Increase the National Minimum Wage and slash the benefits bill!

On reason why the welfare bill is so big, is because of the gradual drift since the 1970s towards subsidising low earnings through the benefits and tax credits system.  This was started by the Conservatives under Edward Heath with Family Income Supplement and Rent Rebates, added to by the Thatcher government's mass shifting of public subsidy from bricks and mortar to rents for those on low incomes with the introduction of Housing Benefit and then accelerated under New Labour with the introduction of Tax Credits. 

The Coalition's Universal Credit will just make this worse by reducing the "withdrawal rate" when people earn and the automatic adjustment of benefits through the proposed Real Time computer system will provide a ready workforce which can be called in and sent home when it suits employers - public subsidy not just of low pay, but poor employment practises too.

It stands to reason that if wage levels increase, the amount paid out as public subsidy through benefits and tax credits is reduced and now the Resolution Foundation and the Institute for Public Policy Research have quantified this.  Specifically, increasing the National Minimum Wage would save the public purse a net £2 billion.  It is surprising that there seems to be no government research into this which I discussed in an earlier blog.

Here is a summary of the Resolution Foundation and IPPR research in their press release:

PAYING A LIVING WAGE COULD SAVE THE UK BILLIONS

Introducing the living wage across the UK would save the Treasury just over £2 billion a year, a new study will reveal.

The analysis from the Resolution Foundation and the IPPR think tanks to be published early in the New Year is the most detailed examination yet of the potential impact of the living wage on the public finances. The living wage is a pay level calculated as the minimum hourly rate for a basic but acceptable standard of living and currently set at £7.45 outside London and £8.55 in the capital.

The new analysis suggests that its introduction nationally would add around £6.5 billion to the gross annual earnings of the country’s employees.

However, the report shows that the Treasury would collect more than half of the initial financial gains from a living wage – around £3.6 billion - in the form of higher income tax payments and national insurance contributions, as well as lower spending on benefits and tax credits.

But the study also examines the extra costs to the public purse of paying a living wage to all public sector workers. It suggests that wage costs would increase by more than £1.3 billion – leaving an overall public saving of more than £2 billion.

The report will also look at the possible effects of a living wage on labour demand, recognising that the lower national minimum wage (currently £6.19) is set by the Low Pay Commission to avoid risking jobs and that an immediate shift to a universal living wage across all sectors may not be feasible.

As a start, the report will recommend, all Whitehall departments and London boroughs should pay their staff at least the living wage by April 2015 and explore the costs of paying sub-contracted staff the same rate. The London weighting means that most public sector workers already earn at or above the London living wage, so introducing the living wage for all staff would cost relatively little in the capital but would set a precedent for others to consider following. Only six London boroughs currently are accredited living wage employers -Lewisham, Islington, Camden, Lambeth, Hounslow, and Southwark.

Five million people are paid less than the living wage, three million of whom are women. Yet more than 85 per cent have permanent contracts. More than 3 million households (13 per cent) contain at least one adult earning less than the living wage. Fewer than 45,000 workers have achieved a living wage as a result of recent campaigns.

The report builds on research previously published by Resolution Foundation and IPPR which showed that the cost of paying a living wage would add less than one per cent to the wage bills of firms in sectors such as construction, food production and banking.

Kayte Lawton, Senior Research Fellow at the IPPR  said: "At a time when typical wages have flatlined but prices have continued rising, concerted action to drive up levels of pay for low earners is an essential component in the improvement of living standards. As a first step, making sure that all council staff in London are paid at least the living wage wouldn’t cost very much but would be an important symbol of political leadership. Councils in other parts of the country, like Glasgow and Newcastle, have shown that the living wage can be affordable even though the costs are higher."

Matthew Pennycook, Senior Analyst at the Resolution Foundation, said: "There are significant overall public savings to be made from paying a living wage, on top of the beneficial effects it would have on reducing working poverty. Public-sector employers are well-placed to expand the living wage and to set an example which the private sector can follow."

Workers earning less than a living wage across the country:
32% in the North East (375,000 people)
31% in Yorkshire and Humber (714,000 people)
31% in Wales (344,000 people)
30% in the West Midlands (617,000 people)
28% in the East Midlands (552,000 people)
27% in Scotland (623,000 people)
27% in the South West (583,000 people)
25% in the North West (683,000 people)
24% in the East of England (593,000 people)
23% in the South East (843,000 people)
20% in London (581,000 people)

Not blaming the poor

The myths about skivers and scroungers seem to have become so embedded in national consciousness that it is refreshing to see some honest and objective research attack the widespread misconceptions, as recently published by the esteemed Joseph Rowntree Foundation.  There's also no research from the right-inclined policy research bodies which supports the idea that people are choosing to have to survive on benefits.

This issue is becoming a central political theme and is of huge importance for the type of country we will be living in.  As another Neil said, "I warn you not to be ordinary. I warn you not to be young. I warn you not to fall ill. I warn you not to get old".
 

Are ‘cultures of  worklessness’ passed down the generations?

This study investigates the idea of ‘intergenerational cultures of worklessness’ and if there are families where ‘three generations have never worked’. It is based on research with families living in deprived neighbourhoods in Glasgow and Middlesbrough.

Key points

• The idea of ‘three generations of the same family who have never worked’ appeals to many,including politicians and policy-makers, as an explanation of entrenched worklessness in the UK.
• Despite strenuous efforts, the researchers were unable to locate any such families. Even two generations of complete worklessness in the same family was a very rare phenomenon, which is consistent with recent quantitative surveys of this issue.
• Families experiencing long-term worklessness remained committed to the value of work and preferred to be in jobs rather than on benefits.
• There was no evidence of ‘a culture of worklessness’ – values, attitudes and behaviours discouraging employment and encouraging welfare dependency – in the families.
• Workless parents were keen for their children to do better than they had, and actively tried to help them find jobs. Working-age offspring remained strongly committed to conventional values about work as part of a normal transition to adulthood. They were keen to avoid the poverty, worklessness and other problems experienced by their parents. 
• The long-term worklessness of parents in these families was a result of the impact of complex, multiple problems associated with living in deep poverty over years.
• Policy-makers and politicians need to abandon theories – and resulting policies – that see worklessness as primarily the outcome of a culture of worklessness, held in families and passed down the generations.

