I sat through two hours of this. She was giving the last evidence, along with a DWP civil servant, Hayes, to the Work and Pensions Select Committee inquiry into sanctions. After two hours the BBC Parliament channel left the session and I couldn't bring myself to go to it on the computer. I'd felt myself losing the will to live inside ten minutes.
A bit of the flavour of it is reported by the Guardian here. But they are trying to be too even-handed. It was dire. McVey waffled and fudged, didn't answer the question, cited surveys she then couldn't detail, and turned to Hayes whenever it got complicated. The Chair, Dame Anne Begg, was tougher than usual, but it was only when the other Labour members of the committee, Debbie Abrahams, Sheila Gilmore, Glenda Jackson and Teresa Pearce, were set loose that McVey showed the gulf between what she (and her boss and the DWP) would like to think is happening and what is actually happening.
One lie has clearly been nailed. The committee has heard about the way in which Work Programme providers are obliged to refer someone for sanction whenever there is a perceived infringement of the rules. This is going to be changed, by the way; they are to have discretion, which is what they want. But it needs primary legislation and a renegotiation of the contracts, so won't happen yet. But McVey was not reminded of the fact that she has lied about this in Parliament, insisting that sanctions are only used as a last resort. Another lie was repeated. McVey was adamant that there are no targets. This became a bit of a muddle, with Jackson and McVey both referring to the same letter from the PCS union; and in fairness McVey was right. But, at least while I was watching, we never got to the truth about targets in Jobcentres.
The Guardian and the Independent have been publishing the truth, with articles here, here and here, and the New Statesman has joined in. All these pieces give the picture which McVey determinedly denied today. Let's hope that the committee's report doesn't get too watered down by the Tories on it. They've heard the truth and should report it. But, as I've said before, it won't make a scrap of difference if the Tories get in in May.
Showing posts with label Work and Pensions Select Committee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Work and Pensions Select Committee. Show all posts
Wednesday, 4 February 2015
Sunday, 1 February 2015
Esther McVey - and related matters
On Wednesday morning, 4 February, if you are not otherwise occupied, I suggest you watch Esther McVey give evidence to the Work & Pensions Select Committee on the whole issue of sanctions. If it isn't on the BBC parliament channel it will be on the government's own parliament website. The committee has been taking evidence on the effect and workings of the sanctions regime, and they've been hearing the truth from the right people. So let's see if McVey will repeat her lie in the House of Commons that "sanctions are only used as a last resort". Even if the rather restrained Chair, Dame Anne Begg, doesn't go for her I'm sure Glenda Jackson, Sheila Gilmore and Debbie Abrahams will. Radio 4 did an excellent File on Four programme while the previous evidence sessions were going on, and the mainstream press have begun to see the light. The sad truth is, though, that nothing will come of this if a Conservative government is elected.
And that brings me to another reason why February is important. On 5 February it's National Voter Registration Day, a day of action to get people who haven't already done so to register to vote in May. Please, if you're one of those who haven't bothered, get online and sign up to register. Go to the www.bitetheballot.co.uk website and it will take you through it.
Oh, I know I'll get comments saying someone wouldn't dream of voting, for all the usual reasons. But whether you vote or not, you'll wake up on 8 May with an MP in your constituency and a government in Westminster. If you want change - and don't we all - look at Greece. Peacefully and democratically the Greek people have voted in an anti-austerity government. And now Spain looks like going the same way. It can be done. Sermon over.
And that brings me to another reason why February is important. On 5 February it's National Voter Registration Day, a day of action to get people who haven't already done so to register to vote in May. Please, if you're one of those who haven't bothered, get online and sign up to register. Go to the www.bitetheballot.co.uk website and it will take you through it.
Oh, I know I'll get comments saying someone wouldn't dream of voting, for all the usual reasons. But whether you vote or not, you'll wake up on 8 May with an MP in your constituency and a government in Westminster. If you want change - and don't we all - look at Greece. Peacefully and democratically the Greek people have voted in an anti-austerity government. And now Spain looks like going the same way. It can be done. Sermon over.
