Politics and Insights
Public interest issues, policy, equality, human rights, social science, analysis
We each have equal worth.
Nudge: the expedient alibi of Conservative neoliberalism
NHS is being 'protected' from those who need protecting most by rationing treatment based on eugenic 'guidelines'
I have SLE, so I'm staking my claim on hydroxychloroquine
Opposition parties call for emergency legislation to protect Universal Credit claimants from impacts of Covid-19
Price hikes of sanitizing gel throws perverse incentives of neoliberalism into sharp relief
Archives Select Month December 2020 (1) April 2020 (2) March 2020 (3) February 2020 (6) January 2020 (4) December 2019 (9) November 2019 (11) October 2019 (6) September 2019 (2) August 2019 (4) June 2019 (1) April 2019 (6) March 2019 (13) February 2019 (11) January 2019 (23) December 2018 (26) November 2018 (19) October 2018 (30) September 2018 (4) July 2018 (19) June 2018 (13) May 2018 (18) April 2018 (8) March 2018 (19) February 2018 (15) January 2018 (11) December 2017 (12) November 2017 (12) October 2017 (11) July 2017 (5) June 2017 (21) May 2017 (23) April 2017 (12) March 2017 (21) February 2017 (14) January 2017 (2) December 2016 (4) November 2016 (11) October 2016 (9) September 2016 (10) August 2016 (8) July 2016 (5) June 2016 (6) May 2016 (12) April 2016 (8) March 2016 (18) February 2016 (17) January 2016 (21) December 2015 (14) November 2015 (25) October 2015 (47) September 2015 (16) August 2015 (9) July 2015 (19) June 2015 (20) May 2015 (6) April 2015 (9) March 2015 (22) February 2015 (4) January 2015 (13) December 2014 (27) November 2014 (27) October 2014 (22) September 2014 (11) August 2014 (4) July 2014 (33) June 2014 (22) May 2014 (24) April 2014 (12) March 2014 (10) February 2014 (2) December 2013 (3) October 2013 (8) September 2013 (11) August 2013 (10) July 2013 (9) June 2013 (9) May 2013 (3) April 2013 (3) March 2013 (2) February 2013 (2) January 2013 (2) December 2012 (2) November 2012 (4) October 2012 (3)
Contribute to Politics and Insights
I don't make any money from my work. But you can contribute by making a donation and help me continue to research and write informative, insightful and independent articles, and to provide support to others. The smallest amount is much appreciated – thank you.
Follow Politics and Insights on WordPress.com
Copyright Notice © Kitty Sue Jones
© 2012 - present by Kitty Sue Jones. All original material created for this site is © Kitty S Jones. Posts may be shared, provided full credit is given to Kitty S Jones and Politics And Insights, along with a link back to this site. Sharing articles using the site Reblog or Press This button is welcomed. Using any of my writing for a commercial purpose is not allowed without my express permission. Excerpts and links, including paraphrasing, may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Kitty S Jones and Politics And Insights with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. Unless otherwise credited, all content is the site author's. The right of Kitty S Jones to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Tag: Labour Force Survey
Gaslighting Conservative MP says Universal Credit protest is a 'political stunt'
December 15, 2018 December 17, 2018 · 10 Comments ·
A Conservative MP, Simon Clarke, has condemned a protest against Universal Credit in Guisborough, dismissing it as a "political stunt".
Clarke said the protest will 'disrupt local businesses' on one of the busiest days in the run up to Christmas.
Local Labour MPs and unions are holding a march in the town on Saturday. They join thousands of other people, accusing the government of a "callous approach".
They said the so-called flagship reform – which replaces six existing benefits, and has been introduced across Teesside in recent months – was "causing real poverty and hardship in our communities".
Redcar and Cleveland Council has written to the Government three times to delay the roll-out until after Christmas, saying that claimants' waiting five weeks for their first payment would leave families penniless over the Christmas period.