More details here

Unspeakable, but why are we not surprised?

From The Independent 4th December 2012

"Disabled man abandoned on the second floor of building during Atos fire alarm evacuation

A disabled man was trapped in a centre run by Atos, which assesses fitness for work, when the fire alarm went off and staff evacuated the building, leaving him behind in his wheelchair.
Geoff Meeghan, 32, who has early-onset Parkinson’s and is unable to walk more than three metres without support, was being assessed on the second floor of a building in Neasden, north-west London.

Disabled people arriving for appointments are supposed to be asked if they can exit the building without assistance, but Mr Meeghan, pictured, was not. He waited with his support worker Nick Ephgrave, from the charity Parkinson’s UK, and his sister, who acts as one of his carers, before being called in for his assessment. A few minutes in, the alarm sounded and the doctor present said they needed to evacuate.

“The doctor held the door open for us to come out but then ran down the stairs and left us there,” Mr Meeghan said. “We weren’t allowed to use the lift and asked a security guard for help – he said he’d send some but no one came. Eventually another security guard came past and stayed with us, even though he had been told to evacuate.

“Even though I can tackle stairs with help, it was a highly stressful situation and I felt like it was far too risky. I was worried that flames might come up the stairs and that I might fall or something. It wasn’t a drill. We could see the fire engine arriving outside. I feel like there was a general lack of respect for disabled people at Atos – they make you feel as though you’ve done something wrong by being disabled – like you’re being persecuted.”

An Atos spokesperson said: “This should never have happened and we apologise unreservedly. We will be getting in contact with Mr Meeghan directly. We have since reviewed this case internally with the building security and management team to ensure this doesn’t happen again.”

Is the Department for Work and Pensions a failing organisation?

The DWP is very adept at covering up bad news about its errors.  And we also hear accounts of how staff are threatened with management action if they go public about internal problems.

Advisers regularly encounter the most awful service - indifferent, patronising and even rude and obstructive behaviour by some staff, excessive delays, abysmal benefit entitlement decisions by staff who don't know what they are doing.  There are of course many notable exceptions and I have been really impressed with the professionalism of some of the staff I have dealt with.

Certainly when I was seconded to DWP headquarters some years ago to do policy work for six months, the working atmosphere was far more pleasant than other organisations I had worked for and I really enjoyed working with most of the people I met.

However, given what us advisers encounter, the DWP as a whole very often looks seriously incompetent.  Not quite as bad as the Home Office, but in the same league.

There clearly are major problems within DWP.  The best evidence is found in their annual staff survey done each autumn.  This has consistently shown that staff morale is dreadful.  The most recently published survey is from 2011 (2012 has not yet been published).  Here are some headlines:

• Only 23% of DWP staff believe that the organisation is well managed
•  Only 14% believe that when changes in DWP are made, they are usually for the better
• Only 21% believe that actions of DWP's senior managers are consistent with DWP's values
• Only 27% believe it is safe to challenge the way things are done in DWP
• Only 16% have confidence in DWP's senior managers' decisions
• Only 38% are satisfied with the training they receive
• Only 27% are proud of working for DWP and only 24% feel that DWP inspires them ton do the best in their job
• And only 22% believe that DWP's senior managers will take any action on the results in the survey.

Even among the 200 or so senior civil servants who were surveyed, only 13% believed that the top management team modelled a culture of effective teamwork, only 20% felt that poor performance was effectively dealt with and only 34% felt the appraisal system was fair and based on merit.

You can read the full survey results here and decide yourself whether this is a evidence of a failing organisation:   DWP staff survey 2011   DWP Senior Civil Sservice Survey 2011

Too often the debate about welfare reform is evidence-free and based on wildy inaccurate stereotypes of spongers living it up at the taxpayers' expenses, here is some brand new research about the reality of "life on benefit" for private sector tenants.  I am pleased to have been one of the research team:

New Report: ‘Poor homes, poor health- to heat or to eat? Private sector tenant choices in 2012′

  

Stark choices for private tenants on benefits and increased demands on the NHS

“The health of tenants in the private rented sector who are in receipt of housing and other benefits, is
clearly being put further at risk as a consequence of the Government’s welfare reforms and poor conditions within the sector, and this is not just a London issue”, said Dr Stephen Battersby, Chair of the Pro Housing Alliance at the launch of a research report commissioned by the PHA – Poor homes, poor health- to heat or to eat? Private sector tenant choices in 2012.
He continued, “The study by GLHS shows that lack of security and high costs for what can be dangerous and unhealthy housing contributes to poor health including mental health. This is made worse by the difficulties of finding the money to keep warm and eat – sometimes tenants cannot do both. This will lead to greater demands on the NHS, and one wonders if this is part of a policy of coercion by destitution” he said.

Gill Leng who led the research said “Talking to tenants and advice agencies up and down the country has shown just how the cuts are impacting on people who already have very little money to live on. It is clear that health inequalities will be further increased not reduced”.
She highlighted one quote from a tenant interviewed in Blackpool where rent is comparatively cheap and the PRS accounts for 22% of the housing market, but who could not move to cheaper accommodation:

“It would have to be a tent in a field.”
A single pensioner interviewed said:
“I have lost contact with all my old friends because I am embarrassed about the circumstances I am living in and my lack of money.”
It is difficult for advice agencies too, who are in their own words “drowning under demand”. One adviser interviewed said
“People will live in dangerous situations with their fingers crossed rather than tackle their landlord.”
The worries about landlords and lack of security at the cheaper end of the market condemn tenants to suffer. As two quotes from the report highlight:
“Went to CAB about damp. Have had difficult conversations with landlord who threatened he would not renew my contract if I pursue this.”
“[Landlord] is not a nice bloke to get on the wrong side of.”

