Although the Welfare To Work Sector would employ a fully fledged Consultant at £300 per day, this rate would not apply for any mere Welfare To Work Clerk, who had a responsibility for delivering any Training Course. Besides which, if any Welfare To Work Clerk were a Qualified Teacher, they would secure employment within the FE Sector, and not within the sub-prime Welfare To Work Sector. .... but, please, continue your story.....

Unless the regulations are revamped, such as those established for Mandatory Work Activity, it is made clear that employers should not recruit unemployed for work which could be filled by existing staff or those who may be recruited on the open market. I cannot think of any job which could not be filled by either an employee, or by someone recruited from the open market - and, lets not place a higher threshold on Third Sector Organisations (such as a Charity Shop) than Private Sector. Within the Third Sector, there are reports of Senior Managers being awarded a generous salary and expenses package, so torpedoing any myth that they should be considered as Charitable Organisations. I am not sure whether JCP will be able to invite any candidates into the Job Centre on a daily basis for supervised job searches - even if the candidate is suspected of working and perpetrating Benefit Fraud. Unfortunately, JCP is under-resourced as it is, more experienced staff have left, and an increasing number of short term contract staff remain. As much as George Osbourne may suggest that candidates will be required to attend the JCP on a Daily Basis, unless each JCP Office intends to set up an old style Job Club, it is not going to be a practicable proposition - even subcontracting the work to a Private Job Club may prove to be too expensive. However, if push comes to shove, then I would opt to attend the Job Centre each day for a supervised job search.

In general terms, if the Welfare To Work Clerk is quite inexperienced (if they were remotely experienced and qualified, they would be working in the Real World), they more than likely feel that they can badger younger candidates than candidates who are older, more mature, more experienced and more qualified than they are - and are less likely to deal with any confrontation that they can't win.

Calm Down, Dear, Calm Down.....if you have knowledge of Benefit Fraud, then as a Citizen, your responsibility is to report such matters, and the evidence on which you base your assertions on, to the appropriate authorities. After all, We should not be so naive as to accuse someone of being a Shirker (for example), or Benefit Fraudster, without any evidence to support such a claim. But, conversely, if you are happy with being complicit in deceit, and party to any conspiracy to perpetrate systematic Tax Fraud, then you will no doubt be more than happy to be subject to a Criminal Investigation. After all, as a concerned Citizen with an axe to grind against Benefit Cheats, you would not be so churlish to defend parties who would perpetrate systematic tax fraud, would you ?

Absolutely - there are plenty of jobs around, and the money can be found to pay someone to do those jobs. £Billions have been wasted through Quantitative Easing, for example, since about 2009. Of course, if employers attempt to subvert the ethical basis of recruiting staff to do a job, such as through the use of Mandatory Work Activity, then on the one hand they will come foul of the DWP Provider Guidance (where it is stated that MWA must not be used as a means of exploiting the unemployed as opposed to offering the work to existing employees or to someone who may be recruited through the open market), whilst parties promoting the use of MWA to fill jobs may come into conflict with the HMRC who may then instigate a criminal investigation into a conspiracy to perpetrate systematic tax fraud. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/prosecutions/crim-inv-policy.htm After all, if a candidate is assigned to any MWA, and doing a job which could be filled by an existing member of staff or someone who is unemployed, then whereas the employer may save themselves £'000's through not paying the individual a salary, the State also loses out through not being provided with its Fair Share of Tax and National Insurance. Of course, if people wish to be complicit in Tax Fraud, and wish to support MWA, that it their personal choice - and if they are party to a conspiracy to perpetrate Tax Fraud, good luck to them when they enter the dock, and find Criminal Charges levied against them.

Unfortunately, Welfare To Work Clerks do not have Clients - and if some unsuspecting Job Seeker on the Work Programme is provided with an interview as a direct consequence of any effort on the part of any Welfare To Work Clerk this could be for any number of reasons. For example, through the Flexible New Deal A4E were found to guilty of arranging "placements" within a Business Unit set up by A4E, and then claiming the financial prize - one of the many instances of fraud. In respect to the Work Programme - Welfare To Work Clerks do not have Clients, the Client is established by the Work Programme Contract between Job Centre Plus and the W2W Organisation. The candidate is only required to attend the Work Programme insofar as the Job Seekers Agreement remains in place. If a job seeker is offered an interview for a Warehouse Job, this has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the candidate is perceived to be "Best" or otherwise.

