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.

Sanctions

Following on from my previous post, the item on the BBC's "World at One" didn't add much. The focus was on the need to simplify the benefits system and make it worthwhile to take a job. A chap from the Centre for Social Justice talked about increasing the amount one can earn before benefits start to be withdrawn, and getting rid of the 16 hour rule. A Labour spokesman, while agreeing with the aims, said that simplification, reducing the number of benefits to two, would inevitably mean that some people were worse off, and that is hard to deal with politically. Equally tricky is the question of sanctions. It's one thing to stop the benefits of someone who isn't willing to work, but what about his wife and children?

Iain Duncan Smith, in a recorded piece, talked about the real and perceived risks to the unemployed of taking up jobs, and the need to make it worth working. Asked about sanctions, he agreed that sanctions already exist but have not, he said, been implemented, but now will be.

This doesn't answer the question raised by Labour about the dependants of someone who is sanctioned. It ignores the fact that people do indeed lose benefits when they don't comply with, for instance, attendance on a programme.

There is a great deal still to be worked out in this legislation. On the one hand, they have to come up with a viable benefits system; on the other, they have to renegotiate the welfare-to-work contracts. It could be a while before we see any changes.

"Offer" or "available"

There has been an interesting discussion on the Daily Politics programme about the proposed welfare reforms. It began with a brief clip of Iain Duncan Smith saying that the unemployed should take what work is available or face sanctions. Those of us with an interest in these matters recognise that this is a significant change. It could force people to, for instance, sign up with agencies for casual work simply because the agencies are prepared to take them on. Andrew Neil, whose knowledge is inferior to his pretensions, confused this with refusing a job "offer". The main participants in the discussion were Maria Miller MP, the new minister, and Yvette Cooper MP who, since Jim Knight lost his seat, is having to speak for Labour. Neil, typically belligerent, asked why Labour had left 6 million people of working age on benefits. Cooper pointed out that they were on benefit for different reasons. Miller was asked what was different about the coalition's proposals, and then Neil wilfully misunderstood her point about simplifying the benefit system. He then pushed the fact that IDS in opposition had said that the reforms would cost £3b. Two viewers' emails were read out; one asked where the jobs were going to come from; the other said that the minimum wage was not enough to live on.

IDS is being interviewed on World at One, so we'll see if he adds an clarification.

More from Iain Duncan Smith

The new Secretary of State for Work & Pensions has given an interview to the Guardian on his plans for welfare reform. Most of it is what we already know, and is sensible. But there's a part which will concern many of us, because it shows a lack of understanding of the current system.

Duncan Smith also promises to be tougher on claimants who refuse job opportunities. "The jobseeker's allowance has a sanction at present. It just has not been used. If you simply are not going to play ball, then the taxpayer has a right to say: 'You need to know there is a limit to the amount of support we are going to give you.' The sanction comes into play."

This is meaningless rhetoric. As I've said many a time, very few people find themselves in the position of being offered a job and refusing it. Perhaps "job opportunities" means something different. The rest of the quote means nothing unless the limit referred to is the cutting off of benefits after a fixed period.

Today's news has been about schools, and there have been more references to businesses running them. We're told that a number of companies have already shown interest. I wonder which ones.

Jobs!

Fancy working for A4e? There are three senior posts with them advertised in the Guardian today.

All three adverts begin with the same message: "be inspired... This next step will be some journey" and go on to say, "A4e manages and delivers public services in partnership with governments, public and private organisations, and the voluntary and community sector. Our involvement in front line public service delivery attracts significant attention from policy makers and the media. As a result, we are now recruiting a number of key personnel who will help to formulate and implement a solid communications strategy to underpin the success of the business as it grows into a global player."

The first is for a Head of Communications. "You are a communications professional with the pedigree, personality and gravitas to drive strategy and provide leadership in a fast moving, high energy organisation with a social purpose. As an influential and persuasive individual you must be able to devise communications strategies that will shape public opinion and stakeholder views of A4e."