Saturday, 6 December 2014
And the poor get poorer
The most telling comment on Osborne's Autumn Statement this week came from Matthew Taylor in a discussion on a BBC programme. The worst thing about it, he said, was that no one, not even Osborne, believed a word of it. Those crunching the numbers afterwards came up with a terrifying vision of what the Tories are aiming at; a country which would be back in the desolate and dangerous world of the 1930s, with "the state", that part of the national income spent for the benefit of everyone, reduced to almost nothing. Certainly there were plenty of hints about slashing "welfare" even further. I was puzzled by one announcement, which was slipped through barely noticed by the commentators (because it doesn't affect them): the rates of Universal Credit are frozen for those in work (see the Independent's article on this). Now, I can't make out whether he was just talking about UC, which won't affect most people for some time, or whether he was trying to pretend that everyone is on UC and it will actually mean working tax credits are frozen as well. There's a good article in the Mirror on why Osborne's vision is so appalling.
In case you want to play the game of blaming someone other than the government and start muttering about pensioners, there was a nasty hidden surprise for many of them. The so-called triple lock should have given them an extra £2.85 a week, but most of that will be lost as pension credits are lowered; so only those pensioners who don't qualify for extra benefits, i.e. those with private pensions and / or large amounts of savings, will get the full increase.
In the midst of all the gloom and doom there was some good news for A4e. They have new 2-year contracts to deliver the New Enterprise Allowance mentoring scheme in a further three areas of Scotland.
The Scottish government is furious with the UK government over the Work Programme. As part of the devolution agreement Scotland is to have control over welfare programmes there, but not UC. The Smith Commission spelled out that this would include the WP when the contracts came to an end in March 2016. Like many English councils, the Scottish government wants to devise suitable, flexible support for the unemployed. But it was told on Tuesday that the current contracts are to be extended for a year. The UK government says that this was agreed in August, long before the Smith Commission was set up. So tough.
There are only 6 days left to get evidence to the Work & Pensions Select Committee for their enquiry into benefit sanctions. The DWP will maintain its lie about sanctions only being used as a last resort, as they've done in an article today in a Scottish newspaper. I would love the enquiry to conclude that the DWP is deliberately lying and make that known.
In case you want to play the game of blaming someone other than the government and start muttering about pensioners, there was a nasty hidden surprise for many of them. The so-called triple lock should have given them an extra £2.85 a week, but most of that will be lost as pension credits are lowered; so only those pensioners who don't qualify for extra benefits, i.e. those with private pensions and / or large amounts of savings, will get the full increase.
In the midst of all the gloom and doom there was some good news for A4e. They have new 2-year contracts to deliver the New Enterprise Allowance mentoring scheme in a further three areas of Scotland.
The Scottish government is furious with the UK government over the Work Programme. As part of the devolution agreement Scotland is to have control over welfare programmes there, but not UC. The Smith Commission spelled out that this would include the WP when the contracts came to an end in March 2016. Like many English councils, the Scottish government wants to devise suitable, flexible support for the unemployed. But it was told on Tuesday that the current contracts are to be extended for a year. The UK government says that this was agreed in August, long before the Smith Commission was set up. So tough.
There are only 6 days left to get evidence to the Work & Pensions Select Committee for their enquiry into benefit sanctions. The DWP will maintain its lie about sanctions only being used as a last resort, as they've done in an article today in a Scottish newspaper. I would love the enquiry to conclude that the DWP is deliberately lying and make that known.
Thursday, 6 November 2014
Sanctions and lies
The Work & Pensions Select Committee has launched its inquiry into benefit sanctions, something which owes a lot to the tireless pressure of Debbie Abrahams MP. But if you read its terms of reference (here) you notice some important things missing. First there's the actual process of sanctioning; the automatic stoppage of money which can't be reversed if it's found to be a mistake. This is crucial to expose the lie that sanctions are only ever used as a last resort. And then there's the question of arbitrary sanctions applied by JC or WP staff just because they feel like it or have targets to meet. The inquiry must hear from victims and whistle-blowers or it's pointless. The page makes it clear that they can't investigate individual cases, but don't let that stop you if you want to submit evidence.
