Scottish Welfare Reform Committee hear evidence of Jobcentre staff bullying benefit claimants

Image result for jobcentre

The Scottish Welfare Reform Committee has heard evidence at Holyrood about Jobcentres bullying claimants, often reducing them to tears.

The Committee heard from witnesses who are claimants on a first-name basis only because of fears that the disclosures may lead to sanctioning by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP).

However, one witness, Nicholas Young, whose firm Working Links has a £167 million contract to find jobs for people on the Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP) Work Programme, said conditionality – specifically benefit sanctions – “has had a really positive impact over a number of years”. He claimed such “conditionality” is a way of “encouraging active participation.”

He didn’t provide evidence of his claim, and he didn’t elaborate how punitive state sanctions that remove people’s lifeline social security – calculated to meet only basic needs such as food, fuel and shelter –  could possibly be regarded as “encouragement.”

His evidence to the Welfare Reform Committee was at odds with other witnesses, including the director of another DWP contractor. Paul de Pellette, director of fellow Work Programme contractor Ingeus, said  that sanctions are a “disincentive” to building trust.

He said: “If you’re an employment adviser working in the Work Programme, one of the most important things to have is to build trust and rapport with the people that are coming through the door.

“Therefore, the sanctions regime in some regards could be viewed as a disincentive for that because the reality is you want to have trust and rapport.”

Contractors delivering the DWP’s voluntary disability employment scheme Work Choice also warned the UK Government’s decision to devolve the employment schemes to Holyrood but keep the responsibility for implementing sanctions was a recipe for confusion.

SNP MSP Joan McAlpine said the Work Programme contractors appeared “unmoved” by research which found people on the work programme “are three times as likely to be sanctioned than find a job”.

Mr Young said: “I am absolutely not unmoved at all. The plight and the personal circumstances of our customers is incredibly important to us.”

He went on to say: “Single parents have long had conditionality attached to their benefits regime. I think it has had a really positive impact over a number of years.

“Again, some disabled people will have conditionality attached to their benefits regime. I support the role of conditionality.”

He added: “I support the principle of conditionality as a way of encouraging active participation.”

However, although the Conservatives conflated sanctions with welfare conditionality under their welfare “reforms”, increasing the severity and frequency of sanctions as a punishment for “non-compliance”, sanctions and conditionality may also be regarded as mutually exclusive criteria, since state punishment need not be included in “encouraging” people to look for work.

Disabled people and lone parents already face additional barriers to finding work that are out of their control, and so to punish people in protected social groups potentially on the basis of their characteristics is discriminatory.

Another issue that was discussed is that those on welfare-to-work schemes spend all day having to repeatedly cold-call frustrated companies who do not have any work to offer, MSPs were told.

One witness, “Donna,” who had been made redundant after working all of her life gave evidence to the Committee, she said that Jobcentre advisers had bullied her, making her ill and stressed. She was a former Church of Scotland development worker from Glasgow.

She said of her first interview with the Jobcentre: “He made me feel like I was imagining my problems and I didn’t have any problems,”

“I would have been in a mental institution if I had stayed with that first adviser.”

“He was saying to me: ‘It’s not like you’ve got a leg missing.’ Each time he made me cry.

“I would have been in a mental institution if I had stayed with that first adviser – or I would have shot him.”

Another claimant called “Jake”, also from Glasgow, said: “Sometimes you sit on the phone from nine to five each day making calls for jobs but you know you’re not going to get anything. It’s depressing.

“The booklet I got was all of the cleaning companies, the laundry companies, you were just to phone up and say you’re looking for work. Most of them would say: ‘Don’t phone here again.'”

SNP MSP Christina McKelvie said the system amounts to “class warfare” with “propaganda” against the unemployed.

“A report from the DWP suggested only 24% of people going through the work programme were successful and only 9% of them were in a job after a year,” she said.

“The DWP had paid the providers £1.8bn since the scheme had started for that kind of outcome. Is all of that money worth it?”

Labour MSP Neil Findlay said: “If it is as described, this is in effect state-sanctioned cold-calling. This has really disturbed and upset me. In fact it has disgusted me.

“The system that we have created and the atmosphere in this system is so wrong, I find it incredible the more evidence that people present to us.

“It also disgusts me what they have done to public services on the frontline having to deal with people going through this bloody system, because I don’t think for one second 99.9% of them want to treat people like this.”

Alistair Kerr, head of quality and contract compliance at Work Choice contractor Momentum Scotland, said: “Any performance contracts have to have elements of conditionality to them, but if that is to the detriment of the most vulnerable across the UK then surely that should not be a model that should be adopted by the Scottish Government.”

Whilst the devolution of some aspects of Social Security continue to be debated during the passage of the Scotland Bill, the Welfare Reform Committee has focused on the practical implementation of the social security schemes outlined in the Smith Agreement.

This post was written for Welfare Weekly, which is a socially responsible and ethical news provider, specialising in social welfare related news and opinion.

3 thoughts on “Scottish Welfare Reform Committee hear evidence of Jobcentre staff bullying benefit claimants

  1. The jobcentre is making more people unemployable first by taking the basic rights to the people away and making them ill and secondly by making them bother other employers so much, when they actually do have a vacancy in their company, they will remember all those forced cold callers and probably discouraged to employ them, thirdly if they end up on workfare, it gives the Impression to future employers, that those that have gone through the scheme are vulnerable enough to be used as they like. That because they are striped to the right of at least a minimum wage, they are encouraged to use them as a continual source of workfare, never actually employing them or giving them a real job and using them for the lowest, most unpleasant jobs and often without the same health and safety rules as their actual real paid workers. That is the story I have got from talking to real people.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Reblogged this on Beastrabban’s Weblog and commented:
    This is another important piece from Kittysjones. On the plus side, it’s encouraging that MSPs are hearing testimony from claimants about the soul-destroying bullying they have had to endure from Work Advisors at the Job Centre. It’s distressing to the read the testimony of ‘Donna’, whose Advisor regularly reduced her to tears by continually playing down her problems, and telling her that ‘it wasn’t like she only had one leg’. And this is only one the examples of the abuse discussed here. It’s particularly heartening to hear the expressions of disgust by the two MSPs quoted her, Christina McKelvie for the SNP, and Neil Findlay for Labour. What is chilling is the complete lack of empathy Nicholas Young for Working Links has for claimants, despite his protestations to the contrary. He may claim that he cares deeply about them and they are incredibly important, but this is belied by his bland support for sanctions, and his complacent platitude that they are effective, when the statistics point to the contrary.

    The Westminster parliament has repeatedly tried to hold Ian Duncan Smith to account for his degrading sanctions regime, which has seen tens of thousands suffer from misery and starvation. He repeatedly refused to attend, and when he did so, it was with an escort of armed guards. Just in case the disabled and their carers and friends in the public gallery started a riot.

    He’s a bully and a coward, just like the ‘work coaches’ in the Job Centres, and the government contractors that employ them, like Working Links.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s