After the Work Programme, Job Centre Plus Front Line Advisers can assign candidates to Mandatory Work Activity if they feel justified. However, the DWP Provider Regulations are available for MWA. http://www.dwp.gov.uk/supplying-dwp/what-we-buy/welfare-to-work-services/provider-guidance/man-work-guidance.shtml

There is no need to worry yourself over anything which a Welfare To Work Clerk says to you within any meeting, and if you have done nothing wrong, there is no need to feel threatened. The W2W Clerks are not that qualified, and if you wish to seek Professional Advice, make an appointment to see a Professional Careers Advisor.

The question may simply be to try to catch the unwary person out...if the respondent admits "I'll be working" (for example), but haven't declared it, this may raise a Sanction Doubt.

If the job that you are applying for involves Business Administration (for example), then it matters not whether the job is in Business Sector 1,2...n - although an employer in Business Sector n may have a preference for candidates to have acquired experience gained in Business Sector n, it is merely sufficient that within an application the candidate emphasizes the experience gained throughout their career to date.

Hi Emma...I think the first rule of signing on is dont be scared, and dont simply accept any assertion that you are at fault for being unemployed. Provided that you maintain a daily activity job log, explicitly identifying the jobs that you have applied for, and present this when signing on, you should satisfy even the most acutely obsessive Job Centre Plus Front Line Adviser. Further, insofar as Job Centre Plus may mandate you through a Job Seekers Agreement to sign up to Universal Job Match, provided that you establish an Online Profile (through, for example, Reed, CVLIbrary etc), you do not need to provide access to your Universal Job Match Account. UJM can provide a number of Job Leads, and if you find any which you apply for, you can specify those jobs on your normal Job Search Diary. However, as specified within the Universal Job Match Toolkit, the DWP cannot specify the manner in which you present your Job Search Evidence. If the issue of Mandatory Work Activity is raised, and JCP attempt to send on you a scheme, it is worth familiarising yourself with the DWP Provider Guidance http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/pg-part-p.pdf

Of course, Job Centre Plus staff are more than capable of doing a job search using UJM, and spending an inordinate amount of time matching candidates to vacancies which may not even exist -vacancies may be indicated as being live on UJM, and yet when candidates visit the referring website, may find the vacancy has been pulled. A problem arises for each and every instant where, on a candidates UJM Account, they may be invited to offer proof that they have applied .... which is somewhat difficult if the job did not exist, and any number of Sanction Doubts may be forthcoming. I agree.... I fail to see why any candidate, claiming Job Seekers Allowance (or Universal Credit) should not wish to be party to such a system as UJM, except of course that UJM remains a pathetic system, unfit for purpose. Although the DWP may not have the staffing resources to continually monitor everyone's computer 24-7, any number of automated information systems may be used to scrutinise the engagement of each candidate with UJM- a summary report generated for examination by a Front Line Adviser, and if need be, 'Sanction Doubt Letters" automatically sent out if their login history to UJM is considered insufficient (Say, less than 35 hours per week). Of course, Sanction Doubt letters may also be sent out where it is presumed that candidates, having been matched to job leads contained on UJM, fail to apply for those jobs. The fact that the jobs may not have existed in the first place does introduce a complication.

If the Executive wish to implement any law, they will do it.... the Executive, controlling the Payroll Vote within the House of Commons and House of Lords, and will do whatever they are told. A recent example was the Retrospective Legislation dealing with aftermath of the Cait Reilly Judgement. If someone on the Payroll Vote does not do as they are told, such as a PPS, then they will soon be replaced. Unfortunately, the coercive power of patronage, enabling MP's to become part of the Payroll Vote, where they may be promised an accelerator on the Greasy Pole, introduces a considerable motivator - and the General Government and Elders in Society may be powerless to influence the decisions made.

If you have previously provided your email address, you can invoke your rights under the Data Protection Act to restrict any contact other than through written correspondence. It is sufficient for you to provide, for cursory examination, a copy of a printed CV - however, you can invoke your rights not to provide a copy through email.