It gets wearisome to report on Iain Duncan Smith's character and lies. He knows that he is untouchable and his arrogance has grown to monstrous proportions - as has his rudeness. There was an incident this week in the House of Commons which demonstrated what one MP called his boorishness. He had remarked that Rachel Reeves MP, his Labour shadow, "couldn't be bothered" to turn up to vote in a particular debate. She raised a point of order demanding an apology; he had no knowledge, she said, of why she wasn't there. IDS showed his contempt by saying something about her being in Rochester (for the by-election). Reeves denied this and repeated her demand for an apology. She didn't get one, of course. This wretched man just smirked.
Then there were the "angry scenes" described in the Mirror at the Work & Pensions Select Committee's hearing yesterday. Now, I missed this part of IDS's "evidence". I'd stuck it out for an hour, but couldn't bear any more. So I didn't hear Debbie Abrahams' ask him about the numbers not included in the unemployment figures because they were sanctioned. According to an Oxford University study this figure could be as high as 500,000. IDS's response was that this was "ludicrous". Ms Abrahams said, "People have died after being sanctioned, Minister." The response? "No, I don't agree with that." The last line of the Mirror's story is, "A DWP spokesman dismissed the study, saying 'It looks to be partially based on unreliable data.'"
This disgusting man and his disgusting department put out a press release today which claims: "More than 12,000 households have made the choice to move into work or stop claiming Housing Benefit because of the benefit cap". He's been warned about this before; it's a complete falsification of the data. But the London Evening Standard allows him space to amplify this claim, with the arrogance of the seriously deluded.
Ironically, the Public Accounts Committee reported today on the "scandalous" failure of the Work Programme to help ESA claimants. The Independent covers this. It also ends with a meaningless quote from "a DWP spokesman". I do wish papers would stop giving space to this person.
Nothing is going to change. And if there is a Conservative majority next May it will get much, much worse.
It gets wearisome to report on Iain Duncan Smith's character and lies. He knows that he is untouchable and his arrogance has grown to monstrous proportions - as has his rudeness. There was an incident this week in the House of Commons which demonstrated what one MP called his boorishness. He had remarked that Rachel Reeves MP, his Labour shadow, "couldn't be bothered" to turn up to vote in a particular debate. She raised a point of order demanding an apology; he had no knowledge, she said, of why she wasn't there. IDS showed his contempt by saying something about her being in Rochester (for the by-election). Reeves denied this and repeated her demand for an apology. She didn't get one, of course. This wretched man just smirked.
Then there were the "angry scenes" described in the Mirror at the Work & Pensions Select Committee's hearing yesterday. Now, I missed this part of IDS's "evidence". I'd stuck it out for an hour, but couldn't bear any more. So I didn't hear Debbie Abrahams' ask him about the numbers not included in the unemployment figures because they were sanctioned. According to an Oxford University study this figure could be as high as 500,000. IDS's response was that this was "ludicrous". Ms Abrahams said, "People have died after being sanctioned, Minister." The response? "No, I don't agree with that." The last line of the Mirror's story is, "A DWP spokesman dismissed the study, saying 'It looks to be partially based on unreliable data.'"
This disgusting man and his disgusting department put out a press release today which claims: "More than 12,000 households have made the choice to move into work or stop claiming Housing Benefit because of the benefit cap". He's been warned about this before; it's a complete falsification of the data. But the London Evening Standard allows him space to amplify this claim, with the arrogance of the seriously deluded.
Ironically, the Public Accounts Committee reported today on the "scandalous" failure of the Work Programme to help ESA claimants. The Independent covers this. It also ends with a meaningless quote from "a DWP spokesman". I do wish papers would stop giving space to this person.
Nothing is going to change. And if there is a Conservative majority next May it will get much, much worse.
Thursday, 30 January 2014
The future of JCP
You may have missed it. It certainly wasn't well publicised. But then the report into Jobcentre Plus by the Work & Pensions select committee wasn't going to excite the media. You can read the full report and a good summary on parliament's own site. The few news sites which did pick this up highlighted the judgement that jobcentres assess claimants "haphazardly" (BBC) and that "Jobcentre staff are sanctioning benefits claimants inappropriately for minor infringements" (the Independent).
One of the most important of its recommendations was that JCP should continue to be a public service, i.e. not outsourced. The committee also picked up on the fact that its targets are focussed on getting people off benefits, rather than into work. They recognise that the two aims are different, and the focus should be on helping claimants to find work, not pushing them off the books by means of sanctions or putting them on another benefit. The jobcentres often don't know enough about the "barriers" which individuals face, such as homelessness.