The report concludes that the Government should be doing more to assess the public health impacts of the welfare reforms, particularly as cutting one budget which merely reflects the high cost of housing, increases demands on other budgets such as GPs in the NHS.
The full report can be downloaded www.prohousingalliance.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/GLHS-report-final4-11-12W2007NoLogo.pdf 

Panorama and Dispatches expose the scandal of sick people being declared fit for work

Two TV programmes last night exposing the scandal of the DWP and ATOS perversely declaring people fit for work when they clearly aren't.  I am interviewed on Panorama.

Most disturbing of all are the evasive and contradictory comments on Panorama by DWP Minister Chris Grayling MP about whether or not there are targets to cut the numbers getting benefits.  In the context of a legally regulated system, targets would not only be unlawful but potentially actionable by anyone who has lost out as a result.

Just as well he was not appearing before a Tribunal or his evidence might be declared unreliable.  Also his awful comment which encourages judges to ignore the law when making decisions on appeals. 

Funny how many rulers seem to think that the rule of law only applies to laws which control the poor and not to laws which empower them and help them achieve justice.

BBC Panorama   Channel 4 Dispatches

More forced, unpaid labour

A report that compulsory unpaid work for Jobseekers Allowance claimants will be extended.  I did warn you.  All the evidence (examples given in this blog) shows that this won't reduce unemployment, so the government's response will be to extend it further: 9 months? 12 months? Forever?

Note the typically hopeless comment by the useless Liam Byrne MP.

Doctors' advice ignored by politicians

The doctors' professional association, British Medical Association, is the latest organisation to call for the Employment and Allowance Work Capability Assessment to be scrapped.  They rightly describe it harmful to vulnerable people and "accusatory".

You can read their comments here.

Shortly after, Citizens Advice reports a surge in people seeking advice about ESA appeals - at a time when funding for advice agencies is being cut back.

Like patients who are too obsessed and arrogant to have any insight into their health-damaging behaviour,  I doubt that any national politicians will be taking the doctors' advice.

The on-off video

The Ministry of Justice publishes several public information videos on YouTube - topics include how to be a witness, what happens at an Employment Tribunal and so on.  It's the sort of neutral and useful information you'd expect to see.  In March they uploaded a short video showing what happens at a Tribunal hearing Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) appeals. 

Obviously the DWP didn't like this - by demystifying the process, it was likely to encourage appellants to attend the Tribunal and thus increase their chances of success.  So on 19th March Chris Grayling MP, DWP Minister responsible for ESA sent an email to the Ministry of Justice objecting to the content.

I obtained the email using the Freedom of Information Act.  Here it is:

“From: Minister for Employment [mailto:MINISTER.EMPLOYMENT@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK]
Sent: 19 March 2012 14:32
To:
Cc: Minister for Employment
Subject: Youtube video about appeals

Afternoon, our attention has been drawn to a video on your official youtube channel that talks about making an appeal on Employment and Support Allowance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L8EPHDjeqU

Specific concerns are:

• The line that the claimant may not have had a chance to talk to someone since the decision was made - our new processes ensure that Jobcentre Plus will have spoken to the claimant to ensure they understand what the decision is, why it’s been made and what they can do next;

• It says the claimant will have received a medical examination - the Work Capability Assessment is not a medical examination, if the word medical must be used we’d be OK with medical assessment, but would prefer something like “an assessment of your capability for work”;

• It mentions bringing additional evidence to the tribunal - again, our new processes are trying to ensure that new medical evidence doesn’t just go to the tribunal but instead gets to JCP first so we can undertake a reconsideration;

• It notes that JCP doesn’t normally send anyone to a tribunal - while this is true both because of cost and because the evidence suggests it makes no difference to the tribunal decision, it does feel quite a negative comment. The appearance of a presenting officer or not doesn’t reflect how important we feel the tribunal is or the claimant’s case is; and

• A couple of times it’s noted that a claimant is twice as likely to win their appeal if they turn up in person - again this is broadly true, but doesn’t help to reduce the opinion that it isn’t the facts of the case that are important, but the turning up in front of a tribunal and pleading their case.

Can we discuss what we might be able to do? ”

So basically, Grayling objected to various comments which would encourage people to participate in the hearing.  His objection to "medical examination" is perverse - not only is the phrase used in the law, but it's also used by ATOS and DWP in their letters to people.

He also wanted people to not send in evidnce to the Tribunal - this would put people at a huge disadvantage and the rationale that DWP should see it is misleading because all evidence sent in advance is copied to all parties, including DWP and if they had the courtesy to actually attend Tribunal hearings, they'd get to see evidence handed in at the hearing.  And as we all know, even when they have seen compelling evidence, the DWP still ignore it.

Anyway, having had this information released, by coincidence (?) the video re-appeared on YouTube the same day I received the information.  This then led to over 9,000 views as word got out on the disability and advice networks - Grayling's attempt to censor the video just increased the level of interest in it.  Curiously, the Ministry of Justice denied that any information exists about the video!

Having had such a surge in interest, the video was again taken offline by the Ministry of Justice.  "Mystery of Justice" might be a better description.

I have fired off another Freedom of Information request, but this will take weeks.  In the meantime, various people made copies of the video and you can view it on Youtube by searching here.

So far over 5,000 people have since seen it.

Cameron's welfare reform speech

Cameron's much publicised speech on Monday about further cuts in benefits for people of working age is deeply worrying.  The issue of housing benefit for under 25s has caught the headlines, but there is a danger that this obscures the clutch of other very nasty ideas.

The model being promoted is a USA-style welfare system.  Now this is the country with the worst health outcomes in the wealthy world, the worst inequalities, the worst crime figures and any visitor to the US can tell you tales of the hordes of mentally ill, disabled and destitute people to be seen on the streets.  Over one million families in the USA are homeless and 10% of the US population have to resort to a food bank at some point each year.  It really is the last welfare system that any government with half a brain should want to copy.

Obama is so concerned about the injustice and negative economic effect of their welfare system that he has made efforts to increase the level of welfare payments in and some states have been reining in their workfare programmes and have prosecuted private welfare-to-work providers for mass fraud.  Of course, Cameron conveniently ignores these aspects.