However Clarke, whose Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is the only Conservative seat on Teesside, claims he has not had a single constituent flag any problems with the system.
Clarke claims: "At the heart of Universal Credit is the principle that work should always pay and those who need support should receive it."
"That is what it delivers – bringing an end to the broken culture we inherited from Labour, where the number of households where nobody had ever worked doubled between 1997 and 2010."
Clarke continued with his myth making: "I have liaised really closely with the brilliant team at Loftus Job Centre in recent weeks. The team there could not have been clearer: they think Universal Credit will help people, they are well trained to deliver it and they are fed up of being demonised by politicians who only want to frighten their clients unnecessarily."
However, it is very problematic to accept the narratives of administrators and to completely discount the negative experiences and citizen accounts of those Universal Credit is being imposed on. The system is so riddled with design flaws and process faults that it is practically guaranteed to generate mistakes and delays that would push vulnerable benefit claimants into hardship, according to administrative whistleblowers.
Service centre workers have told the Guardian that glitches and errors in the "cobbled-together" system have commonly led to peoples' benefit payments being delayed for weeks or wrongly reduced by hundreds of pounds. Mistakes and delays can add on average an extra three weeks to the formal 35-day wait for an initial benefit payment, pushing claimants into debt, rent arrears, and reliance on food banks.
Campaigners warn that the problems may get worse next year when more than 3 million claimants start to be "migrated" to the new system.
One employee said: "The IT system on which Universal Credit is built is so fundamentally broken and poorly designed that it guarantees severe problems with claims."
He said the system was "overcomplex and prone to errors that affected payments and often proved slow to correct."
"In practical terms, it is not working the way it was intended and it is having an actively harmful effect on a huge number of claimants."
Bayard Tarpley, who left the Grimsby service centre after two years as a telephony agent, told the Guardian that he had been dealing with distressed claimants every day. "My hope is that by speaking out I can help explain why these processes have such a significant, harmful impact on claimants."
He gave several examples of where poor system design and practice caused delays and payment errors, including:
Staff are not notified when claimants leave messages on their online journal; for example, if they wish to challenge payment errors. As a result, messages sent to officials can go unanswered for days or weeks unless claimants pursue the inquiry by phone.
Claimants are discouraged by staff from phoning in to resolve problems or to book a home visit and instead are actively persuaded to go online, using a technique called "deflection", even when callers insist they are unable to access or use the internet.
Callers have often been given wrong or contradictory advice about their entitlements by DWP officials. These include telling severely disabled claimants who are moving on to universal credit from existing benefits that they must undergo a new "fit for work" test to receive full payment.
Although the system is equipped to receive scanned documents, claimants instead are told to present paper evidence used to verify their claim, such as medical reports, either at the local job centre or through the post, further slowing down the payment process.
Small delays or fluctuations in the timing of employers' reporting of working claimants' monthly wages via the real time information system can lead to them being left hundreds of pounds out of pocket through no fault of their own.
Food banks are regarded as a formal backstop for when the system fails, he said. Officials are told to advise those claimants who are in hardship and who do not qualify for cash advances to contact charities or their council for help. However, many councils have closed local welfare provision as a result of central government cuts to funding.
These disclosures add to the mounting concerns over Universal Credit, and provides evidence that the system is not supporting people with even their most basic living costs. Universal Credit roll out is six years behind schedule but will eventually handle £63bn of welfare support going to 8 million people.
Campaigners and researchers say their concerns have been met with a "defensive and insular" approach to managing welfare reform by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).
The department came under withering fire from a cross-party group of MPs who accused it of a "culture of indifference" after it had repeatedly ignored warnings of basic process errors that led to 70,000 disabled benefit claimants being underpaid an estimated £500m over six years.
The then work and pensions secretary, Esther McVey, sought to limit the damage in a speech in which she admitted there were problems with Universal Credit, and promised to listen to campaigners, claimants and frontline staff to find ways to change and improve the system.