The report is scathing about sanctions. The committee wants an independent enquiry into the regime, as well as the urgent monitoring of the financial hardship they cause. They say that data on the numbers "signposted" by JCP to food banks should be collected and published (Iain Duncan Smith has refused to do this). And the stress on conditionality must be balanced by greater efforts to actually help and support people.
Finally, they point to the increasing work-load being pushed onto the jobcentres (including making people on in-work benefits sign on), with no indication of what extra resources will be put in to cope with it.
It's a good report. What a pity that it will be ignored.
We've all noticed the rubbish uttered by the anonymous DWP spokeswoman (or, occasionally, spokesperson) in response to media stories. None of the media ever name her, although they will all know who she is. She is part of a sinister trend in the DWP, well covered by Simon Barrow on the Ekklesia website, for people who are paid to be neutral civil servants to, instead, play a party-political role in the way it churns out propaganda. Since this is so obvious, there is no reason to maintain the anonymity.
Those getting by on £71 a week JSA will have been amused (or not) to read about the £75,000 of taxpayers' money spent on media training for Lord Freud and others at the DWP. The Huffington Post lists what it calls "the 5 crassest statements made by ministers" at the DWP, to show how much they need this training. Alternatively, of course, you could just sack them and hire somebody competent.
One of the most important of its recommendations was that JCP should continue to be a public service, i.e. not outsourced. The committee also picked up on the fact that its targets are focussed on getting people off benefits, rather than into work. They recognise that the two aims are different, and the focus should be on helping claimants to find work, not pushing them off the books by means of sanctions or putting them on another benefit. The jobcentres often don't know enough about the "barriers" which individuals face, such as homelessness.
The report is scathing about sanctions. The committee wants an independent enquiry into the regime, as well as the urgent monitoring of the financial hardship they cause. They say that data on the numbers "signposted" by JCP to food banks should be collected and published (Iain Duncan Smith has refused to do this). And the stress on conditionality must be balanced by greater efforts to actually help and support people.
Finally, they point to the increasing work-load being pushed onto the jobcentres (including making people on in-work benefits sign on), with no indication of what extra resources will be put in to cope with it.
It's a good report. What a pity that it will be ignored.
We've all noticed the rubbish uttered by the anonymous DWP spokeswoman (or, occasionally, spokesperson) in response to media stories. None of the media ever name her, although they will all know who she is. She is part of a sinister trend in the DWP, well covered by Simon Barrow on the Ekklesia website, for people who are paid to be neutral civil servants to, instead, play a party-political role in the way it churns out propaganda. Since this is so obvious, there is no reason to maintain the anonymity.
Those getting by on £71 a week JSA will have been amused (or not) to read about the £75,000 of taxpayers' money spent on media training for Lord Freud and others at the DWP. The Huffington Post lists what it calls "the 5 crassest statements made by ministers" at the DWP, to show how much they need this training. Alternatively, of course, you could just sack them and hire somebody competent.
Tuesday, 10 December 2013
A damp squib
A lot of people were looking forward to Iain Duncan Smith's appearance in front of the Work and Pensions Committee, believing that there would be an interrogation that would skewer him and expose his sins. Those people were always going to be disappointed. By all accounts he got more and more bad-tempered under questioning. When Glenda Jackson MP had a go at him he accused her of "conflating so many issues here, it's almost becoming risible". (Yes, I'm sure we were all amused.) Debbie Abrahams MP was accused of "moaning". What she raised has only been reported, as far as I can see, in her local paper, the Oldham Evening Chronicle. She has a whistle-blower, a JCP employee with 18 years experience, who told her about quotas for sanctions and how "claimants are being set up to fail to meet benefits criteria - without regard for justice or welfare". IDS's response? He is unaware of the claims. "I would like to see the evidence for it. He's making allegations about people who work very hard. I'd be prepared to meet him to discuss it but there is someone in charge of this they should meet first. If he's got an issue to raise I would want to know". Well done for trying, Ms Abrahams, but this is yet another lie from IDS.
As for those dodgy statistics - it wasn't his fault. Surprise, surprise. It was actually Grant Shapps' fault. Well, one story was, let's not talk about the others.