That aside, I was deeply concerned about the wild inaccuracies about the benefits system in Cameron's speech.  Either he was misbriefed by civil servants or he chose to ignore briefings. 

I find it amazing how people in the UK are generally pretty cynical about politicians' truthfulness - lies about the Iraq War, expenses scandal, broken Manifesto promises, etc.  However, as soon as a politician slags off benefit claimants, everyone believes them!

Anyway, here are some examples of the fibs in Dave's speech:

"Tens of thousands of incapacity benefits reassessed and found ready for work".  Not true.  People are found not to meet the very high threshold for "limited capability for work", not "fit for work", let alone "ready for work".  As his Minister Chris Grayling conceded not long ago, very many coming off benefits for the sick have significant health issues.  And then we all know how flawed the re-assessment process is anyway.

"..instead of a complicated pension with endless top-ups there will be a straightforward, flat rate of £140 per week".  Not true.  Very many poorer pensioners will still have to claim the housing credit element of Universal Credit (so complex, the DWP still hasn't been able to announce details) and try their luck at claiming one of the many new local versions of council tax support.  So three bodies will have to be applied to, as opposed to the current two.

"Half of new [DLA] claimants never had to provide medical evidence".  That's because the DWP usually write direct to the claimant's doctor and/or seek evidence from an ATOS doctor - it's called efficiency.  Anyway, if this is so flawed, all you have to do Mr Cameron is to get people to supply such evidence without turning the disability benefits system upside down from April 2013 as you are doing.

"Someone can get £130 a week DLA by simply filling out a bit of paper".  Pray, what's the evidence that this is the case?  As the parent of a child who received DLA after a struggle (you said so at a reception you hosted at the House of Commons in 2007 - I know, I was there), you ought to know better.

Cameron then gives the example of a working couple without children taking home £24,000 a year with a couple down the road who have 4 children and get £27,000 a year in benefits for not working.  Of course they get more...because their needs are greater because they have children.  If the working couple had children, they'd get benefits and tax credits to help out, so it's a completely false and highly misleading comparison.  Apparently the workless couple also get £140 per week housing benefit - where does this figure come from?

As regards housing benefit, there really is a simple solution:  bring in rent controls like most other countries have and stop landlords being subsidised by and dependant on the benefits system.  Sadly government policy is going in the other direction by forcing up rents in the social sector to 80% of the private sector. 

"[19 year old young person] left college and went down to the jobcentre to sign on for Jobseekers Allowance, she found out that if she moved out of her parents' place she was automatically entitled to housing benefit".  Now which planet is this man on?  Life is not at all like this.  First, this mythical young person would have to find a landlord who accepted people on housing benefit.  They she'd have to somehow raise the money for a deposit and rent in advance (two months in practice, as HB is paid usually one month in arrear), then pay to equip the place.  And even if she could somehow do all that on her own, the DWP's own figures show that two thirds don't get all their rent paid by HB.  The evidence from DWP was published just last week and is here.  Then the young person has to feed. and clothe herself and pay her water, fuel and transport out of all of £56.25 a week (assuming they don't have a shortfall in their HB).  So Dave, please explain how your example can happen in real life?

"It pays not to work".  Again not true.  The problem is the means tested system which penalises people for trying to work combined with our high land costs in the UK, high costs of travel and high costs of childcare.  That's assuming the system actually works and doesn't screw up people's income or ask for money back because of some official cock-up.  Of course, that'll never happen under Universal Credit will it?

"[causes of poverty]...debt, family breakdown, educational failure or addiction".  What about our persistent problems of high unemployment since the 1980s and the extent of low pay?  And anyway only 4% of working age claimants have any addiction and you do get addicts in work - ask any musician.  But then putting it this way, Cameron gives out the message that poverty is all down to the financially incompetent, spouse-deserting, unintelligent boozers and druggies in our midst.

"If someone is signed off work with a bad back there's no requirement to take steps to get well to keep on receiving that benefit".  Well actually, they wouldn't have got benefit for the "bad back", even under the old system, unless it was a serious and chronic problem which could not be sorted out easily.  Anyway, what Cameron says is again not true.  People who get ESA and who are in the work related activity group can be required to identify rehabilitation they could do. 

And on it goes.  Half truth followed by distortion followed by innuendo.  Also outrageous that his "facts" have not been challenged by the useless Liam Byrne.

A powerful video - must watch

A really powerful 10 minute video from The Guardian about what is happening to benefit claimants.  It includes a reference to the leaked internal DWP email about people committing suicide after having their benefits cut.

DWP press officers, try to play down the impact of the service on people, but all advisers regularly encounter claimants at their wits end, and worse as a result of problems with the benefits system.

And still the Labour Front Bench don't stand up and challenge the government on welfare reform - obsessed with the small demographic of a few swing voters in marginal seats who are apparently concerned about "scroungers".  Shame on them.

As a very experienced, (and I hope knowledgeable), adviser, there are many times when I find dealing with the DWP on behalf of my clients absolutely maddening.  How must it feel for people caught up in the system and left with little or no money and being punished for their poverty?

Forced labour for benefit claimants - a scathing analysis

Jonathan Portes is the former Chief Economist at the DWP and the Cabinet Office and he now heads up the National Institute for Economic and Social Research.  His blog contains a devastating critique of the government's plans to force benefit claimants to work for their benefits.  Read it by clicking here.

Troubled Families and a Pickled Troubled Initiative

History shows that every so often there is moral panic about an alleged underclass who it is claimed subvert the nation's moral fibre.  It goes right back through the centuries.

The problem is that when the evidence for such claims is presented, it simply fails any half-decent scrutiny, consisting as it does of weakly correlated estimates and assumptions.

So shame on the civil servants who have allowed ministers to get away with the latest "Troubled Families" initiative.  By lumping a pile of health, social care and criminal justice costs together and then cross referencing it to some data on poverty (yes, poverty, not anti-social behaviour), we are told there are 120,000 "Troubled families" and we are told that this underclass costs us a small fortune. 

