The failure of the Work Programme

Just 3.5 per cent of the 878,000 jobseekers referred to the programme have found work for six months or more.

Yesterday, Rafael revealed a letter from employment minister Mark Hoban to coalition MPs preparing them for bad news on the Work Programme, the government’s flagship welfare-to-work scheme that pays private and voluntary sector organisations to place people in work. This morning, we found out what the bad news is.

The first official statistics on the scheme's success rate show that just 3.5 per cent (31,000) of the 878,000 people referred to the programme between June 2011 and July 2012 found a job for six months or more (defined as "sustainable work"). This is significantly below the 5.5 per cent minimum performance target set by the government, which means that fewer people are finding work than if the Work Programme had never existed. The figure is even worse if one looks at the first 12 months of the scheme, the time frame that the government's target was based on, rather than the first 14 months (June 2011 to July 2012). Over that period, only 2.3 per cent (18,270) of the 785,360 people referred found sustainable work.

As expected, Hoban is insisting that it's too early to judge the scheme. He said:

Clearly these figures only give a snapshot picture as we're one year in, and the Work Programme offers support to claimants for two years, but these results are encouraging and something providers can look to build on

But by any measure (including the government's), this is a bad start for what David Cameron hailed as "the biggest back-to-work programme since the 1930s".

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith arrives for a Cabinet meeting at 10 Downing Street. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The big problem for the NHS? Local government cuts

Even a U-Turn on planned cuts to the service itself will still leave the NHS under heavy pressure. 

38Degrees has uncovered a series of grisly plans for the NHS over the coming years. Among the highlights: severe cuts to frontline services at the Midland Metropolitan Hospital, including but limited to the closure of its Accident and Emergency department. Elsewhere, one of three hospitals in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland are to be shuttered, while there will be cuts to acute services in Suffolk and North East Essex.

These cuts come despite an additional £8bn annual cash injection into the NHS, characterised as the bare minimum needed by Simon Stevens, the head of NHS England.

The cuts are outlined in draft sustainability and transformation plans (STP) that will be approved in October before kicking off a period of wider consultation.

The problem for the NHS is twofold: although its funding remains ringfenced, healthcare inflation means that in reality, the health service requires above-inflation increases to stand still. But the second, bigger problem aren’t cuts to the NHS but to the rest of government spending, particularly local government cuts.

That has seen more pressure on hospital beds as outpatients who require further non-emergency care have nowhere to go, increasing lifestyle problems as cash-strapped councils either close or increase prices at subsidised local authority gyms, build on green space to make the best out of Britain’s booming property market, and cut other corners to manage the growing backlog of devolved cuts.

All of which means even a bigger supply of cash for the NHS than the £8bn promised at the last election – even the bonanza pledged by Vote Leave in the referendum, in fact – will still find itself disappearing down the cracks left by cuts elsewhere. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. He usually writes about politics.