If Universal Credit is so 'helpful' for citizens, wouldn't you think that the United Nations would have recognised that this was the case during the recent inquiry? As it is, Philip Alston said that Universal Credit is "entrenching people in poverty" and inflicting "unnecessary misery" on citizens, because of the government's "radical social re-engineering programe".
Alston concluded: "In the fifth richest country in the world, this is not just a disgrace, but a social calamity and an economic disaster, all rolled into one."
He also warned that the motivation behind the controversial benefit reform was to slash spending, despite finding little evidence that there had been any savings, and that the message to claimants is, "You are alone" and that state assistance is the "last resort".
Yet Clarke says: "Since roll-out began here last month, not a single constituent has come forward with a problem for me to help with. My staff have all received training if anyone does. No amount of staff training, however, can ensure that people have enough money to meet their basic living costs within a punitive framework that is purposely designed to create a hostile environment to deter people from claiming social security support.
"But I think people in Guisborough will rightly be unimpressed that their town is being disrupted on one of the busiest shopping days before Christmas by what is frankly a political stunt," said Clarke, using what is frankly a deplorable gaslighting technique.
I can't imagine that many people experiencing problems with their Universal Credit claim would find Clarke particularly approachable. He seems to be surrounded by an impervious wall of denial.
Redcar MP Anna Turley has also called for the roll out of Universal Credit to be stopped until flaws in the system are put right. She said that low income families and vulnerable people would be left reliant on food banks and forced into personal debt.
A similar protest, organised by Unite the Union, was held in Redcar last weekend.
Cllr Sue Jeffrey, leader of Redcar and Cleveland Council, said: "I am dismayed at the callous approach being taken by this Government.
"We know that there is likely to be difficulties for many people who are forced to move onto Universal Credit in the month before Christmas."
The TUC said that the Conservatives "are in denial about the hardship Universal Credit will cause in our area".
Accusing the accuser: Conservative techniques of neutralisation and perception management
However, it's an intentional, evidence-vaulting sort of deliberated response – a habitualised, patterned, crib sheet, 'strategic communication' (communication tactically aligned with the government's overall strategy and ideological aims, to enhance its strategic positioning) kind of denial:
DWP Questions: Government response to all Labour concerns and to the suffering of our constituents is to accuse us of "scaremongering".
— Liz McInnes (@LizMcInnes_MP) November 13, 2017
Seriously poor answer from Minister and thanks to @cathy1scott for her stats. 121 social homes for 9,700 on waiting list #UC #discrimination https://t.co/SAuDxXNFZG
— Tracy Brabin MP (@TracyBrabin) November 13, 2017
Another MP who called for an end to "scaremongering" about Universal Credit last year is Wendy Morton. Speaking in a Commons debate about Universal Credit, she said: "It is this government who are helping people, which is why I am disappointed to have sat through a lot of this debate and heard scaremongering stories from Opposition Members."
She responded with the sloganised, detached and meaningless comment: Universal Credit "makes work pay and helps people into work" and staff at job centres, who administer the benefit, were "working hard to get it right."
In October, during a parliamentary debate, St Austell and Newquay's MP, Steve Double, claimed that jobcentre staff "love it, and claimants like it" and that "one of the problems is all the scaremongering, primarily from the Labour party."
The evidence from a wide variety of sources, however, strongly suggests otherwise.
As Labour MP Liz McInnes said at the time: "If these claims are in fact true, who could possibly object to impact assessments being released? They will no doubt reflect the happiness and joy being spread to Universal Credit claimants in beautiful Cornwall. One would think that the Government would be shouting this marvellous news from the rooftops – if it were true."
Esther McVey memorably refused to agree to meet with the women so bady affected by Universal Credit that they were forced into sex work to avoid destitution. She coldly asked former Labour minister Frank Field, who raised his concerns, to remind them "there are now record job opportunities" in the UK.