Using poverty data and then equating it with anti-social and criminal behaviour is an appalling slur on the thousands who live by society's standards and bring their children up to be good citizens despite their dreadful economic circumstances.  Yes, people who are poor are more likely to become offenders, addicts or unwell, but it does not follow that multiple deprivation makes you a nuisance neighbour any more than great wealth makes you a kind-hearted, generous person or a mean, old Scrooge.

Of course, originally, the government claimed there were 150,000 Troubled Families, but then even they couldn't get the figures to justify this number and the figure was quietly reduced by 20%.

So "troubleshooters" are going to go and cajole these people into becoming better citizens.  One of the indicators is that someone in the family moves into paid work.  Well, if these families really are that dysfunctional and their kids so feral, do we really want their parents working long hours and the kids not having a modicum of parental restraint as a result! 

How about cajoling a few employers to create jobs for them or cajoling a few credit companies into cleaning up their act?

No, this is a Troubled Initiative which will fail because it is based on blaming the poor rather than the socio-economic causes which either cause or exacerbate complex social and inter-personal problems.  It is also the height of naivety to think that troubleshooters, whoever they may be, can somehow outperform professionally trained and supervised social workers, teachers and youth workers.

The British Association of Social Workers has a very perceptive assessment of the Troubled Initiative which I reproduce below:

"Commenting on plans unveiled by the Westminster secretary of state for communities, Eric Pickles, for all 152 councils in England to be incentivised to send in “trouble-shooters” to deal with problem families, Nushra Mansuri, professional officer, British Association of Social Workers, has suggested the move is indiscriminately picking on families with low incomes.

Speaking after Mr Pickles outlined the plan to encourage councils to take steps to tackle problems said to emanate from 120,000 families, Ms Mansuri said: “Is the government saying that being poor is a crime? This figure of 120,000 ‘problem families’ being bandied about is cobbled together from research that was conducted 8 years ago, and was based on families having 5 out of 7 characteristics, including no parent in work, and having a low income.

“In today’s economic climate, that could apply to many, many families. A family having problems does not automatically equate to them being labelled a ‘problem family’ and causing a nuisance to anyone else. This is particularly unfair when the government’s austerity programme is driving so many more people into poverty.”

The Pickles plan is based on the government’s wish to “turn around” the lives of the so-called “problem families” by 2015. The government estimates that the 120,000 families are currently costing the state around £9bn each year in costs to the NHS, the police and social services.

Ministers have earmarked £448m from existing departmental budgets over four years to help pay for a network of people who will identify families in need of help, make sure they get access to the right services and ensure that action is taken. However, the fund will only cover 40% of the cost of the scheme and councils who want to use it will have to agree to fund the other 60% themselves.

To be defined as “troubled” the government says families need to meet five out of seven criteria, including having truanting children, parents with addiction and a history of anti-social behaviour.

However, research by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) has questioned the government’s calculation of the number of families that meet this criteria. An ERSC report says ministers are misrepresenting its background research on which the figure of 120,000 “troubled families” is based.

Focusing on the government’s definition, BASW’s Mansuri continued: “The government also needs to decide whether there is a link between deprivation and crime or not. At the time of last summer’s riots, David Cameron said: ‘These riots were not about poverty. That insults the millions of people who, whatever the hardship, would never dream of making others suffer like this.’

“Now we have the government stirring up hatred against poor families, stigmatising them and attempting to dismiss the entire social work profession as wishy washy do-gooders.

“If Mr Pickles was “fluent in social work”, he would realise that cutting back social work services to children and families and not deploying frontline social workers in the most effective way is not the answer. Early intervention ends up costing the state less both financially and socially.

“As for dispensing with the ‘it’s not my fault’ culture, perhaps the government could start by ending the blame culture. Going after a tiny minority and constantly pillorying them is not the most effective means of promoting social inclusion and community cohesion, it tends to up the ante and promote
self-fulfilling prophecies of failure for some families and sadly, poor outcomes for children.

“The government seeks to punish and bully people for being disadvantaged. We fail to see how this will result in a fairer and more harmonious society for any of us.”

Mandatory work activity - more pain for more people

Yep. As predicted the government extends the scale of mandatory work activity for unemployed people, even though the DWP's own research shows it makes virtually no difference to long term benefit numbers.  Oh well, don't let statistics get in the way of a good bit of welfare bashing.

The only reported opposition from the utterly useless and disengaged Labour spokesman, Liam Byrne MP (please Birmingham, make him mayor), is that the scheme would not help that many people. Nothing about opposition to the principle of workfare or its destructive effects on job creation, wage levels (which then require public subsidy via benefits/tax credits) or how it actually prevents helping people moving into paid work.

Forced unpaid labour for the Jubilee

Media reports about unemployed people being made to do unpaid work as stewards on the Jubilee Pageant.  And also made to sleep rough as part of it. 

This is an inevitable result of all the main political parties' obsession with punishing unemployed people through forced labour.  Sign a petition against this by clicking here.

Gender? Name?

I just love some of the correspondence we get from the DWP.

Like the one I have had addressed to "Mr N Bateman".  (Yes "Mr".  It's significant.  Read on).  So they know my name and they know my gender and they managed to get them both right.  Well done guys!

Then we have the salutation in the letter:  "Dear Sir or Madam".

And they say benefit claimants are confused.

More scandalous ESA evidence

Two more cases in the press which will have a familiar ring for advice workers.  It's quite outrageous that the government and DWP officials can still assert that the Work Capability Assessment is reliable and that those who fail the test are fit for work. 

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2137377/Man-suffering-blood-clots-open-ulcers-loses-benefits-job-centre-labels-fit-work.html#ixzz1td5m6v00

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/29/benefits-system-fit-for-work

The effect of the National Minimum Wage on benefits expenditure

Anyone who knows anything about the benefits system, knows that means tested benefits and tax credits decrease when earnings increase.

Therefore, it follows that an increase in the National Minimum Wage of £x an hour would reduce benefits expenditure by £y million and tax credits expenditure by £z million.

