I wish that people who should know better would stop offering 'lifelines' and encouragement to Iain Duncan Smith and his hideous Universal Credit project. As if having the Shadow Minister for Work and Pensions proposing cross-party discussion to salvage it wasn't demoralising enough, on the eve of a scathing National Audit Office report on the mismanagement of the IT for the project The Guardian, no less, waded clumsily into the debate with an editorial encouraging IDS to 'soldier on'.
Universal Credit is currently a fiasco, but with the potential to become a fully-fledged disaster. I've blogged before about the ill-conceived 'digital by default' intention that all claims will be made online or, in exceptional circumstances, by telephone, and this is indeed happening in 'Pathfinder' areas, but while claimants must use computers and there is no provision for them to use paper forms, their actual claims are being printed out in the offices where they are being processed and their benefit calculated manually with the aid of a spreadsheet by extra staff drafted in for the purpose - about as low-tech as the 21st Century gets. Furthermore, claims are still only being taken from single jobseekers in robust good health without children, earnings or housing costs; hardly a test of any system, since the average Year Three class could probably handle the calculations for that scenario.
Panic set in when one of the UC claimants joined someone else's family, and since once a claim is made for Universal Credit, you're stuck with it, the rest of the household will now lose their income support, tax credits and housing benefit and be reassessed for UC, despite there being no systems in place to deal with such a complex claim. Had the claimant's new partner understood this, perhaps they would have been less keen to get together, but s/he is stuck with it now - even if they split up, the partner will also never be rid of Universal Credit.
This raises the grim spectre of UC spreading from claimant to cohabitee, and thus out of the quarantined 'Pathfinder' areas, like some ghastly new STD, while welfare rights organisations warn of the dangers with a gloomy 'Don't Die of Ignorance' style campaign and struggle to develop the case law to treat it effectively.
So why is 'catching' Universal Credit such a risk? Government statistics (yeah, I know...) suggest that approximately 3.2 million claimants will be better of on UC than their present benefits (albeit rigged by tampering with Working Tax Credit entitlement) and there's the lure of 'simplification' to make it appeal further, assuming you can get an Internet connection for long enough to actually make your claim. But if we take that as our starting point - the one claim for all benefits 'advantage' - it swiftly becomes apparent that this is, in gambling terms, putting everything on 'red' or 'black'. And with sanctions and questionable medical assessments making claiming social security benefits as predictable as a roulette game, that carries a massive risk.
At present, if your JSA is sanctioned or your ESA stopped after an Atos misdiagnosis, your main subsistence benefit may well be thrown into chaos, but at least any assistance via housing benefit that you're getting to keep the roof over your head can be maintained. You may need to make a 'zero income' housing benefit claim a bit sharpish, but the Council don't care if you're fit for work, seeking it actively or not, and while you serve out your suspension or make your appeal, your rent continues to be paid. Similarly, if you have children and find yourself in either of those predicaments, at least you know the Child Tax Credit will be paid while you fight your cause.
Contrast this with the fate of the Universal Credit claimant. Sanctioned - perhaps for missing your 'signing on time' due to a late bus or even a job interview (seriously, that isn't an urban myth) - and everything stops, because you aren't entitled to any of it unless you're meeting your 'claimant commitment'. Disputing a fit to work decision? Try surviving your new 'mandatory reconsideration' period with no money for you, but also nothing for your rent or your kids.
It may be convenient to have all your eggs in one basket, but that's only until someone takes the basket away.
Sunday 8 September 2013
Sunday 1 September 2013
Stale bread and circuses
There were more negative 'people on benefits' stories kicking about in the press this week, from Jamie Oliver slating the eating habits of people claiming to be poor who still - shock, horror - found the money for huge televisions, to a DWP press release on implausible defences put forward by alleged social security fraudsters. What larks! Considering that the latter was so blatant a piece of propaganda that it would have made Orwell's Ministry of Truth blush, it was disappointing to see it run unquestioned and apparently unedited in this weekend's Guardian. A depressing piece of 'friendly fire' from a paper that usually knows better.
