Login FormClose

Free, fortnightly PIP, ESA and UC Updates

Over 80,000 claimants and professionals subscribe to the UK's leading source of benefits news.


The boss of Britain’s largest welfare to work provider believes that claimants are better off in low paid, insecure temporary work “rather than sat at home watching Jeremy Kyle” according to the Telegraph newspaper. He also argues that the government have to get the “people who are technically unfit to work, back to work” and believes that the appointment of Maximus to carry out medical assessments will lead to a surge in work for his company.

Andy Hogarth runs Staffline ,which bought out A4E last month in order to become Britain’s largest provider of welfare to work services. He believes that if the government is to succeed in its aim of cutting £12 billion from the benefits budget it will have to get people off employment and support allowance and back into work.

“For a government looking to save £12bn from welfare one of the things they have to do is get the people who are technically unfit to work, back to work, which sounds a bit brutal on the face of it, and that is exactly what a lot of welfare groups are saying, but in reality they can work.”

According to the Telegraph, Hogarth believes that his company will get an extra 2.5 million people referred to his cotelegraph article screenshotmpany over the coming years as a result of Maximus taking over the work capability assessment from Atos.

Hogarth appears to believe he is particularly suited to working with the sick and disabled claimants because of his own life experiences. When he was in his thirties, Hogarth sold a successful business for an undisclosed sum of money and then spent a year at home with “deep depression”, finding it difficult to leave the house and splitting up with his girlfriend.

He overcame his depression by going back to studying and retraining in his mid thirties.

According to the Telegraph Staffline has grown rapidly, with turnover increasing from £100 million ten years ago, to £503 million last year and aiming to hit £1bn within two years.

Much of its income comes from placing “up to 35,000 workers each week in temporary jobs, such as food processing, factory assembly lines, and picking items in warehouses.”

Hogarth believes that jobcentres only work “if you are a well motivated guy”. And while some local authorities don’t approve of his company putting people in minimum wage temporary jobs, Hogarth thinks they are mistaken, explaining:

“I personally think they are totally wrong, I think a temporary job, even if it is just for a week, is better because it then gives you a step to better pay, rather than sat at home watching Jeremy Kyle.”

Hogarth expects to have to deal with “kicking and screaming” from claimants and from pressure groups and admits that “It is hard to justify to welfare groups the profits we make . . .” . But he claims that only 20p in every pound they make is paid as dividends to shareholders.

Rather than simply being there to make money, Hogarth assures Telegraph readers his staff “are genuinely here to help people”. And, in a gesture that would delight Norman Tebbit, they generously “buy a lot of bikes so that people can get to work”.

In separate news ERSA, the umbrella body for welfare to work providers, says that the “backdrop of continued austerity and welfare reform” looks like offering their members a great opportunity. The leases on many Jobcentre plus offices come up for renewal in this parliament and ERSA hope that the government will take the opportunity to privatise the whole jobcentre network and its services.

Which would, of course, mean many more Andy Hogarth’s having the opportunity to drag claimants “kicking and screaming” into a better life.

See the Telegraph for the full story.


#29 TraceZee 2015-06-06 06:15
I've never watched Jeremy Kyle. Where does that leave me on his list of benefit claimants stereotypes?

Typical tory supporter scumbag. If he'd have been really ill he'd have understood how defamatory his statements in that report are.
#28 Chris 2015-06-03 14:27
The SNP are not the opposition in UK parliament.

They have got their Devo Max and have sided with the Tories for the 60 per cent of austerity cuts yet to come that will hit England and not Scotland.

Scotland has devolved laws about welfare and social housing and the NHS.

But Scotland, unlike Ulster, is still under the flat rate state pension law that will see the disabled / chronic sick sanctined also losing any state pension for life as well. I'm one of them, never having gained dsiability / chronic sick benefits for various trivial reasons and the gibberish the DWP phone and write you.

+2 #27 Eli48 2015-06-02 19:31
Quoting Bill:
Can anyone explain to us exactly what the meaning of this phrase is:

“people who are technically unfit to work”

It leaves the pair of us cold, but whom does it refer to?

