Nadhim Zahawi
:Irresponsible Bankers Should Be Jailed
Eleanor Blatchley
:Human Rights, Hashtags and the UK's Policy Towards Central Asia
Natalie Bennett
:Media Reform: Time to Go Back to Leveson
James Snell
:Prism: Who Cares?
Alex Ford
:Talking to the Taliban in Afghanistan Doesn't Betray the Dead - It Honours Them
It is not often that I am left speechless, but when the producers of a BBC Panorama programme (broadcast 28 January 2013) invited me in to view some of the footage they had shot of people's experience of the government's Work Programme I was left stunned and shocked.
I was already familiar with most of the issues and criticisms raised by Panorama. Because of the work of my select committee I was aware of how the financial model of the Work Programme was meant to work. In our report published in May 2011 on the Work Programme providers and contracting arrangements we had warned there was a danger that the companies delivering the Work Programme would "cream and park" or "cherry pick." This is where a work provider only spends time and resources on those easiest to help while doing the minimum for those furthest from the labour market and with the greatest barriers to work. Panorama confirmed that this was indeed happening.
Almost two years on from our first report on the Work Programme, the select committee has returned to the subject to see how it is working for the people it was meant to help. We have called for evidence of the experience of different user groups. I had therefore heard similar stories to those featured in Panorama, some who had found work and were grateful for the help, and others whose experience was totally negative. As a constituency MP I have also had constituents ask to be transferred from the Work Programme provider they had been allocated to because they didn't think they were getting enough help in finding suitable work. Providers have complained too. They have felt that because of the failings of the Work Capability Assessment, the 'test' for those with a disability or suffering ill health, they were being sent clients who were too ill or too disabled to work and shouldn't have been referred in the first place.
However, what I wasn't prepared for was the contribution from an ex-employee of a company called Triage, one of the two providers delivering the Work Programme in my own constituency in Aberdeen. She said that claimants who had been referred to the company for help were called LTBs. LTB is an acronym use to describe Long Term Benefit claimants. My shock came when the ex-employee said that in the office where she worked the staff called the people who had come for help, "Lying Thieving Bastards."
The shock is clear from my face. I was stunned to think that anyone would be so unprofessional, so uncaring, so rude about the people they were meant to be supporting into work. I hope that this is just one office, just one isolated incident. If it is not, then the Work Programme has even more problems than I had thought.
Follow Dame Anne Begg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@annebegg
The Work Programme is not even fit for purpose for those who definitely could work- claimants attending the Work Programme are not given genuine help, such as being given the opportunity to gain qualifications which are valued by employers, but are made to sit through useless sessions on 'how to write a CV' or 'how to motivate yourself to get a job'. The whole thing is a scandalous waste of money.
The last issue I had was when I was sanctioned by them for a period of 4 weeks due to not allowing to change my CV. As an ex-employee of the DWP, I think I know how my CV should look and appear. I have since closed my claim for JSA & my partner know signs fortnightly as she works part time.
There has been a concerted effort by government and the press to stigmatise and discredit anyone in receipt of benefits regardless of their circumstances.
The government's own classification of scrounger, opposed to strivers, is further evidence of an agenda to vilify claimants.
I am extremely worried as I my ESA review is about to start. Having seen first hand the lies of an Atos quack, I have no doubt my case will be rejected purely to hit targets rather than being part of a fair and objective study.
Stories are rife of people struggling to exist without payments while their appeal is processed.
It will get worse in April when the government, in a response to the number of successful appeals, instead of sorting out their own mess will introduce a mandatory review of the claim.
This in effect is an admission that Atos does not work, but rather than scrapping a faulty system, will continue to pour millions of pounds into the French firm's coffers AND have to pay for the administration of a "corrective" procedure.
However while this procedure is taking place, the claimant will not be allowed to appeal against the decision, leaving them in limbo and afaik, penniless.
Thanks to the government's successful hate campaign, no one seems to give a damn about us.
So many thanks to Dame Anne Begg for all your sterling work.
This so called Government of bullies and buddy-protecting elitists needs VOTING OUT ASAP.
APATHY IS THEIR FRIEND GET THE VOTE OUT.
They seem to think themselves secure. They have a job and good health so it is ok to look down on others, without realising at any time it could be them.
More disturbing perhaps, is the complete lack of empathy, never mind a self interested, "It could happen to me!"
There is such a terrible lack of compassion in society. We have become so heartless.
I think you are right, there are always good people that do care. Sadly, just not enough. Sorry for being so pessimistic but day in day out there are stories of how the government's hate campaign is affecting people. It grinds me down.
Never fear though, I won't give them the satisfaction of giving up.
Keep caring, we need more like you.
The WPP's may complain that people are too sick or disabled, but many will be happy to take the £600, sanction the claimant and also park them!
I am unsure how easy it is, if at all, to have a sanction lifted, but statistically more sick and disabled people are sanctioned (as a percentage) compared to those who are fit and well.
For me the numbers speak for themselves - they are unfairly and unjustly targeted for the bounty on their heads, and more likely to be sanctioned.
Thank you Anne for your valuable interactions, but sick and disabled people were sacrificed to the WPP's when WPP's complained they were not receiving enough referrals.
A referral, after all, gives the WPP a bounty - this is all some are seeking.
Work related activity should be voluntary - after all these are people who have been certified as too sick for work by their GP, AND by an Atos Healthcare professional, AND by a DWP decision maker and possibly by a tribunal too.
Surely this is evidence enough to indicate that these people may not be well enough to comply with the Work Program?
"Parking" is bad enough, parking after claiming a referral fee is worse, but then allowing that same company the authority to "recommend" sanctions is abhorent.