Delaying signing-on for a week: getting the facts

George Osborne’s 2013 spending review announced, among other things, a raft of measures branded as “supporting work”.  These include more regular signing-on, mandatory language training and, most notoriously of all, a seven-day delay before signing-on.  This package overall is claimed to save the exchequer £300m per year – £245m in 2015-16 coming from the seven-day delay in signing-on.

The detailed numbers are set out in the Treasury’s policy costings document, which can be found here. Labour has said it will not oppose the changes.  Others, outside the Westminster bubble, have commented on the cruelty of the measures and the devastating effect of the signing delay in particular in a labour market increasingly defined by casualisation and low and falling real pay; and have pointed out that asking people to report to job centres more frequently will mean additional administrative costs, rather than savings.  In the latter case, the justification appears to be in the form of undefined notional benefits from people being incentivised to stay in work; not exactly the basis of a business case, I’d have thought.

In other words, and writing as someone who in Whitehall worked on budget tax changes, the whole case looks, to use the technical term, as dodgy as hell.  It looks like the sort of political measure dreamed up by Treasury special advisers the weekend before the announcement,leaving officials to run around madly in 48 hours before the announcement developing a post-hoc rationalisation. (I cannot emphasise too strongly that that is not a caricature of how politicised Budget decisions are taken – I’ve been there).

So I’ve decided to find out more and have submitted the following FOI request:

Methodology underlying “suppporting work” measures in 2013 Spending Review
I refer to pages 6-8 of the Treasury document Spending Round 2013: policy costings, found at .  Those pages contain a number of tables showing the estimated benefits of each of those measures, including a table showing the benefits to the Exchequer of the week-long delay for new claimants to sign on for certain benefits.
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 I require you to provide the following information:
In respect of the week-long delay for signing-on, the methodology and working used to derive the claimed net benefit of £245m in 2015-16 and £260m in the following two years.  That information should include (but not be limited to) any modelling, the assumptions on labour-market churn and frequency of claiming as well as any impact assessment on claimants, along with sensitivity analyses. I am willing to accept these as spreadsheet files.
In respect of the other measures listed on pages 6-8 of the report, I require a detailed breakdown of the calculations, including (but not limited to) the impact on running costs within the DWP and other public bodies and, in particular, the assumptions underlying the behavioural assumptions described in the third paragraph on page 6, especially insofar as they relate to reduced periods on benefit.  Once again, I require the sensitivity analyses underlying the calculations, along with assessments of the impact of those claiming benefits.  Once again, spreadsheet files are acceptable.
Please acknowledge your receipt of this request.

I’ll post what I receive on this blog, although I should say at the outset I am not remotely optimistic – not just about getting a meaningful answer, but even that the kind of work I have asked for – which ought to underpin all serious policy decicions – has been done.  The benefits from signing more often and English tuition in particular look like pure finger-in-the-air stuff. But nevertheless these questions need to be asked.  Until I see evidence to the contrary, I can only see these measures as a piece of political gaming, designed, with a nod to the Tories’ xenophobic wing and their worries about UKIP, to cash the blank cheque that Ed Balls gave the Coalition by committing Labour to stick to the Tories’ spending plans. And I see them as part of this Coalition’s basic approach to politics – that where prejudice conflicts with evidence, prejudice wins every time.


2 thoughts on “Delaying signing-on for a week: getting the facts

  1. This signing on once a week, the job centres are always at breaking point, they are dreading the work programme leavers, add this another signing on day. Not to mention the travel costs of the unemployed, every 2 weeks i have to search for the money to just get me into town (£5 a day) even had to borrow some on a few occasions. Takes me about an hour one way to get there and an hour back. because of the busses are limited and i know other places are far worse and costs a lot more. This is another back of the fag packet calculation

  2. Pingback: The seven day wait for signing on – response to my FOI request | Notes from a Broken Society

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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