I don't know whether Iain Duncan Smith and Richard Desmond have ever met, but they certainly work to help each other. Desmond is the owner of Channel 5 and the Daily Express, and he uses both to demonise the poor. After Channel 4 had screened the infamous Benefits Street, it was Channel 5 which hosted the "debate" on the subject. Now, Desmond's channel is making a series of its own. No title has been decided, they say (but the makers of Benefits Street said the same, and they lied) but it's about the benefits "culture", and they are in the process of filming.
We can see how they go about it through the protests of one of the cities unwillingly involved. Hull has a lot to be encouraged about at the moment, in the midst of one of the worst unemployment rates in the country. But now the film-makers have been leafletting the poorer estates seeking gullible people to take part, and have already done some filming. Local councillors are furious, but seem helpless to prevent it.
Of course people should have the freedom to take part, if they are given accurate information and understand what they're doing. But what about the people who live in the area and have not consented to this? Benefits Street led to children who live in James Turner St being bullied. Other residents felt that they had been stigmatised simply for their address. Many of those who did take part believed that they were misled by the film-makers. If there's a redress in law, none of them can afford to sue.
I have a suggestion. Send Katie Hopkins to live on one of these estates for a while. I'd watch that.
Sunday, 30 March 2014
Thursday, 27 March 2014
ATOS out, but secrets and spin remain
We knew that ATOS were pulling out of their WCA contract, but the terms have now been agreed. Of course, we don't know what those terms are; commercial confidentiality and all that. But Mike Penning, the minister, is obscuring matters even further by first insisting that "Atos will not receive a single penny of compensation from the taxpayer for the early termination of their contract. Quite the contrary, Atos has made a substantial financial settlement to the department," and then, "“They haven’t pulled out actually, we’ve removed them from the contract. This is not them walking away.” But "sources close to the company" pointed out that, "People don't usually pay a fine if they've been sacked." In other words, Penning wants to talk tough and insist that it was the DWP which sacked ATOS, whereas we know that the company wanted out and was negotiating terms.
The Independent says that the DWP is talking to Capita and Maximus with a view to them taking over the contract, but it's felt that the government is going to have to pay a huge amount of money to get anyone to take it, since it only lasts until August next year. And Channel 4 News' Factcheck blog has pointed out that the assessments, although carried out by the company, were devised by the DWP. Will they be changed?
Atos says that anyone who has an appointment with them for an assessment must keep it, but they won't be making any new appointments.
The Independent says that the DWP is talking to Capita and Maximus with a view to them taking over the contract, but it's felt that the government is going to have to pay a huge amount of money to get anyone to take it, since it only lasts until August next year. And Channel 4 News' Factcheck blog has pointed out that the assessments, although carried out by the company, were devised by the DWP. Will they be changed?
Atos says that anyone who has an appointment with them for an assessment must keep it, but they won't be making any new appointments.
Wednesday, 26 March 2014
Universal Job Match - carrying on regardless
You recall that UJM seemed set to be consigned to the dustbin where it rightfully belongs, after all the publicity about the mess it has become. But no. Monster's website today carries a joint letter from the head of Jobcentre Plus, Neil Couling, and the boss of Monster, Sal Iannuzzi. It will bemuse those forced to use it.
For instance: "Some of the concerns recently raised regarding the legitimacy of jobs on Universal Jobmatch, and even the future of the site itself, are based on misrepresentations which attempt to undermine its true success as a secure, and effective recruitment website. With millions of active jobseekers over the last year, those best placed to judge the system, our users, tell us they like it and that it makes a real difference to how they look for work."
This is just dishonest denial of copious evidence, and it traduces those clients and journalists who have exposed the truth.
On rogue employers and bogus vacancies, it first says that it's nothing new, and then: "we are not complacent and we take all such incidents very seriously. In fact, the DWP and Monster have agreed upon new measures to remove questionable jobs to improve further the security of the service". These must be the safeguards which the company could have put in from the start but were told by "ministers" not to. So how much are we now having to pay Monster to do it?
Then it says that they are "managing" the issue of "duplicate or inappropriate" vacancies.
