"For Hardworking People"

That's the slogan for this year's Conservative Party Conference - although they're all forgetting and referring to "hardworking families".  So they're not for the single, the pensioner, the sick, the disabled, etc., etc.  We already know that the latest kicking of welfare claimants is that all those who are long-term unemployed will be subjected to a form of workfare.  They know that they're onto a winner with the electorate.  But it's doubtful whether they will elaborate on exactly how it's to be done.  Remember that the government currently refuses to disclose which firms and organisations take free labour from MWA and the like.  If lots more people are to be offered for free labour there will need to be more companies involved.  Will we be allowed to know which ones?  (Short answer - no.)
The media continue to ignore the fact that the government refuses to publish the numbers of those who have been "sanctioned".  I found this link (in a comment on the Conservative Home website); "A Selection of Especially Stupid Benefit Sanctions".  All of them are sourced, and a lot come from MPs.  Essential reading for Iain Duncan Smith, one would have thought.
For many churches, today is Harvest Festival; and many of them will be donating the produce to their local food banks.

"Back-to-work scheme breached laws"

The Court of Appeal has ruled in favour of Cait Reilly's contention that the government's unpaid work schemes are legally flawed.  There's the BBC's report here and the Guardian's here.  The latter says that the  scheme is "in tatters".  But let's not get carried away.
They're unlawful only because of "a lack of basic in  formation given to the unemployed".  They weren't given enough information about the penalties they faced or their rights to appeal.  Tens of thousands of people who have been sanctioned are entitled to "a rebate", but the DWP has said that it won't pay out until "all legal avenues" have been exhausted.  They're going to the Supreme Court.  Which all means that it's not the schemes themselves - MWA and the rest - which are unlawful, just the way the DWP went about it.  And they've already changed the paperwork.
Mark Hoban is cross.  He said: "The court has backed our right to require people to take part in programmes which will help get them into work. It's ridiculous to say this is forced labour. This ruling ensures we can continue with these important schemes.  We are, however, disappointed and surprised at the court's decision on our regulations. There needed to be flexibility so we could give people the right support to meet their needs and get them into a job. We do not agree with the court's judgment and are seeking permission to appeal, but new regulations will be tabled to avoid any uncertainty."

PS:  There's an excellent comment piece by Zoe Williams in the Guardian.

"Statistics cast doubt on coalition's '500,000 new jobs' claim"

That's the headline to an article in the Guardian yesterday.  It will no doubt surprise most of you to know that if you're on the Work Programme you're counted as one of the half a million new jobs which the government brags about.  105,000 people, 20% of that total, are on what the report calls back-to-work schemes (the Work Programme and MWA) but are classed as in work.  The article is muddled on its figures in places, but it's clear on that 105,000.  The vast majority are on benefits but the government counts them as new jobs.
Apparently it's not really the government's fault.  The (ILO) International Labour Organisation insists that our Office of National Statistics "counts people as employed if they are adding to the nation's economic output, regardless of whether or not they are paid."  Mark Hoban wants the ONS to change this, but says that it makes little difference.  The equivalent of, "Whatever".
Now here's an interesting point that lawyers might want to get their teeth into.  People on these schemes are "adding to the nation's economic output" - the ONS has accepted that, and it's what Hoban doesn't like.  So shouldn't they get at least minimum wage?
The next time that the government puts out any figures on unemployment or jobs, they are probably not telling the truth.

Mystery unemployment figures

There's a bit of a mystery surrounding the fall in the unemployment figures.  The economy is flat-lining; so why is the number of jobless predicted to continue to fall.  Several papers have addressed this.  The Independent points to the "flexible" labour market but says, "Privately ...... some ministers wonder whether there is another reason: that more people are working in the black economy because it has become harder to draw state benefits without being “hassled” by Jobcentres and having to make more effort to find work."  And, "One Whitehall estimate is that one in three people who stop claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) switches to working in the “informal economy”.
There are some startling figures about MWA.  "... almost two thirds of claimants placed on mandatory work activity (MWA) do not start it because they find a job, stop claiming benefits or simply do not turn up. Of the 90,000 people referred to the scheme, only 33,000 started. More than 6,200 have lost their benefits for not taking part."
The website Totaljobs has a different slant on this, according to the Express.  The number of applicants for every job vacancy is growing.  "The reality is that a great deal of the jobs created have been part-time and low paid, and many of those that have been taken off the unemployment roll have in fact just gone into government training schemes rather than paid work."
So what is going on?  Is the black economy growing?  Or are there more people simply disappearing from the figures because they are being shuffled onto different programmes or "sanctioned"?