During that particular debate, Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Margaret Greenwood called on the government to stop the roll-out, adding: "There's a real danger that hundreds of thousands of people could fall out of the social security system altogether and be pushed into poverty and left at risk of destitution."
McVey dismissed those concerns as "scaremongering". And again in March, McVey accused Labour of "scaremongering and misinformation", saying an extra 50,000 children would benefit under the Universal Credit system, when MPs raised concerns of growing childhood poverty.
In March, at a meeting ,the Conservative Mansfield MP and Hucknall councillor Ben Bradley said, ludicrously, that Labour were "weaponising poor people" and "scaremongering rubbish".
The government are weaponising social security.
And Labour councillor Michael Payne, who represents Arnold North, quoted parts of a disgraceful blog written by Bradley in which he said people on benefits should have vasectomies.
There are many on the Opposition Benches who have expressed legitimate concerns about the catastrophic Universal Credit roll out on behalf of their constituents only to have them passed off as "scaremongering."
However, the government should not ignore the concerns shared by affected citizens, many outside the House, by the charities and organisations at the forefront of supporting people through such difficult and distressing periods when they don't have the means to meet even their basic living needs, leaving them extremely vulnerable.
Last week I wrote about Dan Carden's letter to Amber Rudd, also asking her to postpone the roll out of Universal Credit in his Liverpool Walton constituency.
He said: "We have families experiencing poverty on an unprecedented scale and now facing further avoidable hardship in the run up to Christmas.
"I have now been informed that job centres across Liverpool are advancing payments to my constituents to obtain provisional driving licences for the purposes of identification and then deducting the cost from their benefits.
"Constituents are also having to pay for postal orders, passport photographs and postage, just to obtain provisional licences."
He explained that the DVLA says there is a five-week wait for provisional licences, and highlighted the delays before the first payments are made when someone is transferred on to Universal Credit.
Carden added: "Continuing with this roll-out will leave many of the most vulnerable families in Liverpool Walton destitute by Christmas and I am therefore asking you to intervene as a matter of urgency."
Universal Credit claimants 'told to apply for provisional driving licence' as a form of ID.
Ministers in Whitehall are in a permanent state of denial.https://t.co/ceMLeXWlEl
— Dan Carden MP (@DanCardenMP) December 5, 2018
The secretary of state for work and pensions, responded despicably and oppressively, as follows:
More Labour Scaremongering
🔷 There is no requirement for a UC claimant to have ID, but if you do purchase one we can actually reimburse you.
🔷 Where people don't have ID our terrific work coaches use many methods to identify someone and get their claim started right away. https://t.co/FnD0pGVIGf
— Amber Rudd MP (@AmberRuddHR) December 5, 2018
However, it seems Rudd failed to bother checking her own government's web site for advice and evidence.
When people apply for Universal Credit, they are asked to verify their identity online via the GOV.Verify service.
To do so, you need either;
A valid UK driving license
A valid UK passport.
Of course this creates problems for those without the documents. Their Universal Credit claim cannot go 'live' without conforming to the ID verification framework. People generally can't get an advance because their claim isn't live. Once they've received their new ID document, (takes around 6-8 weeks usually), it's then a further 5 weeks (at least) until their first Universal Credit payment.
According to the government web site, you can only apply for an advance on your first payment if you have already verified your identity.
You can apply for an advance payment in your online account or through your Jobcentre Plus work coach.
You'll need to:
explain why you need an advance
verify your identity (you do this online when you submit your Universal Credit claim or at your first Jobcentre Plus interview)
provide bank account details for the advance (talk to your work coach if you cannot open an account.)
It seems that the "terrific" job coaches are not applying rules consistently, leading to a post code lottery concerning the verification requirements for claims.
The Verify framework:
The response from Rudd and other ministers has become a deplorable, standardised and authoritarian tactic of repressing legitimate criticism for the Conservatives, however. Other ministers who have habitually used the term 'scaremonger' as a gaslighting technique include Sarah Newton and David Gauke among others.