The 'Grauniad', ironically giving the smug Mr Oliver its 'My Family Values' slot, also found room for this excellent critique of his latest headline-grabbing, totally-unrelated-to-his-new-TV-series-and- spin-off-book rant, and there is little to add to it except to confirm that low income households get their (expletive deleted) big TVs and other luxuries either on easy terms but at premium prices from the Brighthouses of this world, or occasionally as a gift from better-off relations (often the claimant's parents as a present for their grandchildren).
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/30/credit-jamie-oliver-doesnt-understand
But it's become the staple stereotype proof that life on benefits must be pretty cushy. Not so. Consider that Jobseekers' Allowance is just £112 per week for a couple, to cover food, fuel, 'phone, toiletries, utilities, clothes and shoes and weekly payments off that big TV. It's a sum most people could easily spend on a good meal and drinks for four in a decent pub-restaurant, a thought that occured to me even as we split the bill with friends for just that about a week ago.
As for the DWP press release, the devil is in the detail. While the silly stories steal the headlines, the purpose is made clear when it goes on to say that anti-fraud initiatives are to be stepped up in the autumn. So get used to seeing more drag artists in high heels claiming DLA, though it's tempting to suggest that the defence in that case missed the obvious mitigation that surely anyone trying to walk in those shoes would be in severe discomfort!
But there is a serious point to watch for in all of these cases and which illustrates that the aim is demonisation of claimants and the denegration of the benefits system rather than effective management of erroneous and fraudulent claims. These days, in contrast to common practice some years ago, there is no attempt by the DWP to present figures showing whether the claimant would have been entitled to benefit had their correct circumstances been known, nor to offset this against the sum wrongly paid.
As a result, people are going into Court accused of defrauding the Public Purse of tens of thousands of pounds, with imprisonment a potential consequence, when they might have been eligible for almost as much, and sometimes more, had their true circumstances been known. This is commonly the case where a person claiming as a lone parent has failed to declare a low-waged partner, where time and again they would have been better off receiving tax credits as a working household. In a recent case in my local area, a disabled woman was taken to Court accused of defrauding almost £80,000 for failing to disclose that she had a partner - a sum that would certainly have seen her go to prison - but was 'spared jail' as the papers say thanks to an independent report commissioned by her solicitor that showed the true difference between what she had received and what she was entitled to was an overpayment of barely £1,000.
To use an analogy I've possibly suggested before, it's like being accused of doing 100mph in a 30mph limit, when you were actually doing 35.
Which begs the question: if you genuinely want people to 'come clean' about such arrangements, why wouldn't you make a big splash of publicity about cases of this nature? The cynical side of me wonders whether that might be because it would undermine the 'we need to reform the system to make work pay' litany, since work has 'paid' in relation to out-of-work benefits in the majority of cases since the inception of tax credits and cases like this would serve to reinforce that, and make liars of the present generation of DWP spin-doctors.
Indeed, if what you really want is for people currently claiming dubiously to stop doing so, why not try an amnesty? That would certainly help anyone who knows that they went from 'it's complicated' to 'in a relationship' a little while ago, and is now afraid to own up for fear of being hit with a massive overpayment or prosecuted. It would give 'cash in hand' workers an opportunity to seek a proper contract, without the threat of being dropped in it by the employer whose been exploiting them. It would allow the claimant fighting back after serious injury to take a long, hard look at how far they've come and find the courage to hand back the keys to the motability car, without the fear of being called a scrounger for daring to get well again.
But that isn't what we're going to see. Instead, expect more women in controlling, abusive on-off relationships to be paraded through the Courts as benefit cheats, when all they've been trying to do is maintain a secure income for themselves and their children, and watch as people who've learned to live with the pain of their injuries and disabilities, and would be called 'brave' if they were wealthy, are pilloried in your local paper as play-actors and liars.