The main focus was on the progress, or lack of it, on Universal Credit. He admitted to a write-off of £40m on the IT so far, but, hey, what's £40m when you're IDS?
Among all the accounts in the press, the one in the Spectator is the most informative.
One suspects that Margaret Hodge, chair of the Public Accounts Committee, would have given him a worse time and wound him up more spectacularly. The PAC might even have raised the matter of sanctions, and all the cruelty being perpetrated by the DWP. But in the end it wouldn't have changed anything.
As for those dodgy statistics - it wasn't his fault. Surprise, surprise. It was actually Grant Shapps' fault. Well, one story was, let's not talk about the others.
The main focus was on the progress, or lack of it, on Universal Credit. He admitted to a write-off of £40m on the IT so far, but, hey, what's £40m when you're IDS?
Among all the accounts in the press, the one in the Spectator is the most informative.
One suspects that Margaret Hodge, chair of the Public Accounts Committee, would have given him a worse time and wound him up more spectacularly. The PAC might even have raised the matter of sanctions, and all the cruelty being perpetrated by the DWP. But in the end it wouldn't have changed anything.
Saturday, 5 October 2013
More dodgy figures from shameless IDS
Iain Duncan Smith is obviously unrepentant. He was taken to task, you remember, for coming out with dodgy figures to justify his benefits cap, but said he believed it so it must be true. He still hasn't faced the Work and Pensions Select Committee to answer for this (although his civil servants did). Now he's doing it again. The odious Express tells us that "16,500 find jobs after clamp on benefits" in a headline, and goes on: "Tough but fair reforms to Britain's broken benefits system have helped 16,500 claimants back into work, new figures reveal." The sceptical may already perceive that there's something wrong here. What's the actual connection between this nice round number and any specific benefits change? Well, "The people living in potentially-benefit capped households were helped to find the posts by Jobcentre Plus over 18 months." Now, this is the sort of distortion that the statistics people got cross about before. There is no proven connection between the number getting jobs (who may or may not have been "helped" by JCP) and the potential for household benefits to be capped. Yet the article proceeds on the assumption that the cap is making the idle get a job. "The figures, revealed exclusively to the Daily Express, showed that Mr Duncan Smith's promise to 'make work pay' is starting to change a culture where some lifelong layabouts viewed benefits as a limitless cash machine."
Surely it's time for the select committee to do its job and hold IDS to account. As well as the dodgy statistics, there's his failure to publish any data on sanctions. If Dame Anne Begg and her committee are not concerned about this, what is their purpose?
Surely it's time for the select committee to do its job and hold IDS to account. As well as the dodgy statistics, there's his failure to publish any data on sanctions. If Dame Anne Begg and her committee are not concerned about this, what is their purpose?
Friday, 6 September 2013
Concerns about the Work Programme - implications for the providers
Back in May the Work and Pensions Select Committee reported its concerns about the Work Programme. The DWP has now responded. You can read a useful summary on the Indus Delta site. It's all interesting, but there are two points which are particularly relevant for the providers.
1) Market share shift. This is the penalty providers are supposed to pay if they fail; a shifting of some of their share of referrals to other providers. The committee wanted this shift to be "carefully and transparently applied" and wanted to know what work had been done on its likely impact. The reply is that the DWP has already "adjusted the shares according to performance levels over 12 months". So who has lost and who has gained? There wasn't a great deal of difference in performance among all the providers.
2) Attachment fees. These are due to stop in April 2014. The committee thought they should be retained beyond that date "to protect service delivery". The reply is non-committal: "The department will monitor the success of incentives under the payment by results model and make changes if it deems them necessary." Now, this appears to mean that if the incentives are not successful, i.e. the providers don't make enough profit, the attachment fees could be retained. And that's crazy.
One other "concern" will interest those who are coming to the end of their stint on the WP. The committee wanted to ensure that people who hadn't got work should be provided with specialist support or "allowed to extend their time on the Work Programme". (They didn't, apparently, see any irony in this.) The response is that the Mandatory Intervention Regime (a phrase that's new to me) is already dealing with this, and that "post-work programme support remains flexible and tailored to individual needs." So you've no need to worry.