Traditional Conservative prejudices about poverty: blame the victims
Gordon Henderson the Conservative MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey in Kent, has tried to argue that the move to Universal Credit was not responsible for a significant rise in the use of foodbanks.
He said that he had secured information from a local foodbank about claimants who had faced difficulties with Universal Credit, and he claimed he had 'discovered' that many of them were "living in a local hostel that provides temporary accommodation for homeless adults" conflating cause with effects as a matter of prejudice, ideological preference and despicable politcal expediency.
He went on that it "soon became obvious that some of them suffered from underlying problems that affected their ability to manage the transition to Universal Credit, and that forced them into using the food bank", such as "drug addiction, alcoholism, mental health problems, an inability to manage money, or plain fecklessness".
It's not possible to 'manage' no money, or amounts that are insufficient to meet basic survival needs.
He added, disgracefully, that making Universal Credit perfect overnight would not "solve their mental health problems" and issues with drugs and alcohol and "would not make them less feckless" and that "they would still have the same problems, whatever benefits system was put in place".
He concluded that he was "glad" that such people were "in the minority" and appeared to suggest that those with mental health problems – and seemingly people with learning difficulties – were to blame for their difficulties with Universal Credit, after adding that there were also "some people who have genuine concerns".
In 2014, Anglican bishops and the new Roman Catholic Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster joined the Left to claim that a national crisis had driven half a million people to use food banks.
Deplorable right wing ideologue Simon Heffer said "Government ministers knew that was nonsense. The level of benefits is, they believe, sufficient to feed those who receive them."
Yet a huge and growing amount of evidence says otherwise.
He continued: "Though Leftists cynically exploit the existence of food banks as proof that a Tory-led government has inflicted terrible hardship on the poor, there is a widespread belief that some people use them because they have chosen to spend their money, instead, on drink, tobacco, slot machines, tattoos or pornography. This leaves little cash to buy food." Heffer was advocating the use of prepaid cards welfare cards, to restrict what people can spend their money on, to "incentivise them out of dependency and into work".
Exposing Conservative mythologies
One of the biggest myths that the Conservatives peddle is that of 'intergenerational dependency on welfare'. However, only 0.3% of households have two generations that have not worked, according to studies of the Labour Force Survey. The majority of these households included children who had only come out of education within the last five years and in a third of these households, the member of the younger generation had been out of work for less than a year. The Conservative folk devils created from the "longterm undeserving benefit claimant" sponger stereotype is very much exaggerated.
Detailed research into what ordinary people think should go into a minimum household budget showed that actual out of work benefits are no way near as generous as some politicians would have you believe – and were actually well below the minimum level before the welfare cuts were implemented.
Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that while pensioners did receive 100% of what people think they need, a single adult of working age received just 40% of the weekly minimum and a couple with two children received just 62% of the weekly minimum. Those amounts have been further reduced because of the welfare caps, Universal Credit, bedroom tax and reductions in Emloyment and Support Allowance (ESA), council tax support, in a context of ever-rising living costs.
The biggest part of social security spending – 53% – actually goes to pensioners. Overall, out-of-work benefits account for under a quarter of all welfare spending. Even excluding pensioners' benefits, nearly half of welfare spending goes on benefits such as Disability Living Allowance or Personal Independence Payment, which helps disabled people (both in and out of work) with extra costs; Child Benefit and Tax Credits or Universal Credit to working families; and Statutory Maternity Pay. The majority of children and working age adults in poverty in the UK live in working, not "workless" households.
Cuts to the social security budget are having a huge impact, and will continue to have an even bigger impact on those in work, especially the poorest families.
Furthermore, the idea that social security spending has increased and is currently out of control is shown to be incorrect as spending in 2011-12 accounted for 10.4% of GDP, lower than an average of 11% in the mid-1980s and 12% in the mid 1990s.
