Sanctions, sanctions, sanctions

Channel 4 had a programme about the sanctions regime last night which I wasn't able to watch.  I'd intended to catch up on it today, but decided not to bother.  When the producers seek an opinion from the odious Tory front group The Taxpayers' Alliance you know it's not an impartial programme, and posts on Twitter suggest it followed the government line.
The need for truth was highlighted in an extraordinary way in a Twitter exchange this morning.  Kevin Maguire, the Mirror journalist, tweeted: "Imagine being late for work one day and the boss docks your pay for a month.  That's how benefits sanctions work."  Someone replied that he had been 7 minutes late for an appointment and was sanctioned for 3 months.  In came the journalist Julia Hartley-Brewer.  She asked, politely enough, whether he'd been late before and if he'd been given a warning before.  Someone else waded in to point out that there are no warnings in the system and that sanctions are automatic.  Back came the snappy response from Brewer: "not true".  She was asked how she knew that, told politely she was wrong and the point about no warnings was repeated.
Ms Hartley-Brewer obviously doesn't like to be contradicted.  She snarled back: "have you ever tried talking to people who work in the benefits office AND people who've been sanctioned.  It helps."  (She was obviously too cross to pay attention to punctuation.)  The respondent said that she had worked in the system and would like to explain it to her, politely.  But it was too late.  Others waded in, one with a string of obscenities which played into Brewer's hands; she retweeted it.  The polite respondent left the fray and it descended into childish name-calling.  That Brewer was wrong in her original statement was never addressed, and those who were angry and feel themselves provoked were made to look like the baddies.
And that's the trouble.  It's usually impossible to contact a journalist directly, and that's understandable.  But it reinforces the power relationship.  She has a platform.  Whether she is telling the truth about her conversations we can't know.  It seems unlikely, given that she doesn't know what she's talking about.  But like everyone on the right she can ignore all the evidence and repeat government lies.  If she has read the recent reports by various churches she has discounted them.  If she followed the evidence given in the Work & Pensions Select Committee enquiry, she has discounted it.  She prefers to believe IDS, McVey et al because to do otherwise would be to shake her faith in Conservative politics.
There are lots of links I could post, but I'll stick to just one, which is very relevant here, although it's mainly about Universal Credit.  Helen Lewis wrote this excellent piece in the New Statesman last week.
If you haven't yet read Owen Jones' latest book, The Establishment, you really should.  (A4e gets coverage in a section on outsourcing.)  We knew the gist of Jones' argument; but he provides a wealth of facts and figures and pulls the threads together to present a frightening picture.  His concluding chapter contains a hopeful picture of what needs to happen.  But it won't, and that is depressing.

Two verdicts on Universal Credit

Two programmes looked at UC last night (I had to catch up on both online this morning).

The first was a Channel 4 Dispatches programme.  Now, Channel 4 brought you Benefits Street, and the producers of that pernicious propaganda recently insisted that they wouldn't be "censored" and will go ahead with the next rotten slice; so could we trust the channel to do something truthful on UC?  Amazingly, yes.  Liz MacKean, a real journalist, went to Warrington earlier this year to look at how it was working.  They found four claimants, who could never be describes as scroungers, who had suffered problems and hardship because of mistakes, delays, confusion and poor staff training.  There were tales of the system not being able to cope with a change in circumstances; of the huge hike in rent arrears and debt.  A whistle-blower from a DWP service centre spoke of staff being overwhelmed by the workload.  Significantly, perhaps, it was Mark Harper, the newish minister for the disabled, who was put up to answer for all this.  He seems to be the new face of the DWP; Iain Duncan Smith and McVey are both, perhaps, seen as liabilities.  Harper talked blandly, of course; but there seemed no recognition that real people are suffering real harm as they "learn from their mistakes" at the DWP.