1) Market share shift. This is the penalty providers are supposed to pay if they fail; a shifting of some of their share of referrals to other providers. The committee wanted this shift to be "carefully and transparently applied" and wanted to know what work had been done on its likely impact. The reply is that the DWP has already "adjusted the shares according to performance levels over 12 months". So who has lost and who has gained? There wasn't a great deal of difference in performance among all the providers.
2) Attachment fees. These are due to stop in April 2014. The committee thought they should be retained beyond that date "to protect service delivery". The reply is non-committal: "The department will monitor the success of incentives under the payment by results model and make changes if it deems them necessary." Now, this appears to mean that if the incentives are not successful, i.e. the providers don't make enough profit, the attachment fees could be retained. And that's crazy.
One other "concern" will interest those who are coming to the end of their stint on the WP. The committee wanted to ensure that people who hadn't got work should be provided with specialist support or "allowed to extend their time on the Work Programme". (They didn't, apparently, see any irony in this.) The response is that the Mandatory Intervention Regime (a phrase that's new to me) is already dealing with this, and that "post-work programme support remains flexible and tailored to individual needs." So you've no need to worry.
Saturday, 3 August 2013
Round-up
I'm sure we were all looking forward to hearing Iain Duncan Smith questioned about his and his department's use of statistics on 4 September. But according to a blog, this is not now going to happen. The writer quotes Sheila Gilmore MP, a member of the Work and Pensions Select Committee as saying that the Department's Annual Report isn't ready, and since the main purpose of the meeting was to examine that, it's had to be postponed. How fortunate for IDS. As fortunate, perhaps, as the fact that they're still examining the quality of the sanctions data, so can't publish that either. At what point do we conclude that facts are being deliberately suppressed?
One fact that hasn't been suppressed (it's been leaked) is an internal survey of civil servants working on Universal Credit. The Guardian has the details. Staff talk about terrible management, poor decision-making, no communication and dishonesty. It's utterly damning.
Then there's ATOS. It's been disclosed that the company has been paid £754 million for its sickness and disability testing since 2005. £754m. That's your money and my money. The Independent reports that Lord Alton has got the National Audit Office to investigate the contracts, calling them "a licence to print money".
So-called zero hours contracts are not IDS's responsibility, but the consequences of them are. Yet it's only the Lib Dems, including Nick Clegg and Vince Cable, who are expressing concern. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has just upped its estimate of how many people are working on these terms to 250,000, but this is almost certainly too low. Are people being forced to apply for, and take, these jobs under threat of sanctions?
Finally, an unusual reference to A4e in a regional paper. The company still occasionally gets PR pieces in local papers, but this one, in the Oxford Mail, won't please them. It quotes a 27-year-old woman who says that the WP wasn't very effective for her, and her adviser had no time to spend with her. She got help from the charity Crisis Skylight, whose CE says that the WP has been a huge disappointment, offering minimal support. Strangely, the county's Tory MP, Sir Tony Baldry, doesn't completely disagree. He acknowledges that the need in the area is for people with skills and qualifications, and they are not getting those.
Thursday, 18 July 2013
Stats, and a report
We learned last week that DWP press officers were to be sent on a statistics course this summer, following the outpouring of dodgy and downright untrue figures, designed to prove whatever Iain Duncan Smith wants to believe. On Tuesday the man himself appeared before the Work & Pensions Select Committee, but the topic was the non-progress of Universal Credit. It seemed to many of us that he was not to be answerable for misleading the public; but it's now been confirmed that he will appear before the committee on 4 September to answer questions on the DWP's annual report and on the Department's use of statistics. It will be interesting; but if his performance on Monday in the Today programme interview is any guide, it will be entirely unproductive.
There's a report out today on the whole subject of outsourcing. It's by the Institute for Government, a think-tank which seems to be genuinely non-partisan. It is summarised in the Independent, which headlines it as "the great outsourcing scandal". The report uses the Work Programme as one of its four sectors for examination, and comes up with the (hardly startling) opinion that there is a lot of "creaming and parking" going on. They say that they "found companies regularly playing the system to ensure they made money....... Providers were also cutting costs by using 'group sessions' and telephone calls rather than face-to-face contact." Yes, well, I think we knew that. The IfG's recommendation is disappointing: "The Government should set minimum performance levels, and punish poor performers by imposing penalties or terminating contracts entirely." The authors are apparently unaware that there are minimum performance levels, and there are supposed to be penalties. They miss the point that government has no wish to proclaim its own failure by punishing its contractors.