The commonly held public perceptions of large numbers of long-term social security claimants are incorrect as less than 10% of Job Seekers Allowance claimants claimed for more than one year. Moreover the majority of people claiming social security support are in work.
An interesting Conservative council's report on Universal Credit: off the crib sheet
Sedgemoor in Somerset has a Conservative district council. Last year the council produced a report about the impact of Universal Credit, which was rolled out in 2016 in Somerset. The intention behind the report was to formally present the findings to the Department for Work and Pensions.
The authors of the report say that although they support Universal Credit, they are concerned about the way in which the system is being rolled out. They say that Sedgemoor District Council's experiences mirror those of both Citizens Advice and Digilink, particularly in terms of the level of support required.
However, they also raised concerns around the administration of the scheme and the additional costs to local service providers. They maintain Universal Credit Telephone Records (and a sample of these are attached as Appendix B in the report).
Here is a list of some of the concerns expressed in the report, which contradict the Conservatives' official line:
 Inadequate support for most vulnerable in Society;
 Lack of understanding of the nature and often severity of some customers' personal circumstances (see case study 6 on the report);
 Delay in receiving first payment and the need to budget carefully (case study 7);
 Rent element of UC not paid in the first instance and clients using the personal element on housing to stay in their homes until the 'top-up' is received;
 Additional work with tenants to prevent them going into arrears (and the additional cost of this to service providers);
 Some concerns that the administration of the virtual call centres around the country are failing, for example through providing inadequate answers and explanation, and these cases are being picked up by Citizens Advice and others;
 The policy of the scheme is set centrally and the delivery of the scheme is controlled nationally, yet solutions on a local level are needed;
 Specific issues with some customers unable to make an online application due to no computer/internet access or the skills to do so;
 Inadequate funding to support the scheme, e.g. the £6,000 for Digilink sessions;
 Lack of understanding and explanation of the scheme and the frustration this causes (case studies 8 and 9).
Other concerns raised were that the "DWP's approach encourages all applicants to take responsibility for their own claim, which means that service providers cannot interact with the DWP without the client being present. Unfortunately, this does not take into account that many of the most vulnerable residents are not in a position to fully manage their own claim, for example, if they do not have the technological skills."
Despite some Conservatives disgracefully attempting to link food bank use with individuals' "fecklessness", in the council's report it says that the Trussell Trust, which runs foodbanks in Somerset, has reported nationally that benefit delays/changes remain the biggest cause of foodbank use, accounting for 42% of all referrals, up from about a third the previous year. Around 10,000 emergency food parcels were distributed in Somerset in 2015/16. Bridgwater has seen an increase in referrals in the last year.
The government claim that the social security system is designed to target and provide for those who need support. Yet the report above raises concerns that those most in need are not getting the support they need.
However, it is clear that Conservatives generally believe that many people needing support don't 'deserve' it because of traditionally held Conservative prejudices about poor people. These prejudices are plainly evident in their narratives that justify punitive 'behavioural change' policies and the creation of a hostile environment to deter members of the public from accessing a public service that most of them have paid for via taxes and national insurance contributions.
Universal discredit
I don't make any money from my work. I am disabled because of illness and have a limited income. But you can help me if you like by making a donation to help me continue to research and write informative, insightful and independent articles, and to provide support to others. The smallest amount is much appreciated – thank you.
A letter of complaint to Andrew Dilnot regarding Coalition lies about employment statistics
May 14, 2014 March 12, 2016 · 28 Comments ·
I've written the following to Andrew Dilnot:
I write in response to the government claims made recently regarding employment. During Prime Minister's questions in Parliament on Wednesday, Mr Cameron said that the number of people in full-time employment had risen. Other ministers, such as Esther McVey have echoed these claims.
"We are growing the economy and we've got more people in work," Mr Cameron said.
And: "The number of people out of work in the UK fell by 133,000 to a fresh five-year low of 2.2 million in the three months to March, official figures show.The jobless rate also fell to a five-year low of 6.8%, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has said".