Mrs & Mr Bill
Basically he is saying that those who are sick, and disabled, are not really sick and disabled. That is what he means by 'technically' . As in, they are liars and not sick or disabled at all.
+1 #26 algieuk 2015-06-02 07:16
Britain gained greatly from the slave trade, so why should it surprise anyone that the greedy want a return to it, and see it as acceptable?
+1 #25 sfros46 2015-06-01 12:54
I worked for 26 years in low skilled factory jobs and it's that that has given me some of the health problems I have now, with Multiple Sclerosis, Diabetes, Kidney disease, various skin problems and depression I am also waiting to find out if I have bowel cancer. At 57 I can't imagine any company would want to employ me no matter what this guy says. As for Jeremy Kyle I can't stand the program , he exploits vulnerable people who mostly need help, for the entertainment of others.
+1 #24 Chris 2015-05-31 13:33
The low waged, zero hour contracted are a quarter of the families going to foodbanks.

Their kids bin dipping for food on the way to schools, because all schools are not required by law to have breakfast clubs for all.

Low waged jobs do not guarantee food money. Sanctions are starvation by design.

Politicians living a life of luxury on the 100 per cent taxpayer, that includes the unemployed and low waged not penny a penny of income tax.

75 per cent of all tax comes from stealth taxes and VAT.

VAT on tampons, maternity pads, maternity breast pads, condoms and lubricants, hot take away food, sweets for the kids, cakes for their birthdays, fixxy drinks, duty on alcohol and cigarettes.

So the poor are super taxpayers paying a 90 per cent tax rate.

A lot more if factor in Bedtoom Tax, that is simply an excuse to wipe out social housing even more.

The demonising of the poor is saying the poor and the pensioner do not contributer.

By heck we do. Life long. We are not a burden on anyone else. We more than pay our own way.
+1 #23 Blackcat 2015-05-31 07:06
I am not a lawyer!
I know I have listed court cases,but these are landmark cases which clarify certain rights.
All I can suggest is that people Google 'The Integration Test' which will define their status in a business organisation. The other is 'Employers Liability Insurance' Employers have to take out a minimum of £7m in Insurance,are we covered due to pre existing medical conditions? Also 'Duty of Care' as a disabled person or otherwise can we fulfil our 'Duty of Care' to other employees? The' egg shell skull rule' means that employers have to take more care of people with issues not less.
+1 #22 Gawayn 2015-05-29 15:14
The article mentions that he sold a successful business. Fair enough, but that presumably means he had considerable financial resources to tide him over until he got back on his feet. That's a luxury that claimants don't have - indeed, the worry for most if not all of us is the little income we do have being snatched away, and not having enough to keep our heads above water. Quite a difference.
Exactly! But because he's an "entrepreneur" (or Public Service Carpet-bagger), that somehow makes him a medical expert as well who doesn't need to provide evidence for his ludicrous statements.
+1 #21 Gawayn 2015-05-29 02:24
Come back Pauline out of "League of Gentlemen". All is forgiven.
+4 #20 tintack 2015-05-29 01:10
The article mentions that he sold a successful business. Fair enough, but that presumably means he had considerable financial resources to tide him over until he got back on his feet. That's a luxury that claimants don't have - indeed, the worry for most if not all of us is the little income we do have being snatched away, and not having enough to keep our heads above water. Quite a difference.
+4 #19 Wulfrayn 2015-05-28 20:01
I can do it, so everyone else can do it too?? Nonsense. Also, he sold a successful business for an undisclosed sum... and then spent a year in a "deep depression" at home. Would that be diagnosed depression, or simply self-diagnosis? He brought himself out of depression by retraining. Interesting, this suggests that he tried to get a job and was unsuccessful. His business is about making money, not about getting people lasting, meaningful jobs. His comments about kicking and screaming tells you all you need to know about his motives. He wants to come across as Mr Nice Guy so that the Tory faithful read this article and think "What a nice chap, he wants to help". It's all smoke and mirrors. He is trivialising very real fears. His company will just be Atos Mark II.
+6 #18 sunshinemb 2015-05-28 13:54
The only person who will benefit in any way from this scheme is Hogarth himself!
+7 #17 Bill 2015-05-28 07:55
Can anyone explain to us exactly what the meaning of this phrase is:

“people who are technically unfit to work”

It leaves the pair of us cold, but whom does it refer to?

Mrs & Mr Bill
+7 #16 buster 2015-05-28 00:26
This guy is a complete joke (Hogarth); as for all ESA claimants supposedly sitting at home watching Jeremy Kyle (who is Jeremy Kyle anyway?); perhaps he (Hogarth) could come and meet people like my daughter and then really find out first hand how sick and disabled people spend their days. My daughter can't even see the bloody TV screen because she is blind - therefore she most certainly does not bloody watch Jeremy Kyle all day long - what a complete and utter ***t this guy is - Hogarth that is - not Jeremy Kyle.