Given the significance of this I asked both DWP and HMRC, using the Freedom of Information Act, to provide me with any information they have about this.  Replies have now come back and they both state they do not hold such information.

Of course research into this subject would not be straightforward and estimates which came out of it would be subject to uncertainty.  But am I missing something by expressing surprise that neither the DWP nor HMRC have done any research about this?

Unpaid labour. A free workforce for employers and funded by the taxpayer.

The government looks set to announce a significant move to extend compulsory unpaid labour for people on Jobseekers Allowance.  www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/26/work-free-programme-expanded-government?newsfeed=true

The arguments have all been made elsewhere against this, self-defeating, punitive and stigmatising provision of an unpaid workforce which does not create any jobs.  But then it's a great way to force people off benefit and into the shadowlands of "no work no welfare" while also shifting the blame for unemployment onto jobseekers.

This can only come about because the opposition from the mainstream has so far been pretty hopeless.  Voluntary bodies, local authorities, advice agencies, trade unions and the Labour Party, with a few notable exceptions, have failed to build an alliance of principled and organised opposition to this.

Mark my words, if the government gets away with this, they'll be back for more.

Tax fraud vs benefit fraud

Next time you hear someone banging on about benefit fraud (annual cost £1.5 billion), remind them of the latest estimate of the "tax gap" (annual cost £35 billion). www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/news/hmrc-compliance/

Even the Daily Mail was shocked - though some of the self-justifying comments by readers are in stark contrast to what we would see if it was an article about benefit fraud . www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2149038/Cheats-avoided-paying-taxes-year-created-35billion-hole-public-purse.html

There's also a further £25 billion owed by corporations: www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/news/hmrc-tax-disputes-report/

Yes, it's a class thing.

Doctors demand that the Work Capability Assessment is scrapped

British Medical Association's conference for GPs votes for the immediate scrapping of the WCA.  Yet still the government, DWP officials and all the main parties pretend it works or just needs tweaking.  Come on, take the doctors' advice.

web2.bma.org.uk/pressrel.nsf/wlu/GGRT-8UKF4B?OpenDocument&vw=wfmsc

Any medals for the sponsor?

Extraordinary news that ATOS, the French owned company responsible for DWP medical examinations are to sponsor the Paralympics.

www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/may/21/paralympic-games-organisers-defend-atos-sponsorship?intcmp=239

There is massive evidence of inappropriate medical evidence being submitted to DWP benefit decision makers by ATOS health care professionals which then results in disabled people having their benefits stopped.  It will be interesting to learn how ATOS feel they can sponsor the premier sports event for disabled people without a shadow of a blush.

Latest example of the role of ATOS is in a report by a group of Scottish GPs:  Note the reference to the ATOS Medical Assessment Centre in Glasgow as "Lourdes":  where the sick go in and come out cured.

www.rightsnet.org.uk/?ACT=39&fid=28&aid=364_43V9KhdkodIXca7zxXLw&board_id=1

Universal Credit - back to giros

A relaible source has revealed to the Welfare Righter that because the DWP's computer system is unlikely to be ready in time for the start of the national roll-out of Universal Credit (October 2013), payments of the new benefit will be made "manually".

It remains to be seen what wonders will be foisted onto welfare world by the DWP's IT problems and the government's unwise rush to get the new system going.

You couldn't make it up, but they can

Dreadful story about benefit fraud investigators in Basildon pursuing a case where there was no fraud:  www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9264797/Council-claimed-key-whistleblower-who-did-not-exist-in-benefit-fraud-case.html

Here they go again

DWP Press Office has released figures alleging that thousands of those found "fit for work" as part of the transfer to Employment and Support Allowance (disputable - see post below) have been on sickness related benefits for years: www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-releases/2012/may-2012/dwp047-12.shtml

Aside from the usual misleading nature of this, the timing is interesting.  It comes on the same day that the Daily Telegraph headlined on their front page how 500,000 people will lose entitlement to Disability Living Allowance as a result of changes and the introduction of Personal Independence Payment starting in 2013 (www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9263453/500000-to-lose-disability-benefit.html).  This was as a result of an interview with IDS himself.

Most members of the public will not have sufficient knowledge to distinguish between DLA and ESA and are likely to think that the changes to DLA are being brought in to deal with people who are not "really disabled" and are fit for work.  Indeed, there is a scent of this in the Telegraph article.

So one must wonder why the DWP chose to issue this press release today after the Telegraph article.  Was it incompetence or  a desire to deliberately conflate the issues in the minds of the wider public?  We need to know.

Evidence of errors in benefit overpayments

Every experienced welfare rights adviser knows that the scale of errors in benefit overpayment decision is massive - time and again the amounts are inflated or even when correct, the overpayments are not legally recoverable. In my experience the vast majority of the amounts allegedly overpaid in the cases I have dealt with have been wrong - either the amounts have been assessed incorrectly and the law not properly followed, or the person is still entitled to some or all of the overpaid benefit.

Using the Freedom of Information Act  2000, I have obtained figures from DWP about the scale of errors in benefit overpayments.  The data lags behind so the latest is a while ago, but the trends are consistent. 

One of the sources is the DWP's report on standards of decision making published in March 2010 . 

(www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/secretary-of-state-report-on-decision-making.pdf)

DWP's own figures on the percentage of benefit overpayment decisions which are accurate

 

2006/7	68
2005	78
2004/5	74
2003	67
2002	68

 

Furthermore, Tribunal statistics show that between 32% and 35% of appeals against benefit overpayments succeed, which rises to 47% when someone is represented.  Again, using the Freedom of Information Act, I have also established that in addition, a very high number of appeals against benefit overpayments are revised in the appellants' favour without having to go to Tribunal.  

Whichever way you look at it, the figures illustrate the importance of always appealing against an overpayment decision and that one must not accept at face value, the amounts allegedly overpaid or the state's right to be get money off people. 

Worryingly, this includes cases of fraudulent overpayments.  Sadly too few criminal defence lawyers and the criminal courts understand the importance and relevance of the benefits appeals process. 