The second programme was a Radio 4 Analysis episode.  Most of it is summarised in the presenter's own piece in yesterday's Guardian.  Jonathan Portes used to work at the DWP so has an insider's view of what has gone on.  The radio programme was striving for "balance".  We got Kwasi Kwarteng, a Tory MP, making excuses for Duncan Smith.  Worse, we got a sizeable contribution from Fraser Nelson.  He's the editor of the Spectator, a small circulation right-wing magazine, and he also writes for the Telegraph, for which he has produced the most deluded tosh about "welfare reform".  He repeated it on the radio.  (For balance, Margaret Hodge told the truth.)  We got a damning description of the failures of IDS, in UC and in the Atos fiasco.  There was no mention of the dreadful damage that's been done to real people because of IDS's delusions, just a description of the financial costs.

Everyone except IDS seems now to agree that UC is a write-off, and will be ditched whoever is in power after May.

Harking back to yesterday's post, A4e have tweeted an apology.

Whose fault?

One of our regular commenters (is that a word?) has been pressing a story on me which I saw yesterday and was a bit reluctant to post about because it's not clear who is at fault here.  The story appeared in the Liverpool Echo first.  It concerns a 58-year-old unemployed man (worked all his life, made redundant) who was told by the Jobcentre that he was to be referred to A4e.  He then had a heart attack.  His wife phoned the Jobcentre and asked them to inform A4e.  The man lay in hospital waiting for major surgery.  But a phone call was put through to him - from A4e.  This is where it gets contentious.  The message about his illness obviously hadn't got through, but the DWP's comment is that "correct procedures had been followed"; that actually means, "I haven't a clue about this case but it wasn't our fault".  A4e says they didn't know about his illness, which is feasible, but they also say that they ended the call as soon as they realised Mr Rogers was in hospital.  But Mr Rogers himself says, "This guy was persisting about wanting to discuss the next plan of action but I said I was ending the conversation and put the phone down.”  Whichever, it's not good publicity for A4e, especially as the Mail has now taken up the story.

There's a programme on Channel 4 tonight about Universal Credit.  Should be worth watching.

Benefits Street

No, I didn't watch Channel 4's latest contribution to the government's campaign to abolish welfare.  But many of those who did have reacted strongly.  Shane Croucher in the International Business Times calls it "the latest dropping from this beastly documentary genre" and gives some real figures.  Bernadette Meaden on the Ekklesia website calls it "a misleading, harmful caricature" and describes the death threats now being received by some of those who took part.  For the mainstream press, the issue seems to be that the police are investigating possible criminal activity shown on the programme.  The Guardian quotes at length from police Superintendent Danny Long, and also from a Channel 4 spokesman who describes it as "a fair and balanced observational documentary series".  But the Guardian had to close its comments facility after 5 people had reacted with the same disgust (and 814 people up to now have approved a comment which is a re-post of Owen Jones' Facebook reaction).  The Independent hasn't allowed comments at all under its piece on the subject.
There is some feeling that, in the light of the threats to the participants, the rest of the series may be pulled.  That would be the best outcome, of course - apart from some sort of apology from the producers and Channel 4.  But I doubt it.  However, there is a glimmer of a backlash against this sort of trash.

We read that the five former A4e staff who are charged with fraud (the second group) have had their case moved to the Crown Court, where it will be heard on 3 February.