Mandatory Work Activity - a success?

There is plenty of comment on the news that the government plans to expand the Mandatory Work Activity scheme.  If you haven't read any of it, try the Guardian.  Essentially, the plan was was for 10,000 starts in the first year, but more than 49,000 have been referred in the first 10 months.  Only 16,790 have actually started MWA.  And 46% either signed off or didn't turn up.  (I don't know how they work that out - I make that 34% no-show.)  It's such a success that they are going to spend £5m on increasing the numbers by 9,000.  And the penalty for failing to comply could be loss of benefits for 3 years.


For the right wing press, of course, this means that nearly half of long-term unemployed people are in some way fraudulent.  But does it?  Certainly there are some who are working in the black economy, cash in hand, and will sign off.  Some others are claiming whilst being kept by someone else, and would rather sign off than go on the scheme.  But nobody knows how many there are in these categories.  Some have been trying to play the system by signing off for a week or two then signing on again, assuming that the clock is wound back to the start - but it isn't.  Others will simply have decided that they don't wish to comply with MWA.  But what they will then live on, who knows?  There is no evidence of increased numbers getting jobs because of MWA.


MWA was the contract which A4e lost in one region, you remember, because their processes were too "risky".  But another £5m is to be put into the scheme.  Presumably if enough people sign off, that's a bargain.  But one question which is never addressed is, where is all this "work activity" coming from?  Which employers are benefiting from this?  There are now nearly 17,000 people out there working for up to 30 hours a week, doing what?

One contract lost - everything else fine

As some of you have been quick to point out, it's been announced that A4e has had one contract removed, the Mandatory Work Activity contract in the South East.  That's it.  Everything else is fine.  (See the Press Association announcement).  No evidence of fraud, says Grayling, but "significant weaknesses in A4e's internal controls on the Mandatory Work Activity contract in the South East".  But "A4e is keeping other contracts it has with the DWP, including those under the Work Programme, which tackles long-term unemployment."

The BBC report adds the reactions of A4e.  "The company welcomed the 'positive findings' of the Department for Work and Pensions' audit, and another by the Skills Funding Agency, saying: 'Both confirmed they identified no evidence of fraud, systemic, attempted or otherwise, in relation to any audit completed of the contracts they hold with A4e.'"  
You bet they're pleased.  One MWA contract is a small price to pay to be let off the hook for everything else.

Report on the Work Programme

The Public Accounts Committee has published its interim report on the Work Programme.  There's some approval, mainly for the speed with which it was implemented, the "greater flexibility" it allows and the way it transfers risk away from the taxpayer.  (See the BBC's report.)  But there are also major criticisms, as the Telegraph highlights.  "One of the major worries is that companies are getting paid at least £400 just to assess each candidate, when many would be in the same situation 'without the programme'.  Some of those unemployed people would already have found jobs of their own accord, while others will remain on benefits that continue to be funded by the taxpayer.  The report will say payments for people who did not need the programme amount to nearly £1bn and could 'potentially' be even higher - the equivalent of £40 for every household in Britain.  MPs will also say they were 'sceptical' that it was value for money to pay around £50 in "management fees" for every jobless person processed." 
The BBC version of the story also reports the Committee's concern about A4e.  "They expected the Department for Work and Pensions to 'urgently' publish the results of its investigation into allegations against the firm regarding the Mandatory Work Activity work experience scheme, adding that Parliament had 'significant interest' in the firm's financial affairs."  And that's a bit confusing, because of course the DWP's "investigation" is supposed to be into all A4e's contracts, not just MWA.  
But publishing any sort of results doesn't seem to be a matter of urgency for the government.  Figures for the WP are not set to be disclosed until August.  Meanwhile, "Unofficial figures seen by the BBC in February suggested about 20% of unemployed people who have been signed up for at least six months have been found a job."  (There's an extraneous word in there - "been".  People have found a job, often without any help.)  Now, the dead weight figure, according to Grayling - the numbers who would have found work anyway - is 28%.  What does that tell us?

Another A4e employee has been arrested in Slough - the eighth. 

A4e, and voluntary work experience - the facts?