The second is for a Public Affairs Manager. "A public affairs professional is sought to improve A4e's influence across governments in the UK and overseas. You will produce high quality 'think pieces' that will shape the future direction of policy and policy implementation. You will be well connected and be able to represent A4e at a senior level in key meetings and presentations."

Thirdly, there's a Regional Communications Manager. "You will be experienced in developing brand presence through the use of local media, events, targeted stakeholder comms and through local sponsorship. You will generate news and inputs into national news events to maintain A4e's external profile. You will be well networked with key local stakeholders and employers and have an excellent understanding of how best to engage and communicate with local organisations."

[All italics are mine.]

Nothing there about "improving people's lives", I notice.

An Open Letter to Iain Duncan Smith

Dear Secretary of State,

You have set out your intentions on poverty, jobs and welfare reform, and few would disagree with your diagnosis of the problems in this area. However, as someone with personal experience of, and concerns about, the ways in which such problems have been tackled in the past, I want to ask you to avoid the mistakes which have brought this situation about .

Please resist the advice to roll up all the necessary actions into one large contract to be sold to the highest bidder. I know you will use private companies. But you know that private companies exist to make money; that is not a criticism but a statement of the obvious. And the record of private companies since New Deal was outsourced in 2006 has been of failure to meet targets while still making healthy profits. If you intend to pay providers only on "sustainable" outcomes, you will ensure that only large companies can afford to tender; and you will ensure that "creaming and parking" becomes the norm. What will happen to the "hardest to help"?

The first necessity, as I'm sure you realise, is for genuine skills training, and not just for the under-25s. The JCP regions should be able to contract directly with training organisations such as FE colleges to provide this. Local councils have already demonstrated their ability to work with employers and communities to create jobs. Don't cut them out of the loop. If the large private contractors have control of this, it will be to the detriment of communities and of the unemployed.

You have shown your ability to listen to, and understand, the people who are on the receiving end of these programmes. Please continue to listen to them, rather than solely to the providers.

And a final point. Among all the reforms which this government wants to make, can you please ban all MPs from receiving money from companies which have government contracts.

Press Release on Poverty

The DWP has put out a press release called "Government response to Households Below Average Income figures". Before looking at what it says it's worth noting that Steve Webb, the Lib Dem MP, is pensions minister and so may have little input into the Work Programme. It's Iain Duncan Smith who is quoted at length. Some stats are given at the start.

• In 2008/09 5.8 million working age adults living in relative poverty Before Housing Costs (BHC) and 7.8 million After Housing Costs (AHC). Compared to 2007/08 this represents a rise of 0.2m (BHC) and 0.3m (AHC).
• The number of people in working-age poverty is the highest since records began.

So what is the solution?

"Vast sums of money have been poured into the benefits system over the last decade in an attempt to address poverty, but today’s statistics clearly show that this approach has failed. Little progress has been made in tackling child poverty, society is more unequal than 50 years ago and there are more working age people living in poverty than ever before. A new approach is needed which addresses the drivers behind poverty and actually improves the outcomes of the millions of adults and children trapped in poverty. It is right that we invest in addressing poverty, but we must focus our resources where they will be most effective. Work, for the vast majority of people, is the best route out of poverty. Yet the current welfare system is trapping in dependency the very people it is designed to help. The rise in working age poverty and continued inequality show that we must make work pay and the first choice for millions of people. It is not right that someone can actually be worse off by taking work, we should be rewarding such positive behaviour by making work pay. Likewise, we must demand a return on our investment in work programmes. It is crucial that we fully support people making the transition into work, but tax payers’ money should be spent on initiatives that work and make a difference to people’s lives. The time for piecemeal reform has ended. There has never been a more pressing need for fundamental radical reform and we will waste no time in acting."

There is little that one could disagree with there. But what it will mean in practice is not yet clear. What are "initiatives that work"? Dare we suppose that IDS has twigged that current provision doesn't work? What role have the private companies played already in shaping the "fundamental radical reform"?