The final paragraphs are a kick in the teeth for the unfortunate client and taxpayer alike: "Finally, there has been inaccurate speculation about the relationship of the DWP and Monster. Universal Jobmatch was delivered on budget and on time and we are working closely together to ensure its continuing success. Technology changes at pace and we will continue to exploit the opportunities this offers to support jobseekers into work. The current contract between DWP and Monster runs until 2016, but the DWP - as with any large government procurement - will plan and consider all options for how it delivers the service in the future. But whatever that future is, Universal Jobmatch is here to stay, which will be of relief to the 500,000 employers and millions of people looking for a new job who rely on it every day."
Perhaps we should not have expected anything else from Iain Duncan Smith's DWP.
For instance: "Some of the concerns recently raised regarding the legitimacy of jobs on Universal Jobmatch, and even the future of the site itself, are based on misrepresentations which attempt to undermine its true success as a secure, and effective recruitment website. With millions of active jobseekers over the last year, those best placed to judge the system, our users, tell us they like it and that it makes a real difference to how they look for work."
This is just dishonest denial of copious evidence, and it traduces those clients and journalists who have exposed the truth.
On rogue employers and bogus vacancies, it first says that it's nothing new, and then: "we are not complacent and we take all such incidents very seriously. In fact, the DWP and Monster have agreed upon new measures to remove questionable jobs to improve further the security of the service". These must be the safeguards which the company could have put in from the start but were told by "ministers" not to. So how much are we now having to pay Monster to do it?
Then it says that they are "managing" the issue of "duplicate or inappropriate" vacancies.
The final paragraphs are a kick in the teeth for the unfortunate client and taxpayer alike: "Finally, there has been inaccurate speculation about the relationship of the DWP and Monster. Universal Jobmatch was delivered on budget and on time and we are working closely together to ensure its continuing success. Technology changes at pace and we will continue to exploit the opportunities this offers to support jobseekers into work. The current contract between DWP and Monster runs until 2016, but the DWP - as with any large government procurement - will plan and consider all options for how it delivers the service in the future. But whatever that future is, Universal Jobmatch is here to stay, which will be of relief to the 500,000 employers and millions of people looking for a new job who rely on it every day."
Perhaps we should not have expected anything else from Iain Duncan Smith's DWP.
Saturday, 22 March 2014
The delusions of Iain Duncan Smith
A health warning goes with this post. Before reading the link you need to be calm, your blood pressure low. Do your yoga breathing or something. Because you could very well get angry.
It's an "interview" with Iain Duncan Smith. It's from The House magazine, the MPs' own journal, and it's not an interview at all, just a chance for IDS to spout, unchallenged, his version of reality. You need to consider not just the obvious divergence from truth, about sanctions and food banks and so forth. You need to think about the mental processes which lead a man into believing he knows better than all the voices raised against him. Here it is.
Okay? I'm not going to dissect the article; it would be too long a task. But I will pick out one sentence: “But it’s also important that you do that by reforming the system so that those who are in the system are essentially rewarded for the right behaviour and no longer does the system perversely reward behaviour that is destructive." "The system"; you thought social security was about state help when you needed it. But no. It's about rewarding "right behaviour" (as defined by who?) and not "behaviour that is destructive".
This article oozes contempt for everyone who does not agree with him, including the leaders of his own church. There is only one acceptable version of truth, whether it be on food banks (who apparently have an empire to build) or on sanctions (since he's been into a jobcentre he knows that the whistle-blowers and their clients are making it up) and nothing will sway his opinions.
I'm sorry to inflict this on you on a sunny weekend. But this is a man whose delusions are harming millions.
It's an "interview" with Iain Duncan Smith. It's from The House magazine, the MPs' own journal, and it's not an interview at all, just a chance for IDS to spout, unchallenged, his version of reality. You need to consider not just the obvious divergence from truth, about sanctions and food banks and so forth. You need to think about the mental processes which lead a man into believing he knows better than all the voices raised against him. Here it is.
Okay? I'm not going to dissect the article; it would be too long a task. But I will pick out one sentence: “But it’s also important that you do that by reforming the system so that those who are in the system are essentially rewarded for the right behaviour and no longer does the system perversely reward behaviour that is destructive." "The system"; you thought social security was about state help when you needed it. But no. It's about rewarding "right behaviour" (as defined by who?) and not "behaviour that is destructive".
This article oozes contempt for everyone who does not agree with him, including the leaders of his own church. There is only one acceptable version of truth, whether it be on food banks (who apparently have an empire to build) or on sanctions (since he's been into a jobcentre he knows that the whistle-blowers and their clients are making it up) and nothing will sway his opinions.