Confusion - and a rant from IDS

Are Tesco and Next importing foreign workers because they cost less than British ones?  It's the claim by Labour MP Chris Bryant, indignantly denied by the firms concerned, and it's all a bit confused at the moment.  Many of us have little doubt that Bryant is right in general; but it's necessary to get the details absolutely right.
That's never been a consideration for Iain Duncan Smith.  He has penned an extraordinary rant in the Mail today.  The headline is: "For those eyeballing benefits as a one-way ticket to easy street, I have a wake-up call for you: those days are over! Says IAIN DUNCAN SMITH".  That in itself is enough to get jaws dropping among benefits claimants.  But the bizarre statements have yet to come.  Did you know that "there are 4,000 single people making more in benefits than many individual people would earn from work"?  Just try working out what that means.  You'll notice that there's no mention of the fact that this is all down to the cost of rents.  But IDS wants Mail readers to know that by the end of September those people will be subject to a new cap of £18,200.  Then there's the Claimant Commitment" which "transforms the relationship between the claimant and the system.  Claimants will sign an agreement to undertake certain activities in order to get their benefits in return.  Our advisers have the power to sanction people who don't uphold their part of the bargain.  No longer can people just turn up to claim benefits with no onus on them to better their situation."
What can one say to that?  Does he not know that the current system is already exactly what he describes?  And why won't he publish the sanctions figures?  Well, probably, but it's not truth or accuracy which matter, it's feeding the prejudices of the public at large.  And that seems to be the case with yet another poverty entertainment show tonight.  Channel 4, which once did such a good job with Benefit Busters, now prefers to give us a series which harks back to the start of the welfare state in 1949 and see how today's unemployed would fare.  The Mail, of course, has no doubt.  It uses the term "handouts", which had no place in 1940s thinking.  It says that "benefits were originally conceived as a temporary helping hand in times of trouble, not a lifestyle choice".  There's that phrase again, the lie which says that all unemployed people have made a choice to be so.  I won't be watching.
Duncan Smith's past is coming back to haunt him, and I'm starting to understand why he hates the BBC so much.  Well before the scandal broke over MPs' expenses, there was a lesser scandal of MPs employing their relatives on the government payroll, often for doing nothing at all.  One of the MPs caught up in this was IDS himself, who was leader of his party at the time.  The BBC's Michael Crick discovered that he was paying his wife, Betsy, £15k a year.  "Betsygate" was uncomfortable for IDS, but it was worse for some of his staff.  A blog points us to evidence given to Parliament by his aide Dr Vanessa Gearson in October 2003.  It's long and detailed, but well worth a read.

Who benefits?

The focus is on sickness and disability benefits today, as Channel 4 and the BBC both screen programmes on the assessment system (Channel 4 at 8.00 and Panorama on BBC at 8.30).  Panorama has questioned the "government appointed adviser on testing welfare claimants", Prof Malcolm Harrington.  According to a preview in the Telegraph, the professor admits that there are flaws in the system.  The programme highlights a particular case, a man who suffered from heart failure and "died 39 days after being declared fit for work". However, the familiar loathing of anyone on benefits is on show in a particularly nasty way in the Express this morning.  "New war on sick benefits" it shrieks.  The language in this article would make a fine case study in right-wing propaganda.  Note the verbs.  Taxpayers "shelled out"; families are "mired" in dependency; claimants are "raking in" money.  And the statistics are absurd.  But they have a quote from the disgusting Taxpayers' Alliance, so that must validate it.

No doubt they would approve of the plan which is about to be rolled out across the country, according to the Guardian; to make people who have been unemployed for 3 years do "community work" for 6 months. The paper has the views of the Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion, which says that it could result in 1.06 million people being forced onto the scheme because the Work Programme will not work.  The article also says that the decision in the Jamie Wilson case is expected before 10 August.  He's the chap who took the DWP to court along with Cait Reilly.

The Guardian also has revelations about how donors to the Tory party are making millions from welfare companies.  A firm called Sovereign Capital owns ESG which has £73m worth of government contracts, including for the WP in the Midlands.  The article details all the donations and connections.  There's a rather half-hearted quote from Labour's Liam Byrne.  He's in a difficult position, of course.  David Blunkett and A4e?

Watch it if you must

A new series of The Fairy Jobmother begins on Channel 4 on Tuesday 7 June. I won't be watching. I wouldn't waste a minute of my life on it. If you do, dear reader, do post your thoughts.

It's worth remembering how this particular piece of what's been termed "poverty porn" came about. Channel 4 screened Benefit Busters, three programmes which took a serious look at the issues surrounding the welfare-to-work industry. The first two were filmed in A4e offices. Who now remembers the scenes in Hull, of clients being insulted and given nothing useful to do, of the man who got a job only to have it come to an end after a week? No, it was the first programme, which saw Hayley Taylor haranguing single mothers in Doncaster, which impressed producers. Ms Taylor was a character. And so she became a star, leaving A4e for a whole new career, here and in the US.

So will she fix up more hopeless cases with jobs which they certainly wouldn't have got if the cameras weren't there? Will you be shown idle, feckless people as if they were typical of the unemployed? Probably.

