Iain Duncan Smith, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, has struggled to implement his grand ideas
Show Hide image

Welfare-to-work firms are being paid five times over for a job half done

The coalition has struggled to implement its Work Programme. Labour needs to ensure its latest ideas don't go awry if they make it into government.

A report out this week has highlighted the problem with high-minded political reviews, like the one Labour published to much fanfare on Tuesday.

The National Audit Office, the apolitical body responsible for scrutinising government spending, has investigated the government’s Work Programme – its flagship scheme to help the unemployed into work.

It shows three things. First, it’s underperforming.

The government’s estimates have proved as over-optimistic as they appeared when the programme was launched in 2011. One of the most important measures of its success is how well it has helped the “hardest-to-help” into work.  If a claimant holds a job for at least three months they are deemed a success.

The government forecast more than 1 in 5 claimants would be helped back into work. The firms that won the contracts to help them were even more optimistic – suggesting nearly 1 in 4 would be successfully retrained.

Instead, just 1 in 9 of them have been. This is not surprising. It is in line with the success of comparable programs, such as Labour’s Flexible New Deal. The department, no longer buoyed by the grand promises of new governments, have belatedly reduced their expectations. They now expect around 1 in 8 to find work – half as many as the firms charged with delivering the contract pledged to achieve.

Despite this lack of success, these firms are now spending less than half as much as they committed to on the “hardest-to-help” job-seekers. They offered to spend £1,360 per person when they bid; they are now spending just £630.

One of the main reasons the firms have used to justify this – according to the NAO report – appears counter-intuitive:

“The introduction of participants that are further from employment has allowed greater use of group work or ‘lighter touch’, less frequent contact which can be more appropriate to their needs.”

You might have expected those struggling the most would be helped the most, with targeted one-to-one help and extra funding. Instead, it is those classified as “easier-to-help” who are actually receiving more money – nearly 40 per cent more. It seems the Work Programme has done little to change the culture of job centres under Labour, as documented in 2009 by Channel 4’s Benefit Busters.

At least, you might hope, these firms – who have retrained less than half as many of the hardest-to-help as they forecast, and are spending less than half as much on them as they agreed – would have faced the consequences of their failures.

But, as usual, they are still being well-paid – regardless of performance. They are entitled to £31m in incentive payments for 2014-15. The NAO estimate they would be paid £6m "using an accurate measure of performance".

Moreover, the difficulties of tracking how long workers keep their jobs has already cost the government £11m, and is set to cost it another £25m by 2016.

Margaret Hodge, the Chair of the parliamentary committee which takes up NAO reports, launched a familiar attack on the findings, arguing the government should be able to “force contractors to spend more" and stop paying "bonuses to all of its contractors despite their poor performance".

These are problems which her committee has been struggling against throughout this parliament – and which no government seems capable of solving.

They also show the limits of the grand policy announcements and thoughtful speeches currently exciting debate in Parliament. Without vision politics doesn’t inspire. Every political leader offers one – David Cameron ran on the ‘Big Society’ and Ed Miliband has called for ‘One Nation’. But without the ability to implement ideas, great plans often end up being little more than noble intentions.

The growth review published this week by the Labour Party was a thoughtful year-long study. The substance of its two dozen recommendations were scarcely criticised – although a key statistic was – and its calls for growth across the country echo George Osborne’s recent promise to create a ‘Northern powerhouse’.

It also talked specifically of the need to fix government contracting. But there is no simple solution. The Coalition has already tried to ensure more contracts go to small firms. The failures of the Work Programme show how much more there is to do.

Everyone wants the state to be become ‘smarter and more entrepreneurial’, ‘facilitate innovation’, and ‘radically improve’, as the review suggests. It offered engaging ideas – like more technical colleges and a ‘Teach Next’ scheme to complement the success of Teach First – but the question is how any government actually creates change.

The man behind the report, Andrew Adonis, has proved himself among the most capable operators in government – he spent a decade thinking up and driving through the academy system that now accounts for more than half of British schools.

We should react to his report by explaining how such ideas might be made possible – and learning from the perennial problems exposed by the committee who deal with government’s failures.


This is a preview of, an affiliated site launching later this year. You can find us on Twitter.


Harry Lambert was the editor of May2015, the New Statesman's election website.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.