Lies, damned lies and ESA statistics

Advice and disability bodies have repeatedly expressed concern about the DWP's presentation of statistics about Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) figures.  As you may know, ESA is the replacement benefit for people with long term health and disability issues which involves very harsh eligibility criteria

It is felt that the way that DWP selectively presents the figures, along with their commentary, fuels public bigotry towards people with disabilities and paints a picture that most claimants are not really sick, just workshy.  Given the repeated objections from many different organisations, either the DWP really don't get it or they are deliberately putting out this misleading spin on the figures.

The DWP press release issued in April 2012 was in the same vein: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-releases/2012/apr-2012/dwp042-12.shtml

In particular the claim that 54% of those assessed are found "fit for work".  This is arrant nonsense.
The press release triggered an unpleasant and misleading article in the Daily Mail about which towns had the highest numbers who were swinging the lead (apparently it's Basildon).  Interestingly, as far as I can see, the Mail's article appeared before the statistics were officially released.  So how did they get hold of the figures for their story?

The DWP press release fails to factor in the 38% who succeed when they appeal - 38% of 46% is 17.48%.  This strongly suggests that even on the DWP's figures, 63% are "unfit for work".  That aside, what the DWP won't acknowledge publicly is the feedback from their own staff about the terrible health problems of many found "fit for work" who then try to claim Jobseekers Allowance, not to mention the well-documented evidence about poor quality medical findings from their contractor, ATOS. 

Above all, (and of course there's no way the DWP would agree with this), the Work Capability Assessment used for ESA is not actually an assessment of people's ability to work; it is an assessment of whether they have scored points for a limited number of activities and whether they have "limited capability for work", not whether they are fit for work. 

As an example, if you can sit in a chair for 31 minutes before you need to move because of discomfort, you score nil points under that heading, if you can scrawl your name with a pen, you get nil points for that and if you can understand a simple message from a stranger such as: "There's a fire in the office, get out", but you can't understand "How do you change the settings on this photocopier?", you score nil points for understanding communication.

More cap claptrap

Following the exposure on Radio 4's Moneybox programme, today saw a DWP press release about the letters being sent out announcing the cap.

"Letters are being sent this week to households who may be affected by the benefit cap, Minister for Welfare Reform Lord Freud has announced..."

Is the use of the word "may" a Whitehall-style attempt to explain why letters have also gone to families of disabled children who should be exempt?

Here is CPAG's statement about the letters.  You decide who is right.

Household Benefit Cap: letters from DWP to claimants

Key points CPAG has discovered from contact by local authorities and advisers:

• DWP have started sending out letters to claimants warning them that they are likely to be affected by the household benefit cap.
• DWP have also sent a letter to MPs with a Q & A intended to help them with any constituent queries and casework this generates.
• Benefits staff and advice staff in local authorities have contacted CPAG to say that they are finding major errors in DWP’s identification of households that stand to be affected and have received the letters (they have contacted us in confidence so we are not currently able to name those authorities).
• Households with a DLA recipient are due to be exempt from the cap. It appears that DWP screened out adult DLA claimants, but failed to screen out families with a child getting DLA.
• Several local authorities are saying that this is not the only error. Others errors so far identified by local authorities in the DWP lists  include:
• claimants whose total entitlement is well below the level of the cap
• claims that are no longer active
• claims that are in receipt of working tax credit and would therefore be exempt
• One local authority told us that of 200 households identified by DWP in their area, they found when they checked that only 78 of them meet the criteria that would see them affected by the cap.
• In a London local authority, out of 1100 DWP identified households, nearly 300 were found to be well below the level of the cap.
• Many affected families, especially in London, will see very large losses to entitlement – perhaps of their entire housing benefit, leaving them no funds whatsoever for housing costs. But the letters say nothing to indicate whether the household receiving the letter is due to lose £5 a week, or £200 a week. So it does not help the households with the most serious threat realise the scale of the problem they will face.

CPAG statement:
“There is an astonishing rate of error in the households that DWP has identified as those likely to be subject to the household benefit cap from April 2013. This will cause distress and confusion to families who are not actually threatened by the cap. We are also concerned for those families who are at risk, because the letters offer very little helpful advice about what they can do. The Department must urgently investigate why it has made so many errors to prevent further failures with the implementation of the Universal Credit, which will affect millions of households. It highlights once again the precarious situation we are entering with advice services for claimants subject to severe cuts at a time when the whole welfare system is about to change.”

Added 9 May:
By the way, I did hear right about the DWP's misleading, post-facto excuse for sending out letters to the wrong people.  From the transcript of the Moneybox programme:

"...they want to make sure they include everybody, so they have included more than will actually be subject to the cap."

In which case, why not say so in the letters?  Sorry, but I for one do not beleive this excuse.

Cap claptrap

A follow up to the item below (http://thoughtsofawelfarerighter.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/caps-it-all.html ) concerning the DWP writing to families with disabled children, scaring the life out of them by wrongly telling them they are going to have their benefits cut next April when the benefits cap comes in. 

Assuming my hearing is still intact, on BBC Radio 4 Moneybox today it was reported that the DWP said they had deliberately written out to more people than those affected.  What?

Is this really true?

Having to ask for replies

In my line of work we are used to writing to DWP and either not getting a reply or finding that the reply gets sent direct to the client.  Discourteous? Yes.  Inconvenient? Yes. But if it results in the decision being changed favourably, we tend to let it go and move onto the next problem.

Today I wrote a letter to follow up an appeal.  At the end I found that I had added a sentence asking them to reply to me.

It really is ridiculous that we have to resort to this.    In most normal written communications you can take it as read (no pun intended) that the recipient will not only read what you have written to them, but will send a reply back to you.

Destructive error upon error

Another example from Rev Paul Nicolson Chair of Zachaeus 2000 Trust (www.z2k.org)

We saw him through all these crises due to his dire poverty when receiving adult unemployment benefits. He is now employed. The universal credit will not change the problems associated with rent and council tax arrears, the enforcement of overpayments or the blame free errors by claimants and officials.