The BBC Panorama programme tonight (Monday 6 June) ought to be more informative: "With the government promising a welfare revolution, getting people off benefits and into work, Panorama visits the seaside resort of Rhyl in North Wales. In some parts of the town, nearly half of the adult population are on benefits. The programme follows the real life stories of some of the unemployed there, and asks the government whether this battle can really be won." But will there be any mention of the New Deal and FND providers who have dealt with these people in the past? Probably not.

Britain's Secret Fat Cats

I managed to watch this Channel 4 Dispatches programme on 4OD - or rather, the first two thirds of it. It seems that if you pause a programme on 4OD you can't restart it, but have to go back to the beginning. I saw enough to applaud this exposure of the reality of outsourcing.

It focussed on the three biggest companies, Serco, Capita and G4S. We were reminded that David Cameron called in these and other companies to renegotiate some contracts, but the big 3 are totally unconcerned about taking a small hit now, because there's so much business in the pipeline. They are all buoyant about the vast amounts they will make in the near future. Capita's Paul Pindar reckoned they had 30 contract opportunities, worth £4.7bn, and Serco has a £16.5bn order book. The reporter tried to get at the details of these contracts but was told by the government that they were commercially confidential - giving the lie to Cameron's promise of "transparency" in government contracts. Bear in mind in what follows that A4e are in a rather different category to these 3; it isn't a publicly listed company with shareholders, so we can't get at figures for executive pay. Last year Chris Hyman of Serco got £5m, Nick Buckles of G4S got £4m and, in 2008, Paul Pindar of Capita got £10m. And half or more of their business comes from the privatisation of the public sector. We were treated to a fascinating explanation of the self-serving system which results in obscene levels of executive pay. The tax-payer who provides the dosh for the pay of the execs of the outsourcing companies has no say in how much they should get.

The programme then turned to the Work Programme. It looked at Liverpool, where a small local outfit had used the Future Jobs Fund to secure work and / or training fpr more than 400 people. Despite Cameron's talk of the Big Society, power devolving to local people, this organisation and all those like it will not be in the running for contracts under the WP; but in the North West both Serco and G4S are on the shortlist. It was clear, we were told, that even if small, local organisations start out as players in the Big Society, they will soon be swallowed up by the big fish.

The Financial Times has maintained its interest in the finances of the Work Programme. On 8 March they reported that some of the larger providers were privately dubious about whether the payment by results system was going to stack up. They can't afford not to be in it, but they are banking on the fact that the government can't let it fall over and will bail them out if necessary. Yesterday they quoted Chris Grayling's response. No provider will have more than "a limited number of contracts", in order to spread the load if anyone goes bust. And, he said, the providers can make "shedloads" of money if they get the hardest to help into work.

All in all, quite depressing.

PS. Emma Harrison was speaking at a meeting of the Policy Exchange, a Tory think tank, today about Working Families Everywhere.

Dispatches and redundancy

I didn't have the chance to watch the Channel 4 Dispatches programme tonight, but I will when it's on 4OD. The comments on the channel's website suggest that it got to the heart of the matter. If anyone saw it, tell us what you thought.

A4e, like other providers, has been sending out redundancy notices. Although the FND contracts have been extended until the WP starts, Pathways hasn't (and no wonder, given its abysmal results). One can feel genuinely sorry for those who have lost their jobs. But it's an inevitable aspect of privatisation. People are employed only for the length of the contracts. It's one of the reasons why outsourcing is cheaper.

That programme - and the Work Programme

Channel 4 has somewhat unwisely put up a page about "The Fairy Jobmother" entitled "Hayley Taylor's Top Tips on Gaining Employment". She gives seven fairly basic recommendations. Then there is a large number of comments, obviously carefully vetted, praising the show and asking for help for themselves or their relatives in finding work. Hayley answers only a couple of them; but it would be a full-time job in itself to answer all of them.

Turning to the Work Programme, there's an excellent article on the Public Finance site by Dan Finn, Professor of social inclusion at the University of Portsmouth. It should be essential reading for anyone interested in the subject. Yesterday's Observer has an article claiming that "Iain Duncan Smith's plans for a welfare revolution have run into trouble after the Treasury rejected a series of proposals put forward by his department." IDS's plans are based on the need to invest in reform of the benefits system, but Osborne is intent on slashing the bill for welfare benefits straight away. This comes after Serco's warning that the providers are not happy with plans for the WP contracts. Meanwhile, the "third sector" has been lobbying Chris Grayling to secure their involvement in the WP. It's reported that Grayling "had promised to consider some form of mechanism that could see prime contractors lose their contracts if they 'stuff the voluntary sector'."