Let the Games begin...
The 'Grauniad', ironically giving the smug Mr Oliver its 'My Family Values' slot, also found room for this excellent critique of his latest headline-grabbing, totally-unrelated-to-his-new-TV-series-and- spin-off-book rant, and there is little to add to it except to confirm that low income households get their (expletive deleted) big TVs and other luxuries either on easy terms but at premium prices from the Brighthouses of this world, or occasionally as a gift from better-off relations (often the claimant's parents as a present for their grandchildren).
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/30/credit-jamie-oliver-doesnt-understand
But it's become the staple stereotype proof that life on benefits must be pretty cushy. Not so. Consider that Jobseekers' Allowance is just £112 per week for a couple, to cover food, fuel, 'phone, toiletries, utilities, clothes and shoes and weekly payments off that big TV. It's a sum most people could easily spend on a good meal and drinks for four in a decent pub-restaurant, a thought that occured to me even as we split the bill with friends for just that about a week ago.
As for the DWP press release, the devil is in the detail. While the silly stories steal the headlines, the purpose is made clear when it goes on to say that anti-fraud initiatives are to be stepped up in the autumn. So get used to seeing more drag artists in high heels claiming DLA, though it's tempting to suggest that the defence in that case missed the obvious mitigation that surely anyone trying to walk in those shoes would be in severe discomfort!
But there is a serious point to watch for in all of these cases and which illustrates that the aim is demonisation of claimants and the denegration of the benefits system rather than effective management of erroneous and fraudulent claims. These days, in contrast to common practice some years ago, there is no attempt by the DWP to present figures showing whether the claimant would have been entitled to benefit had their correct circumstances been known, nor to offset this against the sum wrongly paid.
As a result, people are going into Court accused of defrauding the Public Purse of tens of thousands of pounds, with imprisonment a potential consequence, when they might have been eligible for almost as much, and sometimes more, had their true circumstances been known. This is commonly the case where a person claiming as a lone parent has failed to declare a low-waged partner, where time and again they would have been better off receiving tax credits as a working household. In a recent case in my local area, a disabled woman was taken to Court accused of defrauding almost £80,000 for failing to disclose that she had a partner - a sum that would certainly have seen her go to prison - but was 'spared jail' as the papers say thanks to an independent report commissioned by her solicitor that showed the true difference between what she had received and what she was entitled to was an overpayment of barely £1,000.
To use an analogy I've possibly suggested before, it's like being accused of doing 100mph in a 30mph limit, when you were actually doing 35.
Which begs the question: if you genuinely want people to 'come clean' about such arrangements, why wouldn't you make a big splash of publicity about cases of this nature? The cynical side of me wonders whether that might be because it would undermine the 'we need to reform the system to make work pay' litany, since work has 'paid' in relation to out-of-work benefits in the majority of cases since the inception of tax credits and cases like this would serve to reinforce that, and make liars of the present generation of DWP spin-doctors.
Indeed, if what you really want is for people currently claiming dubiously to stop doing so, why not try an amnesty? That would certainly help anyone who knows that they went from 'it's complicated' to 'in a relationship' a little while ago, and is now afraid to own up for fear of being hit with a massive overpayment or prosecuted. It would give 'cash in hand' workers an opportunity to seek a proper contract, without the threat of being dropped in it by the employer whose been exploiting them. It would allow the claimant fighting back after serious injury to take a long, hard look at how far they've come and find the courage to hand back the keys to the motability car, without the fear of being called a scrounger for daring to get well again.
But that isn't what we're going to see. Instead, expect more women in controlling, abusive on-off relationships to be paraded through the Courts as benefit cheats, when all they've been trying to do is maintain a secure income for themselves and their children, and watch as people who've learned to live with the pain of their injuries and disabilities, and would be called 'brave' if they were wealthy, are pilloried in your local paper as play-actors and liars.
Let the Games begin...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)