+4 #15 Paul Richards 2015-05-27 20:47
Hi michelle gillibrand,
Yes, you are indeed right it seems - the incumbent UK Government (whoever is in power at that time!) will be brought up before the UN to answer for this - (however, as I understand it at present, the UN can still only 'advise' and not 'enforce' anything as such) - unless it has changed in the meantime!
Whatever happens - the UK Government is still a signatory to this particular 'legislation' and if they ere 'breaking it' in any way - there could still be some consequences - hopefully!!

As naheegan has also said - please keep a wary eye on the DWP - the Information Commissioner has ordered them to come up with stats on 'suicide deaths' in relation to their 'sanction' policies.

They HAVE to come up with it. If they do not they may, (as I understand it), be brought to book for 'Contempt of Court' -
If so, then we shall just have to see what happens!
+6 #14 Paul Richards 2015-05-27 20:17
Hi all,
I do not, as a matter of course take to task anyone on here - but caiti - in your case, I feel that I must do so.
I now have some questions for you to answer:
1) Have you, or any of your 'family' ever been sick, or disabled in any way whatsoever? If so, would you personally AGREE to working on the NMW for you, or any of your 'family' - in your home, (or their's) with them checking up on you on a regular basis?
2) If you caiti, ever became sick or disabled, would you like some private company to come along and say to you 'Miss/Mrs/Ms xxx will you work for us - on a minimum wage (and no more) for 'how many' hours - when you may not be able, through pain especially, to get out of your bed to 'comply' with their 'rules'!
What would you do under these circumstances?
a) Would you refuse them, (because of your pain) to work for them?
b) If you did then refuse - would you then 'accept' the sanction that they
could then - rightfully, (within the law, as it stands) place upon you?
3) If you caiti - are in full physical and mental health - WHY would you then accept that Hogarth is well within his rights to force YOU to do all of these requirements. I strongly suggest that you should look at your own 'human rights' - you are a 'human being' - you should have 'your' own full rights and will to do what you will and require.
4) caiti - just think and then reflect upon your comments on here!
5) If you are happy with ALL of this - then, at the next General Election - just vote 'Conservative' and your 'dreams'will most definitely come true.
+3 #13 Paul Richards 2015-05-27 19:38
Hi Blackcat,
Your comment is very interesting but I can only assume that it is to do with various 'Court Cases' brought in 'past years' and with that in mind again it is most probably in relation to 'what could happen if one is forced to do something against one's wishes'? (i.e with regard to this shi*t Hogarth and his most deplorable Companies?)
At the end of the day, as tintack says, he probably knows absolutely nothing about physical or mental conditions and the limitations that either or both of these places on individual people.

All I can say at the moment is with the Queen's Speech as it was so (and almost not!) put by her - there could be a lot of problems with getting rid of the Human Right's Act (also it could widely affect the devolved Countries and it is also engulfed in a wealth of obscure legislation)

Cameron and his (very limited) majority is treading on VERY thin ice - he DOES NOT have the treacherous LibDems now to 'support' him and his Government's actions. He is also going to have to go (at some point) very much head to head against the SNP.
They, as I personally see it at the moment are his only 'real' opposition until Labour get themselves sorted out.
Even the 'right-wing' BBC correspondent Robinson on BBC News this evening had to report on an anti-austerity demo outside Westminster and even he (now!!) says that Cameron and his crew may not be able to push through Parliament even a fraction of what they want to!! How it's all changed for the BBC now that they know that the Tories intend to take THEM apart in the future!!
Robinson was originally over the moon that they were going to win when the exit poll was released! What goes around comes around!!
+3 #12 shell 2015-05-27 18:39
pleased some one else has picked up on the UN our gov is already in trouble with them over the way the disabled are been treat in this country. way do u think he wants to change the human rights bill ,I am quite shocked on the little that is known about the UN story which was covered in the private eye its worth a read,
+1 #11 tazman 2015-05-27 17:43
I'm sorry Blackcat, but I'm not sure what your point is. I do have brain fog and struggle at times with in-depth items, but it hurt my brain to read your comment. Could you explain, in a simpler form for idiots like me please?
+2 #10 Paul Richards 2015-05-27 14:34
Hi Drizzle,
The reference that I referred to is Comment No 27 (by Buster) in the section on here called 'Benefits Cuts to be Revealed on 8th July'.
It seemingly came from a newspaper report originally.

You need to be logged in to comment