I was half listening to The Daily Politics today and thought I heard it said that the government planned to create actual jobs to slot the unemployed into; it would be a refusal to take up such a job which would result in benefits being stopped. Did anyone else hear this?

Unemployment as entertainment

I've decided that I'm not going to watch "The Fairy Jobmother". I am sick of televison companies treating the unemployed as entertainment.

"Benefit Busters" was a gallant attempt to raise some important issues. We saw lone parents being "persuaded" into what have become known as poundland jobs, a synonym for the worst kind of mimimum wage work. We saw disturbing scenes at an A4e office, and what happens to people on IB who are being "assessed". But there was no further interest from the media in any of these issues. The only outcome was that a controversial individual in the first programme got a contract, because her methods make good television, supposedly. BBC's "Famous, Rich and Jobless" was a disgraceful mix of celebs and distress which proposed no solutions. The Panorama programme gave Digby Jones a platform to spout ill-informed nonsense and obscure the real issues facing the young, unemployed men. Now we are to be treated to another series which seems set to paint unemployed people as lacking in motivation, confidence and "life skills".

I have nothing against Hayley Taylor personally. The interview with her on the Channel 4 website shows that she came into the work in the same way as did many other people working on New Deal. She got lucky. But I don't feel obliged to watch any more of this.

Fairy Jobmother

I was speculating about the possible shelving of Emma Harrison's Channel 4 programme, "The Wager". Well blow me down, there's a programme on the channel on 13 July called "The Fairy Jobmother", starring Hayley Taylor. You remember Hayley. She was the A4e employee in the first episode of "Benefit Busters" whose techniques for motivating lone parents to get jobs caused some controversy. We then heard that she'd left A4e. In the new programme she takes on a young unemployed couple in Middlesborough. And then, apparently, she's off to the US to repeat the process, according to a reality show casting site. Does this mean that Hayley's programme has replaced Emma's?

Is the Work Programme doomed?

There's been a "Welfare to Work UK" convention going on this week, with the various providers taking part, along with Chris Grayling and other interested parties (although not, of course, the clients). A significant contribution came from a spokesman for Serco. The whole Work Programme is predicated on the idea that providers will only be paid for sustained outcomes, and that means, as the DWP has said, that the "framework" will have to consist of the bigger companies which can stand the up-front costs of providing the service long before they get any money back. A4e has not publicly criticised this model. But Serco, the biggest and richest provider of the lot, is now signalling that they will pull out of the bidding for the contracts if they consider them not financially viable. The government is apparently negotiating, and Chris Grayling has said that the WP has to be agreeable to both the DWP and the providers if it is to succeed. Does this mean that the government will have to back down? If they have to concede that their model won't work it would be a major blow. A poster on the Indus Delta site reports that a suggestion that the government would lend the money to the providers is definitely out, and that Grayling is going to try to persuade city bankers to "invest" instead.

There's still no sign of the Channel 4 programme, "The Wager", in which A4e's Emma Harrison was to have a starring role. It was supposedly scheduled for June. Has it been shelved?

Round-up, 18 June 2010

There is still no news of the Channel 4 programme, "The Wager", featuring the A4e boss whom the Guardian called "the ubiquitous Emma Harrison". But it's Rob Murdoch, the company's Executive Director, who has been in the news this week - or, at least, in the Telegraph. On Thursday the paper called on him, and on Alex Pollock of Avanta, for a comment on the fact that "Long-term jobless soars to 13-year high despite £2.8bn public spending". Later in the same day the headline had changed to "New jobseekers 'squeeze out' long-term unemployed in rush for jobs" but it was still Pollock and Murdoch who supplied the point of view of the contractors. They have something of a balancing act to perform at the moment. They can't very well disagree with government policy, past or present, and so have to insist that the contracts to assist the long-term unemployed have "worked". At the same time they need to talk upthe difficulties of finding jobs for this group, as new contracts are drawn up.