It's a timid report which, despite a few sensible points, misses some of the crucial dangers of outsourcing.
There's a report out today on the whole subject of outsourcing. It's by the Institute for Government, a think-tank which seems to be genuinely non-partisan. It is summarised in the Independent, which headlines it as "the great outsourcing scandal". The report uses the Work Programme as one of its four sectors for examination, and comes up with the (hardly startling) opinion that there is a lot of "creaming and parking" going on. They say that they "found companies regularly playing the system to ensure they made money....... Providers were also cutting costs by using 'group sessions' and telephone calls rather than face-to-face contact." Yes, well, I think we knew that. The IfG's recommendation is disappointing: "The Government should set minimum performance levels, and punish poor performers by imposing penalties or terminating contracts entirely." The authors are apparently unaware that there are minimum performance levels, and there are supposed to be penalties. They miss the point that government has no wish to proclaim its own failure by punishing its contractors.
It's a timid report which, despite a few sensible points, misses some of the crucial dangers of outsourcing.
Wednesday, 10 July 2013
Questions, answers and entertainment
Iain Duncan Smith appeared before the Work and Pensions Select Committee this morning to answer questions about the status of his Universal Credit project. There's an account of what happened on The Register website (marred somewhat by lazy language). UC is, apparently, proceeding slowly. In October it will be rolled out to six more jobcentres; but these will be in places, including Harrogate and Bath, where unemployment is relatively low; and it will still only take in single people with the simplest of claims. Despite some scathing questioning by Glenda Jackson MP, IDS and his mate Lord Freud got off lightly. This afternoon the committee were asking questions about the DWP's misuse of statistics. Many had anticipated that IDS would be skewered for his blatantly misleading figures. (See a blog piece here.) But it was a couple of civil servants who had to face the music. Apparently the ministers will be called in September.
Remember that spate of TV programmes, culminating in the appalling "Famous, Rich and Jobless", which made entertainment out of poverty? (There have been a few more since then, I know, but I refuse to acknowledge them.) It couldn't get any worse, you might have thought. But perhaps it's about to. On BBC1 tomorrow night (11 July) we have, first, "Great British Budget Menu" "in which leading chefs tackle food poverty by living with three families who are struggling to make ends meet." What fun. I should have given them my recipe for carrot and lentil soup. Having watched that you may be in the mood for "Nick and Margaret: We all Pay your Benefits". This is a "two-part special in which ...... Nick Hewer and Margaret Mountford try to find out how much unemployment benefit is enough to survive on." They went to Ipswich. And they pitted workers against claimants. As we've pointed out before, this is a false dichotomy. I won't be watching.
Remember that spate of TV programmes, culminating in the appalling "Famous, Rich and Jobless", which made entertainment out of poverty? (There have been a few more since then, I know, but I refuse to acknowledge them.) It couldn't get any worse, you might have thought. But perhaps it's about to. On BBC1 tomorrow night (11 July) we have, first, "Great British Budget Menu" "in which leading chefs tackle food poverty by living with three families who are struggling to make ends meet." What fun. I should have given them my recipe for carrot and lentil soup. Having watched that you may be in the mood for "Nick and Margaret: We all Pay your Benefits". This is a "two-part special in which ...... Nick Hewer and Margaret Mountford try to find out how much unemployment benefit is enough to survive on." They went to Ipswich. And they pitted workers against claimants. As we've pointed out before, this is a false dichotomy. I won't be watching.
Wednesday, 19 June 2013
A4e gives its opinion
Some time back people told us here that they had encountered Jobcentre advisers in A4e offices, accessing their personal details alongside the A4e "advisers". Now we know why. And we know A4e's thinking on how they can get more fully involved with JCP's business.
A4e often submits written evidence to parliamentary committees; it's not clear whether that's by invitation or not. The latest document was submitted to the Work and Pensions Select Committee earlier this month, and can be read here. The committee is holding an inquiry into the role of JCP in "the reformed welfare system". A4e's document stresses first how it has supported "tens of thousands of people into work" and worked closely with JCP. Then it talks about how it has worked with JCP over a number of different schemes. "A better functioning JCP," it says, "results in better services for A4e's customers."