According to the Universal Job Match Toolkit, reference to the most recent copy can be accessed via https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/universal_jobmatch_toolkit_chapt_2 it remains at the discretion of the candidate to provide details of their job search in whatever way they see fit. From a Freedom of Information Request, DWP confirm (as highlighted within the URL http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/yet-more-dwp-illegality/ that

Although it is sufficient for you to specify details of the Date, Organiation and Jobs that you have applied for (and/or newspaper adverts that you have referenced, agencies which have contacted), there is no requirement for you to disclose any confidential names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses. At most, you simply provide reference to such a document that you have either written down or printed. Infact - just use the same job log which you present to Job Centre Plus when you sign on.

The latest Provider Guidance for MWA is dated August 2013 http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/pg-part-p.pdf Other significant sections Given that there is no role within any business which could not be filled by either an existing member of staff or by someone recruited from the open market, if MWA becomes a reality - you may not be able to avoid it (lest come foul of any Sanction Doubt being raised), but you can be courteous, negotiate something which reflects your job interest and existing training, and simply point out that you will be reporting all parties to HMRC to investigate a potential tax fraud. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/prosecutions/crim-inv-policy.htm

If many youngsters are indeed reliant on "mummy and daddy to do everything for them", with their grandparents more likely than not required to do National Service after WW2, the experience cannot have been that good in providing those conscripted with a basic level of education where rearing families are concerned. Unfortunately, the children reared by National Service Parents may have acquired bad traits and habits, which were then passed down onto their own children - with some accusing such children as being "reliant on mummy and daddy to do everything for them".

On the first point - companies already receive extremely generous compensation from the taxpayer, and may not make any form of contribution. When companies start to make a modest contribution towards College/University Training, including a Statutory Obligation to pay a Training Levy if they dont provide either placement or sponsorship for candidates at College or University, then We may take note of any companies who complain.

It is your choice.... I would write to my MP on the issue, and send a copy to the Manager of the Job Centre.

Two issues arise. Firstly, when you create an account on Universal Job Match, you enter into a legally binding agreement with the Monster Corporation (operating UJ on behalf of the DWP) when you agree not to disclose any Security Information (such as Gateway Number, Password, Email Address). Hence, when you create an account, be wary of disclosing any information, or being watched on behind your back by an over zealous Security Guard. Secondly - yes you can invoke your rights under the Data Protection Act not to tick the box.

Pedantics aside, the "Client" (from JCP perspective) is the Welfare To Work Organisation - if any W2W organisation considers themselves "Work Ready", such a claim would be in violation of the Trade Descriptions Act.

The "Tipping Point" (ie Point Of No Return) occured a few years ago.... with Assets (such as JCP Offices) being transferred to a Management Agency, Security Staff recruited through G4S, Front Line Advsiers increasingly being employed on Short Term Contracts, with any training for JCP FLA being delivered in-house by unqualified trainers (ie they may not necessarily possess ANY Teaching Qualification), any additional demand may be sub-contracted quite easily. However,working to the Big Picture, you also find that the DWP/JCP does not possess the staff with competence to manage the Major Projects (such as Universal Job Match, Universal Credit), let alone ensure that they can control even the Bigger Projects (such as the Work Programme). I dont think that the situation will change for the better.

At least the course was delivered by a College.... and therefore it was likely to be delivered by someone qualified. Within the Flexible New Deal you could be sent onto a baloneous course, delivered by A4E or Working Links, and share a kindergarten class (or at least the facade of a Kindergarten Class), with ex offenders, those with abuse issues, and not simply unemployed Professionals etc. As long as you attend the course, I think that a key document will be The Register - however, I am not sure whether, unless someone on the course signs a Data Protection Waiver, that any adviser can expect to get feedback... whereas candidates may invoke their rights under the Data Protection Act for any personal information outside of the course to be restricted (ie what stays in the classroom, stays within the classroom).

If you wish to clarify anything arising from your experience, or that which you have heard, within Job Centre Plus, submit the query to Freedom-of-Information-Request@dwp.gsi.gov.uk Was the two week course of any benefit to you, was it delivered by someone competent and qualified,? It just occured to me that the JCP FLA Adviser which I referred to may have watched (or still be watching) Sesame Street, with the role model being "The Count".