There has been the usual crop of PR pieces for A4e in the local press, but an item on their own website, on the success of a student at Vox, their private Pupil Referral Unit in Stockton, may indicate more than a passing interest in the government's education policy. Many of the "free schools" announced today will be managed by private companies on behalf of groups of parents, teachers or charities, and we know that Serco is one of several companies involved. At the moment these schools are meant to be "not for profit", but for companies like A4e and Serco which are already heavily involved in education it makes financial sense to take this next step. We must continue to wait and see.

Round-up of the week

It's been an interesting week. After Sunday's TV appearance by Emma Harrison we had to wait for statements from ministers Chris Grayling and David Freud to find out what she meant by her "whole families" claim and her assumption that A4e would be delivering the new contracts. On Thursday Freud spoke at the Queen's Speech Forum (reported on the Indus Delta site) and "reassured the audience that all providers currently performing well will take a full place in the new programme and as long as they worked hard, they had no need to worry." He also promised that "providers will have the freedom to carry out their work – with no meddling from government." The latter statement raises the spectre of unaccountable private companies whose clients have no right of appeal to their Jobcentre or MP, because government must foot the bill but not "meddle". No wonder Emma was happy.

There is still no sign of the latest Channel 4 programme featuring Ms Harrison, although it is thought to be scheduled for this month. But, like any other public performer, she has the services of an agency to promote her interests. "McLean-Williams Management is a theatrical agency set up to provide a first class service for actors, actresses and creatives" says their website, and Emma Harrison is listed as a client under "presenters". (Mind you, her CV page doesn't seem to have been updated for a while.) What is next for Emma as a presenter, one wonders. The GMTV sofa, perhaps; they seem to be losing presenters at the moment.

Another TV programme for Emma

The Sheffield Telegraph today carries a long piece entitled "A4e boss Emma Harrison's road to success" by its Women's Editor, Jo Davison. Most of it is the standard hagiography, but the purpose of it becomes clear. "When I interviewed her four years ago she told me that getting into TV was written on a list in the top drawer of her desk," says Davison. She goes on:

The TV shows give her the clout to lobby "the powers that be," she explains. "Politicians, even Prime Ministers do watch these programmes," she says knowingly. She hopes PM David Cameron and Secretary of State for Work and pensions Iain Duncan Smith will be watching the one she has just finished filming for Channel 4. The Wager sees her transform the life of John, a 21-year-old East Londoner who was "the hardest study the researchers could find."

I can't find any indication of when this programme is due to be screened. When the BBC produced its "Famous, Rich and Jobless" programmes they tried to avoid accusations of advertising a particular company by never mentioning A4e, but both the Beeb and Channel 4 seem content to provide a vehicle for Harrison and her company to lobby government. The Sheffield Telegraph piece describes Harrison as "one of the country's leading welfare-to-work proponents." Perhaps that's because none of the rival providers seek the limelight.

The Curious Case of the Missing Episode

This is getting silly. The reaction to episode 2 of Benefit Busters was overwhelmingly negative - critical of A4e and the government more than of the jobless. But those who didn't see it and were banking on watching it online are frustrated. Channel 4 won't explain; nor will those newspapers which have denied their readers the opportunity to comment. There's just silence. Which leads people to the conclusion that A4e exercised their rights over the programme to ensure that no one else can see it - damage limitation. And that they also put pressure on other branches of the media to close down discussion. In a way I don't blame them. The prospect of clips from the programme being repeatedly shown is unbearable if they can stop it.

But someone - Channel 4, A4e or the DWP - should have the courage to tell us why.

And the Shaw Trust people must be quaking in their boots about this Thursday's episode.

The Rumour Mill

If you missed the first episode of Benefit Busters you can watch it via Channel 4's website. If you missed the second episode - tough. It was, apparently, briefly available but has now been withdrawn. This has, of course, fuelled suspicions in some quarters that A4e has insisted on it being pulled. Or was it the DWP? Or possibly someone who was filmed for the programme and who now objects to how he / she was portrayed? Channel 4 are not saying. And the Daily Express is not allowing comments on the brief piece about the programme on is website.