I'm sorry to inflict this on you on a sunny weekend. But this is a man whose delusions are harming millions.
Friday, 21 March 2014
Work Programme stats, and the PAC
We used to complain that no data was being released on the effectiveness of the Work Programme. Now we have all the data we could wish for, it seems, in the figures put out yesterday. You can see the document here. Some key figures are on the first page, but you'll need to get your calculator out. If we look at the "by all referrals" June 2011 to Dec 2013, we see that just under 19% of those on the programme long enough got an outcome. (The Factcheck blog says 17%.) But then look at how that tapers off, so that only 48,000 people were in work long enough for the provider to claim the full payments. In other words, the jobs tend to be temporary. 24,000 got 3-6 months of work, but then were back on the programme, and in all 352,000 have finished the WP and been referred back to the jobcentre. The other key fact from all of this is that while the figures for JSA claimants are considered satisfactory, they are terrible for those on ESA. For a good summary, read Channel 4's Factcheck blog. Looking at the breakdown by provider, we see that A4e isn't the worst-performing, but it's a long way from being the best.
Is it worth it? That's the really important question. Millions have been paid out to companies like A4e to achieve only a little above what would be expected with no intervention at all (and below that with ESA). The likelihood is that the vast majority of the jobs are down to the improving economy. So what's the point?
Other news takes us back to ATOS. The Public Accounts Committee had a go at the civil servants in the DWP and one of the bosses of Atos over the failure of the new PIPs assessment contract. The Guardian reported Margaret Hodge's interrogation of Robert Devereux, the Permanent Secretary. They have crossed swords before, and her questions revolved around the same issues as she has fumed over with the Work Programme. How can you give a new contract to a company which is in the process of bodging a similar contract? (My phrasing, not hers.) He said, "We are making a decision on the bids in front of us." As he has said before, the procurement process deliberately doesn't look at past performance. And they did not check that what Atos had put in its bid document was true. On the PIPs bid, Atos had claimed to have agreements with a large number of hospital trusts and physiotherapy practices, but far fewer actually signed up in the end. That meant that another claim, that everyone facing assessment would have a centre within an hour's travel time, has gone by the board. Huge backlogs are building up. Hodge had a go at the Atos person for misleading the DWP. But this sort of thing is common with the procurement process which the DWP has shaped. The big companies must form "partnerships" with smaller outfits, and can then list on their bid documents a number of sub-contractors who have, in fact, signed nothing and can duck out once they see the small print.
It's obvious to everybody that there has to be a better way.
Is it worth it? That's the really important question. Millions have been paid out to companies like A4e to achieve only a little above what would be expected with no intervention at all (and below that with ESA). The likelihood is that the vast majority of the jobs are down to the improving economy. So what's the point?
Other news takes us back to ATOS. The Public Accounts Committee had a go at the civil servants in the DWP and one of the bosses of Atos over the failure of the new PIPs assessment contract. The Guardian reported Margaret Hodge's interrogation of Robert Devereux, the Permanent Secretary. They have crossed swords before, and her questions revolved around the same issues as she has fumed over with the Work Programme. How can you give a new contract to a company which is in the process of bodging a similar contract? (My phrasing, not hers.) He said, "We are making a decision on the bids in front of us." As he has said before, the procurement process deliberately doesn't look at past performance. And they did not check that what Atos had put in its bid document was true. On the PIPs bid, Atos had claimed to have agreements with a large number of hospital trusts and physiotherapy practices, but far fewer actually signed up in the end. That meant that another claim, that everyone facing assessment would have a centre within an hour's travel time, has gone by the board. Huge backlogs are building up. Hodge had a go at the Atos person for misleading the DWP. But this sort of thing is common with the procurement process which the DWP has shaped. The big companies must form "partnerships" with smaller outfits, and can then list on their bid documents a number of sub-contractors who have, in fact, signed nothing and can duck out once they see the small print.
It's obvious to everybody that there has to be a better way.
Thursday, 20 March 2014
A good budget - for ATOS
Only the Independent has reported this: "Atos given responsibility for new childcare scheme despite previous fitness-for work fiasco." Yes, the French firm which has performed so splendidly on the WCA contracts that it's handing them back, and which is currently making life impossible for people waiting for PIPs assessments, has the contract to provide the IT for the new scheme to allow people £2,000 towards childcare costs. What could possibly go wrong? Atos won't be doing any assessments, we're assured. But if you take this together with its new contract to extract patient data from GP surgeries (see our post on 26 February) you can see just how ridiculous the outsourcing business has become.