A4e has published another piece on its own website which it says is "the facts behind the coverage".  It was probably a press release, but the press haven't taken it up.  It includes statements which are more spin than substance.  For instance, A4e "outperformed the market average in meeting performance targets on: New Deal for Disabled People; Pathways to Work; and Flexible New Deal in each of the geographical regions in which we operated with the exception of London."  (my italics)  It didn't meet performance targets.  Nobody did.  They even say, further down, "No provider met the bid targets."  So they can't even say, "We did better than most of the others" without putting a misleading spin on it.  
Then there's the statement, "For every £1 spent by the Government on our Work Programme services, we deliver back £1.95 in revenue to the taxpayer."  It's in bold, so important.  But what does it mean?  There are no meaningful results yet on which to base it.
The piece moves on to the "current allegations" and states: "Between 2006 and 2009, there were 14 prosecutions for fraud among all welfare to work providers working with DWP. Out of these 14 cases, only the one mentioned above, in May 2008, concerned A4e."  (That's the Slough case.)  They have a point here.  A4e has been singled out somewhat unfairly.

They then re-state their position on their review of controls and procedures, governance and "erroneous reports".  They tell us again that "Emma Harrison has resigned as a Director and Chairman of A4e. As a result, she no longer participates in Board meetings."  But what they don't address is the one fact which brought this storm on them - Emma's millions.

On Tuesday the Guardian published an important article headlined " Jobseekers who shunned voluntary scheme forced to do unpaid work".  It shows that people who have opted out of the voluntary scheme have been put on the mandatory programme in what seems to them to be retaliation.  The paper has evidence to back this, and says: "Guidance given to Jobcentre staff on mandatory work and obtained through freedom of information requests says advisers may, at their discretion, use dropping out or refusing to participate in voluntary schemes as grounds for MWA.  A claimant 'dropping-out' of an employment measure prematurely may, or may not, indicate a lack of focus and discipline on their part.  It is for advisory teams to consider the merits of MWA referral on a case-by-case basis."  The DWP's response is to waffle without denying the facts.  Well worth a read.

Counting the cost

Yesterday John McDonnell MP asked a very pertinent question of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions - and got an answer!  McDonnell asked "what the value was of contracts given by his Department to A4e in each year from 2007 to 2011."  Chris Grayling told him that details of the contracts awarded to A4e during 2007 and 2008 were not held centrally (why not?) and it would cost too much to get the information.  But he listed the value from 2009.  (You can see it on TheyWorkforYou) 

Flexible New Deal contracts added up to £157,500,000.  MWA comes to £2,656,013.  Jobcentre Plus Support contracts (6 of them) add up to £66,470,115.  All of which adds up to £226,626,128.  And that's without the Work Programme contracts, which "depend on company performance".  It's also just contracts from the DWP.
Did we get our money's worth?

50% are workshy?

There's an article in the Express today which raises some interesting questions. You have to get past the headline "Workshy are Exposed" and get to the figures (which are suspiciously round numbers). "A report has revealed that 20 per cent of people ordered to take part in a four-week community project scheme stopped claiming state handouts." Translated, I suppose this means that 20% of those directed onto Mandatory Work-related Activity signed off rather than comply. Then, "Another 30 per cent of people in the pilot project were stripped of their £67.50 a week unemployment benefit after failing to turn up." Which adds up to the "half of people claiming unemployment benefit (who) would prefer to lose their benefits than take part in unpaid work". That's a big saving on the benefits bill.

Assuming that the figures are more or less accurate, what's going on? I know that when I was unemployed I would not have had a choice; I could not have foregone my unemployment benefit without rapidly becoming homeless and destitute. Clearly some people are not in that position. I have met people who were "signing on" even though they did not need the money. They were being kept by someone else, or they had enough money to tide them over. They signed on because they wanted their NI contributions paid, and because they could. I met others who were almost certainly working in the black economy. Yet even these didn't drop out of the New Deal 13-week programme, and some went on work placements. So what's going on? Your thoughts please - but note that I won't publish anything that simply rants against the system. We can take that as read.

Guardian piece by John Harris

There's a comment piece in the Guardian by John Harris which will appeal to many of our readers. Of interest, too, are the comments which follow it, showing how the public is generally unsympathetic unless they have personal experience.

We can see clearly the confusion in the government's thinking over the unemployed, particularly over Mandatory Work Activity. On the one hand, it is supposed to help people back into the discipline of work and give them experience useful in securing a job. On the other hand, it is ensuring that people don't get benefits without having to work for them. Is this work experience or community service?

The piece also highlights the inevitability of employer exploitation. With a pool of free labour to draw on, some employers who want only unskilled labour will happily cut their wage bill even further.