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 May2015.com, 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.

Getty
Show Hide image

Everyone's forgotten the one issue that united the Labour party

There was a time when Ed Miliband spoke at Momentum rallies.

To label the row over the EU at Thursday’s Labour leadership hustings "fireworks" would be to endow it with more beauty than it deserves. Owen Smith’s dogged condemnation of John McDonnell’s absence from a Remain rally – only for Corbyn to point out that his absence was for medical reasons – ought to go down as a cringing new low point in the campaign. 

Not so long ago, we were all friends. In the course of the EU referendum, almost all of the protagonists in the current debacle spoke alongside each other and praised one another’s efforts. At a local level, party activists of all stripes joined forces. Two days before polling day, Momentum activists helped organise an impromptu rally. Ed Miliband was the headline speaker, and was cheered on. 

If you take the simple version of the debate, Labour’s schism on the EU appears as an aberration of the usual dynamics of left and right in the party. Labour's left is supposedly cheering a position which avoids advocating what it believes in (Remain), because it would lose votes. Meanwhile, the right claims to be dying in a ditch for its principles - no matter what the consequences for Labour’s support in Leave-voting heartlands.

Smith wants to oppose Brexit, even after the vote, on the basis of using every available procedural mechanism. He would whip MPs against the invocation of Article 50, refuse to implement it in government, and run on a manifesto of staying in the EU. For the die-hard Europhiles on the left – and I count myself among these, having run the Another Europe is Possible campaign during the referendum – there ought to be no contest as to who to support. On a result that is so damaging to people’s lives and so rooted in prejudice, how could we ever accept that there is such a thing as a "final word"? 

And yet, on the basic principles that lie behind a progressive version of EU membership, such as freedom of movement, Smith seems to contradict himself. Right at the outset of the Labour leadership, Smith took to Newsnight to express his view – typical of many politicians moulded in the era of New Labour – that Labour needed to “listen” to the views Leave voters by simply adopting them, regardless of whether or not they were right. There were, he said, “too many” immigrants in some parts of the country. 

Unlike Smith, Corbyn has not made his post-Brexit policy a headline feature of the campaign, and it is less widely understood. But it is clear, via the five "red lines" outlined by John McDonnell at the end of June:

  1. full access to the single market
  2. membership of the European investment bank
  3. access to trading rights for financial services sector
  4. full residency rights for all EU nationals in the UK and all UK nationals in the EU, and
  5. the enshrinement of EU protections for workers. 

Without these five conditions being met, Labour would presumably not support the invocation of Article 50. So if, as seems likely, a Conservative government would never meet these five conditions, would there be any real difference in how a Corbyn leadership would handle the situation? 

The fight over the legacy of the referendum is theatrical at times. The mutual mistrust last week played out on the stage in front of a mass televised audience. Some Corbyn supporters jeered Smith as he made the case for another referendum. Smith accused Corbyn of not even voting for Remain, and wouldn’t let it go. But, deep down, the division is really about a difference of emphasis. 

It speaks to a deeper truth about the future of Britain in Europe. During the referendum, the establishment case for Remain floundered because it refused to make the case that unemployment and declining public services were the result of austerity, not immigrants. Being spearheaded by Conservatives, it couldn’t. It fell to the left to offer the ideological counter attack that was needed – and we failed to reach enough people. 

As a result, what we got was a popular mandate for petty racism and a potentially long-term shift to the right in British politics, endangering a whole raft of workplace and legal protections along the way. Now that it has happened, anyone who really hopes to overcome either Brexit, or the meaning of Brexit, has to address the core attitudes and debates at their root. Then as now, it is only clear left-wing ideas – free from any attempt to triangulate towards anti-migrant sentiment– that can have any hope of success. 

The real dividing lines in Labour are not about the EU. If they were, the Eurosceptic Frank Field would not be backing Smith. For all that it may be convenient to deny it, Europe was once, briefly, the issue that united the Labour Party. One day, the issues at stake in the referendum may do so again – but only if Labour consolidates itself around a strategy for convincing people of ideas, rather than simply reaching for procedural levers.