There was nothing in yesterday's budget to give hope to the poorest. The unemployment figures are worthless, concealing the reality of just how many people are in work and how many are not. But the measure which we tend to overlook is the benefit cap, the overall limit on spending on "welfare" per year (which Labour supports). It excludes pensions and JSA. But it includes housing benefit, tax credits, disability benefits and pensioner benefits. So while people out of work will continue to get JSA, they could find their housing benefit cut; and those in casual, part-time or zero hours jobs (or in fictional self-employment) could find that their top-up benefits are withering away.
Then there was that poster. Wherever it originated, the Tory party chairman, Grant Shapps, tweeted it yesterday. At first people thought it was a parody. But it wasn't. And with the hashtag #torybingo it was soon trending wildly, with people having lots of fun playing the game. A massive own goal for the government!
There was nothing in yesterday's budget to give hope to the poorest. The unemployment figures are worthless, concealing the reality of just how many people are in work and how many are not. But the measure which we tend to overlook is the benefit cap, the overall limit on spending on "welfare" per year (which Labour supports). It excludes pensions and JSA. But it includes housing benefit, tax credits, disability benefits and pensioner benefits. So while people out of work will continue to get JSA, they could find their housing benefit cut; and those in casual, part-time or zero hours jobs (or in fictional self-employment) could find that their top-up benefits are withering away.
Then there was that poster. Wherever it originated, the Tory party chairman, Grant Shapps, tweeted it yesterday. At first people thought it was a parody. But it wasn't. And with the hashtag #torybingo it was soon trending wildly, with people having lots of fun playing the game. A massive own goal for the government!
Sunday, 16 March 2014
The end of Universal Job Match?
That's the claim in an article in the Guardian. "DWP plans to ditch ridiculed jobs website." Someone has leaked what the paper calls a cache of documents showing that UJM is likely to be scrapped when the contract with Monster comes up for renewal in two years. So don't get too excited. There's no indication that it is to be junked immediately. And no announcement that benefits claimants won't have to use it any more. But it appears that the site can't be fixed without spending a huge amount of money on it, and other ideas are being discussed.
While Monster had a bad record when it got the contract, it seems that the current debacle is not all the company's fault. Ministers (for which read Iain Duncan Smith, presumably) wanted the site to be as "open" as possible, which has meant that all the scams, repeat ads etc. are put up unchecked. It is also obvious that the original site proved to be so bad that numerous changes were requested that would have cost too much to implement. There is appallingly mendacious comment from our old friend the DWP spokesman, but nothing can change the fact that IDS must have known of this for a long time but didn't mention it to the Work & Pensions select committee (perhaps he regarded it as none of their business) nor in that interview on the Sunday Politics last week.
People have commented that all the figures put out by this government on the number of vacancies in the country are drastically wrong. It is probably impossible to explain this to the mathematically challenged IDS.
Clear instructions need to go out to jobcentres and WP providers immediately that claimants should not be compelled to use UJM. No one should be sanctioned for their use of it. And any claimants who have been sanctioned for this (e.g. not applying for enough jobs on it) should be reimbursed. But that's as likely as IDS being sacked.
While Monster had a bad record when it got the contract, it seems that the current debacle is not all the company's fault. Ministers (for which read Iain Duncan Smith, presumably) wanted the site to be as "open" as possible, which has meant that all the scams, repeat ads etc. are put up unchecked. It is also obvious that the original site proved to be so bad that numerous changes were requested that would have cost too much to implement. There is appallingly mendacious comment from our old friend the DWP spokesman, but nothing can change the fact that IDS must have known of this for a long time but didn't mention it to the Work & Pensions select committee (perhaps he regarded it as none of their business) nor in that interview on the Sunday Politics last week.
People have commented that all the figures put out by this government on the number of vacancies in the country are drastically wrong. It is probably impossible to explain this to the mathematically challenged IDS.
Clear instructions need to go out to jobcentres and WP providers immediately that claimants should not be compelled to use UJM. No one should be sanctioned for their use of it. And any claimants who have been sanctioned for this (e.g. not applying for enough jobs on it) should be reimbursed. But that's as likely as IDS being sacked.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)