That sounds innocuous enough; but it ignores the fact that it was the outsourcing of New Deal in 2006 which caused intense problems for JCP, including large-scale staff redundancies and a souring of relationships between JCP staff and the providers. It also uses that totally misleading word, "customers".
There's a glitch in para 1.2, with a sentence repeated; rubbish proof-reading by somebody. But paras 1.2 to 1.4 tell us that every claimant should have an initial assessment and those with the "biggest barriers to employment" should be put on the Work Programme immediately so that they can receive the "depth of tailored service" which A4e provides.
The notion of "barriers" permeates this document, enabling them to play the government's tune of unemployment being the fault of the jobless. Paras 2.0 to 2.2 detail how A4e wants JCP to be the "gateway" to the services provided by the private sector, and the need, as they see it, to integrate (or join up, in their terminology) with the services of "GP surgeries, housing associations and other local authority services". In pursuit of this integration A4e has been locating JCP advisers in A4e offices and vice versa. "This co-location has improved communications between our organisations", improved data sharing and reduced paperwork. They are going to do more of it.
Finally, they want JCP to learn from A4e how to engage with employers, citing the company's links with the Co-operative Group in the North West. "JCP should attempt a more strategic approach by working to ensure that they are helping claimants into growth industries while directing them away from occupational areas in decline. A ‘one size fits all’ approach limits effectiveness and as we know through delivering the Work Programme, it is vital that JCP has the capacity to strategically react to different employers, of different sizes, in different locations." This will anger a lot of Jobcentre managers, who know the difficulties of getting claimants into any sort of job, and don't need advice from the likes of A4e.
We hear in this document some familiar ambitions from A4e, and some new ones. They haven't directly said, "Outsource the jobcentres so that we can bid for the contracts", but the logic is inescapable. In their scenario, what would be the point of JCP at all, except as a signing-on point, and with Universal Credit even that role can go.
A4e often submits written evidence to parliamentary committees; it's not clear whether that's by invitation or not. The latest document was submitted to the Work and Pensions Select Committee earlier this month, and can be read here. The committee is holding an inquiry into the role of JCP in "the reformed welfare system". A4e's document stresses first how it has supported "tens of thousands of people into work" and worked closely with JCP. Then it talks about how it has worked with JCP over a number of different schemes. "A better functioning JCP," it says, "results in better services for A4e's customers."
That sounds innocuous enough; but it ignores the fact that it was the outsourcing of New Deal in 2006 which caused intense problems for JCP, including large-scale staff redundancies and a souring of relationships between JCP staff and the providers. It also uses that totally misleading word, "customers".
There's a glitch in para 1.2, with a sentence repeated; rubbish proof-reading by somebody. But paras 1.2 to 1.4 tell us that every claimant should have an initial assessment and those with the "biggest barriers to employment" should be put on the Work Programme immediately so that they can receive the "depth of tailored service" which A4e provides.
The notion of "barriers" permeates this document, enabling them to play the government's tune of unemployment being the fault of the jobless. Paras 2.0 to 2.2 detail how A4e wants JCP to be the "gateway" to the services provided by the private sector, and the need, as they see it, to integrate (or join up, in their terminology) with the services of "GP surgeries, housing associations and other local authority services". In pursuit of this integration A4e has been locating JCP advisers in A4e offices and vice versa. "This co-location has improved communications between our organisations", improved data sharing and reduced paperwork. They are going to do more of it.
Finally, they want JCP to learn from A4e how to engage with employers, citing the company's links with the Co-operative Group in the North West. "JCP should attempt a more strategic approach by working to ensure that they are helping claimants into growth industries while directing them away from occupational areas in decline. A ‘one size fits all’ approach limits effectiveness and as we know through delivering the Work Programme, it is vital that JCP has the capacity to strategically react to different employers, of different sizes, in different locations." This will anger a lot of Jobcentre managers, who know the difficulties of getting claimants into any sort of job, and don't need advice from the likes of A4e.
We hear in this document some familiar ambitions from A4e, and some new ones. They haven't directly said, "Outsource the jobcentres so that we can bid for the contracts", but the logic is inescapable. In their scenario, what would be the point of JCP at all, except as a signing-on point, and with Universal Credit even that role can go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)