lot of people actually prefer this.  And they are giving the help to people who are working or who are pensioners, because they don't have enough money to buy food.
The article cites the claims of Lord Freud, who doesn't accept that the increase in the use of food banks has anything to do with increased need.
The evidence is overwhelming, but the government doesn't care.  It still refuses to publish the data on sanctions.  Why?

And then we get this.  The most disgusting, lying, vile piece rubbish that the Express has managed to come up with, in collaboration with the equally disgusting Iain Duncan Smith.  What is there to say?  It's a torrent of lies, of words designed specifically and unashamedly to lie.  I am too furious to be coherent about it at the moment.

Exit Report

This is something which could only have been dreamed up in an office in Whitehall or Westminster by people whose connection to those it affects is non-existent.  It's the Exit Report now required by the DWP on claimants leaving the Work Programme from the providers.  Here's the memo.  
If you've ever had to get a reference from a previous employer you'll know that such references are now usually very brief and factual; so-and-so worked here from date to date as a whatever.  There will be no judgement as to your character - too risky.  Even teachers these days are wary of what they put in a child's report, and they are qualified professionals who know the child very well.  But the DWP wants somebody working for a WP provider like A4e, someone who may well have no qualifications at all, to pass judgement on their alumni.  They want JCP to be provided with "an insight to the participant" (yes, I know it doesn't make sense - perhaps they mean "into" - but they've written it twice).  Here's what's required:

"Please state below any further information which will provide Jobcentre Plus with an insight to the participant, include for example:

• Employability – your opinion on the participants employment prospects, the type of employment which might be most appropriate.

• Attitude – any changes in attitude and background you have noticed whilst having worked with the participant for 2 years and any known reasons for these changes.

• Barriers to employment – any barriers that you have seen the participant overcome / are still to be addressed / have arisen whilst on Work Programme. Any health conditions or substance dependency the participant may have.

• Compliance – the level of compliance you have seen from the participant, including any possible reasons you might consider to be behind this behaviour and which may be useful in determining further support for the participant.

• Any other information you feel might be useful to Jobcentre Plus and give an insight to the participant."

This is very, very dangerous.  It asks for subjective judgements which an employee of a WP provider is not qualified to make, into someone's attitudes and behaviour.  It specifically asks that employee to give an "opinion", to have "noticed" something, to "consider", even, heaven help us, to "feel".  And the claimant has no right to dispute those opinions.

Claimants should ensure that they get a copy of the report (quite rightly, they are not being sent out in the post).  Make sure that the adviser name is filled in on the form and legible, so that an individual can be held to account for what has been written.  If there is anything negative with which you disagree, make that clear to the Jobcentre and seek advice from the CAB as to how you can challenge it.

Radio 5 Live Investigates - the self-employment scam

The Radio 5 Live Investigates programme has tackled the Work Programme and its predecessors several times.  Today they were looking at reports that people are being pressured into declaring themselves self-employed simply to get an outcome for the providers, and on the promise that their benefits would actually be higher.  No providers were named, but by the end of the programme it was said that 10 different providers had been accused.
Did we learn anything?  A number of WP clients, two of them on ESA, told of being pressured from very early in their WP experience that they should go self-employed, not because they had any viable business in mind but because they could get more in benefits by claiming Working Tax Credits.  They were given totally inaccurate figures, according to Sue Royston of the CAB, and were being led into a very dangerous situation where the fact that they're not working the requisite number of hours results in a clawback of thousands of pounds.  People spoke about advisers being totally clueless and only driven by the need to get people signed off.  One WP client, an unemployed project manager, faced an "adviser" who didn't know what a project manager was and admitted she couldn't help him, but the office rang a bell, literally, whenever someone signed off.
Kirsty McHugh of the ERSA (the industry's trade body) said she was surprised.  She corrected some of the misinformation - the providers only get an outcome payment after 6 months, not immediately as had been said.  But there was no excuse for bad advice, and people should complain to the provider if they felt they had been wrongly advised.  The researcher was able to point out that people are frightened to complain, and would not use their real names on this programme.  McHugh was then guilty of what I'm seriously tempted to call a lie - that WP providers are not able to sanction anybody.
Mark Hoban wasn't available, and the DWP said that there were always payment checks and a complaints process.  Stephen Timms, for Labour, had nothing useful to say.
What came out of this investigation was that the taxpayer is being ripped off in at least two ways.  WP companies are claiming outcome payments they are not entitled to; and WTC is being paid falsely.  There's also the problem that the government is putting out false figures on jobs.

One thing that wasn't mentioned but which I'm wondering about; is agency work (which has always been regarded as casual work and so doesn't attract an outcome payment) being reclassified as self-employment? I know that supply teaching agencies have forced their clients to become self-employed, so shifting the costs of National Insurance and administration of tax onto the client.  The same seems to be true of nursing agencies.  Is it happening in other areas as well?  If so, it's another serious distortion of the figures.

Preferred bidder - but A4e didn't get the contract

Back in April we reported that the Exaro website was saying that A4e was the preferred bidder for the Home Office's contract to run the Equalities and Human Rights Commission helpline.  Given all that was going on at the time it was not surprising that the Daily Mail took up the story.  Well, Exaro now reveals that A4e hasn't got that contract, which has gone to an American company, Sitel, which has beaten the CAB as well as A4e.
It's difficult to know what was really going on here.  Exaro naturally wants to claim credit for its previous revelations.  "A spokeswoman for A4e claimed that it had never been the preferred bidder and so did not really lose the contract, saying that the award process 'was discontinued earlier this year and we understand that a revised contract award procedure was launched. A4e did not enter this revised procurement process.'"  But Exaro claims that the EHRC has confirmed that A4e had been the preferred bidder originally.  Who knows?  Perhaps the Home Office decided to scrap the tendering process when the storm broke, and re-opened it after advising A4e not to bother.  Does this tell us anything about future contracts?  probably not.
Mark Serwotka, leader of the PCS union, is glad that A4e lost out, but doesn't want the helpline privatised at all.

Home Office lines up A4e for major new contract

That's the headline of a story broken by the Exaro site.  They say: "Ministers have made the firm [A4e] ......... the preferred bidder to take over the sensitive Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) helpline to advise people of their rights in discrimination cases."  A4e is preferred over the CAB, Vertex and Sitel.  It's a government decision to privatise the helpline, because it was costing £2.1m a year.  There will inevitably be staff lay-offs.  A4e is saying simply that nothing has been concluded yet.

What made A4e's bid so attractive, one wonders.  Perhaps there was the fact that they already run the Money Advice helpline.  Perhaps they were the cheapest.  But it was always going to happen.  Despite the calls for suspension of contracts and the ongoing audit of contracts (Wales, by the way, has already completed an audit and found nothing wrong), there is no legal way at the moment to deny A4e contracts just because they are A4e. 

A4e and your money

A new description of A4e - "a public service employment support scheme" - comes from the Huddersfield Examiner's piece on a local firm.

More important is the fact that A4e has another big contract. The quango The Consumer Financial Education Board has awarded the contracts to deliver money guidance, dividing the UK between the CAB and A4e. "Private sector provider of frontline public services A4E" (yet another description) gets England and Northern Ireland, while the CAB gets Wales and its Scottish counterpart Citizens Advice Scotland gets the rest. A4e had been running a pilot scheme in the North West. I wonder how you measure the success of such pilot schemes. Anyway, it's another nibble out of the public purse for A4e.