7/02/07

Dear Kathryn,

Thanks for the response. Let me explain what I am doing. I am investigating the conduct of Jobcentreplus and its contractor, Pertemps People Development Group Ltd., with regard to New Deal provision in Kidderminster, part of the Marches Group. From my own research, attending the programme and obtaining Jobcentreplus documents I established that evidence exists that contract default is taking place. However, somebody called Phil Bartlett, acting for Lesley Strathie, has made a written statement to me contradicting that. As far as I can tell, he appears to be lying.

Besides contractual issues, of which age discrimination is a part of, there is a matter of whether provision that imposes restrictions on under 25 year olds is lawful.

I am trying to obtain evidence, in a situation where non currently exists, to support the written claim by Jobcentreplus that they are acting lawfully by running discriminatory provision.  So far, my own study and consultation with the legal profession has come up with nothing to substantiate this.  What I am requesting is that I be provided with the information that allowed the DWP to come to the conclusion that such a practice is in fact legal.  Once I obtain that, I am in a position to accept it, but in the total absence of anything positive, it is impossible for me to do so.

You might be familiar with the way Jobcentreplus do business? According to them, a Jobseeker or New Deal contractee is not considered to be fulfilling their requirements unless he or she provides evidence to support it. I am merely holding Jobcentreplus to their own high standards and can't see any legitimate reason why they wouldn't be willing to at least meet their their own code of conduct.

I am aware that clauses exist in the so called Freedom of Information Act, which, strangely, result in prevention of freedom of information.  It is in no way shape or form in the public interest to allow discrimination to take place. It is not serving the interests of a 21 year old by restricting their options on New Deal, although it is possible that it serves Jobcentreplus and Pertemps.

I don't understand the reference about unfairly exposing a public body to legal challenge. If a public body breaks the law it is very much fair to be subject to legal challenge. The release of such information serves to support their innocence and to curtail the possibility of such a legal challenge ever happening.

Under such circumstances, I am unable, for simple ethical reasons, to stand by and allow what appears to be an act of law breaking at the expense of public welfare, not to mention money. Therefore, I would like to take up your offer of an internal review of your decision. Quite frankly, I have experienced significant resistance from the DWP and Pertemps throughout my task, and have always expected to have to use the Information Commissioner and Parliamentary Ombudsman. Arrangements are already in place if this becomes necessary. I would prefer it to be otherwise, as there is no need to increase the time, effort and money required.

Yours sincerely,