I am very concerned about the accuracy of these claims, and should like to challenge both the validity and reliability of them, given the current methodological problems with measurement, which the ONS have acknowledged in part, previously.
To count as unemployed, people have to say they are not working, are available for work and have either looked for work in the past four weeks or are waiting to start a new job they have already obtained. Someone who is out of work but doesn't meet these criteria counts as "economically inactive". The results from a selected sample, based on narrow criteria, are then weighted to give an estimate that reflects the entire population.
The other measure of joblessness – the claimant count – is published for each single month. It doesn't suffer from the limitations of sample size and sampling frame, because it derives from the numbers of Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) claimants recorded by Jobcentre Plus, so a monthly figure is possible right down to local level. But because many people who are out of work won't be eligible for JSA, it's an even narrower measure.
I draw your attention to the following, taken from the Summary of recommendations: Response from the Employment Related Services Association (ERSA) to the Work and Pensions Select Committee inquiry into Jobcentre Plus, dated May, 2013:
Jobcentre Plus performance metrics:
The effectiveness of Jobcentre Plus (JCP) should be measured by sustained job outcomes rather than off-benefit flows to create greater incentives to support jobseekers into employment and provide a more accurate picture of success rates. This would address potential perverse incentives to sanction claimants inappropriately, plus ensure greater comparability between JCP provision and contracted out provision.
Such a change could help to provide greater transparency in order to identify those who would benefit from intensive employment support. Such a performance metric would prevent the phenomenon of 'cycling', jobseekers moving between short term jobs and unemployment for many years, but not building up the length of time of continual unemployment to qualify them for specialist support.
In particular, I wish to draw your attention to this from the same document – Response from ERSA to the Work and Pensions Select Committee inquiry into JCP, 2013:
4.1. JCP is measured by off-benefit flows rather than sustained job outcomes. This can create perverse incentives to move jobseekers into short term employment outcomes, rather than refer them to long term contracted out support. It can also create a perverse incentive to sanction claimants as discussed below.
ERSA recommends that whilst off-benefit checks are monitored for national statistical purposes, job outcome and sustainment measure, comparable to the Work Programme, should be introduced for Jobcentre Plus. This would enable analysis between the performance of JCP and contracted out provision and provide accurate value for money comparisons.
5.1. DWP point to off-benefit flows as an indication of the effectiveness of pre-Work Programme support. However, analysis undertaken by Policy Exchange calls into question the validity of off-benefit figures as a success measure given that many do not go into sustainable employment or simply move on to another type of benefit.
8.1 As identified by the Committee in its report into the experience of different user groups on the Work Programme, the use of sanctions is inconsistent.
Providers are obliged to notify Jobcentre Plus if a jobseeker fails to undertake an activity, for example if they miss an appointment. The decision as to whether to actually enact sanctions rests with Jobcentre Plus though. This means that sanctions are not applied even though a provider may think there is a clear case to do so. Conversely, a provider may be satisfied with the progress made by a participant but may be overruled by Jobcentre Plus who have a case for applying conditionality.
For example, one ERSA member reported that Jobcentre Plus decided to sanction a Work Programme participant for insufficient use of the Universal Jobmatch website, despite the fact that the provider had explicitly asked the participant to focus on resolving some other issues ahead of any formal job search activity. Sanctioning represented a great setback in the trust and progress made up to that point. ERSA agrees with the recommendation put forward by the Committee in its most recent report into the Work Programme for DWP to conduct a review of sanctioning activity with a view to ensuring that the processes are clearly understood by participants and consistently applied.
8.2 Part of the problem lies in the fact that Jobcentre Plus is measured by off-benefit flows rather than sustained job outcomes. This therefore means that a situation in which a Personal Advisor applies a sanction that may in fact damage an individual's progress to employment, would register as a success according to the off-benefit flow measure. ERSA believes that measuring Jobcentre Plus success by sustained job outcomes would remove any perverse incentives to sanction individuals.