The rumour mill keeps grinding away on the idea that the FND contracts could be cancelled, or at least that one prime contractor could find itself without a contract. It seems that the contracts have not yet been signed, perhaps because negotiations are still going on. But the contracts have been awarded. And a crucial part of FND is that clients have a choice of providers. This means that in all areas contractors and subcontractors have been spending money on setting up facilities and staff. In Hull, for instance, Working Links have had to rent space for the first time. If the contracts were pulled at this stage, would they not be entitled to compensation for this expenditure? Perhaps that's another reason for the Conservatives' reluctance to spell out what they would do. This element of choice in FND also raises the question of what happens when clients all insist on avoiding a particular provider. Benefit Busters has stirred up a hornets' nest, and the DWP should get its act together and respond.

Benefit Busters

An update on the Channel 4 series starting next Thursday: Channel 4's website shows that the 2 of the 3 episodes in the series focus on A4e. We gave the details for Episode 1. There are already 12 comments about this episode and, not surprisingly, several are from people totally unsympathetic to unemployed lone parents. Episode 2 concentrates on New Deal in Hull (it was recorded well before all the bad publicity hit the Hull office). The billing says: "Unemployment is rife in Hull, but for one company business is booming: A4E has won the lucrative contract to help get the long-term unemployed back to work. Mark Pilkington is an ex-soldier who hasn't worked for 10 years. He welcomes help and within a fortnight he finds a job. But the joy of receiving his first pay cheque is short-lived; after just four weeks a business downturn results in Mark being laid off. Facing a return to A4E and potentially a four-week wait to restart his benefit payments, Mark begins to wonder if there is more security in a life on benefits. It appears to be a shockingly common perception amongst the clients at A4E, who are at the mercy of an increasingly casual labour market." That strikes me as rather worrying for the good people of Hull, if their city is to be painted in this disparaging way. Episode 3 looks at Pathways, with the Shaw Trust as the provider.

Publicity - lots of it

We know that A4e's strategy is to feed PR thinly disguised as news stories to the press, but it's been confined to the regional and local papers - until today. The Times carries a story, "‘Loan shark threatened to break my legs if I didn’t pay £1,000’" describing how a Stoke on Trent man went to A4e for debt advice. They're called "a debt advice agency based in Stoke" - actually they have a contract to provide money advice to Stoke's council tenants. One wouldn't, perhaps, have expected The Times to print stuff fed to them by firms like A4e, but this reads so typically of their planted stories that, sadly, one has to believe it.

And there's more publicity to come on 20 August when Channel 4 begins a series entitled "Benefit Busters". The first episode sounds like wonderful propaganda for A4e. "Hayley Taylor is a no-nonsense Yorkshire lass whose job is to persuade single mothers on benefits to go back to work. The company she works for, A4E, makes millions from helping to tackle the Government's target of getting 70 per cent of lone parents into paid work by 2010, and is the largest welfare reform company in the world. A4E is run by multimillionaire entrepreneur Emma Harrison, who believes her business is 'improving people's lives by getting them into work.' Until recently, the 700,000 lone parents receiving benefit didn't have to look for work until their youngest child was 16. Soon, they must either work, or be looking for work, once their youngest child is seven. At Doncaster A4E, Hayley runs a course called Elevate that aims to give lone parents the skills and confidence to enter the workplace and convince them they'll be better off doing so. Cameras follow her group of ten single mothers during their intensive six-week course to prepare them for work." Some of that must have come straight from A4e's handouts, and it certainly doesn't look as if the programme will be a hatchet job. A4e's own publication, Blueprint, says, "...one of our teams in Doncaster was in for a nice surprise – and more than just 15 minutes of fame – when a Channel 4 documentary maker chose the team to star in a film about the welfare system. Doncaster’s Elevate team was selected to appear in the documentary after Elevate Trainer, Hayley Taylor, made a great impression on the series producer. He felt that Hayley had the energy and passion to inspire her clients – all of whom are lone parents – to get back into work and training. You can read their fascinating story on page 12, and find out what it was really like to be in front of the camera for weeks on end." If you really want to read page 12, it's here. Can't wait.