So, in summary, simply measuring how many people end their claims for benefits does not reveal the true impact of jobcentre services, nor does it accurately reflect the numbers of those moving into employment.
Let's not forget that in 1996, the Conservative government introduced the jobseeker's allowance that cut benefits to young people up to 18 years old – the new allowance was designed to replace unemployment benefit and income support. Young people excluded from eligibility for benefit are therefore absent from unemployment statistics.
The Department has simplified its performance measures and now primarily targets the move by claimants away from benefits, or "off-flow", as a simple and intuitive measure of performance. However, this gives no information about how individual jobcentres perform in supporting claimants to work. Some may have found work but, in more than 40 per cent of cases, the reason for moving off benefits is not actually recorded.
I am also concerned that underemployment continues to remain very high, despite a small fall of 7,000 in the number in involuntary part time work, the total still stands at 1.42m. This is an increase of a 100 per cent beyond the pre-recession level of 701,000. The rise in employment also continued to be driven by self-employment, which is extraordinary as self-employment is a relatively small part of the UK jobs market. But although just one in seven workers are self-employed, over half of all jobs growth over the year has been in this type of employment. The TUC share this concern, and have said that some people have been forced in to self-employment as they have no alternative.
Previous TUC's analysis suggests that rising self-employment is part of a wider shift towards insecure employment, rather than as a result of a growing number of people starting up new companies as ministers have claimed. Analysis shows that self-employed workers are often earning less, underemployed, and have less job security than employees.
One very important issue not currently considered is that since the government does not track or follow up the destination of all those leaving the benefit system, as discussed, the off-flow figures will inevitably include many having their claim ended for reasons other than securing employment, including sanctions, awaiting mandatory review, appeal, death, hospitalisation, imprisonment, on a government "training scheme" (see consent.me.uk and the Telegraph – those on workfare are counted as employed by the Labour Force Survey.)
Furthermore, last week Iain Duncan Smith met a whistle-blower who has worked for his Department for Work and Pensions for more than 20 years. Giving the Secretary of State a dossier of evidence, the former Jobcentre Plus adviser told him of a "brutal and bullying" culture of "setting claimants up to fail".
"The pressure to sanction customers was constant," he said. "It led to people being stitched-up on a daily basis."
The whistle-blower wishes to be anonymous but gave his details to Iain Duncan Smith, DWP minister Esther McVey and Neil Couling, Head of Jobcentre Plus, who also attended the meeting. He said:
"We were constantly told 'agitate the customer' and that 'any engagement with the customer is an opportunity to ­sanction."
Iain Duncan Smith and his department have repeatedly denied there are targets for sanctions. However, the whistle-blower says:
"They don't always call them targets, they call them 'expectations' that you will refer people's benefits to the decision maker. It's the same thing."
He claimed managers fraudulently altered claimants' records, adding: "Managers would change people's appointments without telling them. The appointment wouldn't arrive in time in the post so they would miss it and have to be sanctioned. That's fraud. The customer fails to attend. Their claim is closed. It's called 'off-flow' – they come off the statistics. Unemployment has dropped. They are being stitched up."
Labour MP Debbie Abrahams, the member of the DWP Select Committee who set up the meeting, has renewed her call for an inquiry into inappropriate sanctioning. Debbie said:
"I am deeply concerned that sanctions are being used to create the illusion the Government is bringing down unemployment."
It is my belief that the claims made by David Cameron and his ministers are an unwarranted, far-fetched inferential leap from methodological premises that don't stand up to scrutiny, for all of the reasons I have outlined. I felt obliged to draw your attention to this matter, not least because I am not alone in my concerns, and I feel very strongly that it is immoral of any government to mislead the public to which it is meant to be accountable.
Ms Susan Jones.
Related article: Austerity, socio-economic entropy and being conservative with the truth
Petition to Stop DWP Minsters Spinning Statistics
Thanks to Robert Livingstone for the pictures.