Lone father, aged 40, reared three boys while receiving unemployment benefits. No job for 20 years and desperate for work, he gets a job maintaining council houses at £10 per hour.

Wycombe Council says he can keep housing and council tax benefits but then they decide they have made a mistake and debit his rent and council tax accounts with a total of £2000.

Eviction is threatened and Bailiffs are sent in. HM Revenue and Customs give him £2000 tax credits then decide they have made a mistake and seek the return of the payment. He has a nervous breakdown and is committed to hospital for three weeks. Consequently he loses his job and is back on £65.45 a week (2010). We asked for a Doctor’s letter; the surgery wants to charge £60. He slips into overdraft. The bank wants immediate repayment of £854, most of which is charges.

The reality of benefits administration

The following harrowing example was provided to me by Reverend Paul Nicolson Chair of the Zachaeus 2000 Trust (www.z2k.org )

Local Government Ombudsman reports the case of “Mr Watson”, a single, semi- literate adult living alone in Southwark, London. Jobcentre Plus mistakenly cancelled his JSA so Southwark cancelled his housing and council tax benefits creating arrears in both accounts. On the 12^th January 2001 CSL, Southwark’s out sourced agent collecting council tax, sent Mr. Watson a summons for unpaid council tax of £235.10, plus costs, for a court hearing on 9^th February 2001.  The summons contains the following threats, in bold type and highlighted. Thousands are dispatched daily:

“If a liability order is granted the council will be able to take one or more of the following actions:  instruct bailiffs to take your goods to settle your debt - this can include your car.  You will be liable to pay the bailiffs costs which could substantially increase the debt. Instruct your employer to deduct payments from your salary or wages. Deduct money straight from your jobseekers allowance or income support. Make you bankrupt. Make a charging order against your home. Have you committed to prison”.     

His sister-in-law called on him. His body is hanging in his flat.  The police found the  summons with him, paper littered with rough calculations and a note:

“Dear ….          I at to do this I am in so much in Detr good By for ever Love……”

Threats of eviction for rent arrears were not far off. JSA was £53.05 a week after rent and council tax (now £64.30).  The Joseph Rowntree Foundation minimum income standard for healthy living after rent and council tax  is £144 a week for a single adult.

Caps it all

The benefits cap is a highly publicised cap on benefit payments which is to be introduced in April 2013.  The idea of a cap is flawed - most of the money in high benefit cases goes to landlords because of the UK's failure to regulate rent levels, for purely market-based ideological reasons.  The best cap is a cap on rents which, because of the poverty trap effect of means tested benefits, would also make it easier for people to move from worklessness into paid work.

The DWP have started writing out to people to be affected by the cap.  People receiving Disability Living Allowance (DLA) are excluded from the cap.

However, it looks like something may have gone badly wrong with the DWP's data because it seems that in at least one area, letters have been going out to families with disabled children who receive DLA and who are thus exempt.  What a mess.  Watch this space.

A selection of recent events and news which illustrate just how dreadful things in welfare-world have become.

How to create Northern ghettos and socially cleanse central London: Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea (The "Royal Borough"), and Westminster Councils are reported as proposing to to offer homeless people on benefit a take-it or leave it move to low rent areas - presumably places such as Burnley, Hull and Liverpool.  Of course, this will nicely disrupt the educational chances of the children involved, break up extended family and community support networks for such families and ensure they never get a job again by packing them off to places with lots of empty housing.  The reason the houses are empty: far fewer jobs, and so people have moved out.

Heads we win. tails you lose:  Client obtains medical evidence from his GP showing he has a serious illness with a grim outlook.  DWP officials quickly passport him through to the Support Group of Employment and Support Allowance.  That's the way it should be.  Also tries to get his Disability Living Allowance increased to reflect the new prognosis.  Now, often DWP staff dealing with DLA applications take a sneaky look at people's ESA applications and quickly use any negative evidence (even if it's inaccurate) to justify refusing DLA.  But no, his positive ESA decision was not considered relevant, so an ATOS Healthcare "professional" is asked to give advice. And lo and behold, without examining or even meeting the client, without seeing his medical records and doubtless with less clinical experience than the GP, comes up with a different prognosis (clinical practise by telepathy, methinks) DLA increase refused.

Ignore the rule book:  DWP Compliance Officer insisting on seeing evidence of capital which the law clearly states he has no right, nor any need to see.   And he asked to see it within 14 days - see below.

Nothing's urgent: Client facing prosecution.  Have pointed out errors in the amount overpaid and sentencing hearing is looming.  Made request that DWP revise the figures, setting out in some detail, why they are wrong.  So far it's taken the DWP 7 weeks to just get the papers into one place.  Was told today they have now assembled the file and next week ill allocate it to a decision maker to reconsider - which might take up to another four weeks.  And this is with the helpful input of a manager to move the thing along.  I just pray that the hearing doesn't get listed before.

Client claimed Income Support back in November 2011.  Nothing has been heard.  The matter eventually much later, comes my way.  I've written chasing up on 13th April.  Still not a sausage.  So will just have to escalate with a  formal complaint.  Yes it will take up more of their time, but what else does one do?

Snakes and ladders: Phone call from a DWP appeals officer.  Alleges that my notice of appeal and a chasing letter were never received by them.  But my subsequent letter of complaint was.  Long discussion where I try to educate them that letters sent by post are, in law, deemed to have been received and that Royal Mail say that 99.99% of all mail is delivered, so it is inherently improbable that not one, but two letters never arrived.  I also point out that everyone knows that the DWP regularly lose correspondence and that the cutting of administrative assistant grades has made it a lot worse.  At which point appeals officer relents  and agrees that things are awful and that my letters probably were received.  In the meantime, they no longer have any decent information about the client and have wiped the client's records because she hit age 61 and the problem I was appealing against has gone away...or so I thought until client's daughter phoned to say they had just had a letter saying mum has been overpaid benefit.  Back to square one.

Patience: Still waiting for a reply from the DWP's Permanent Secretary to my carefully written and detailed complaint about the client who was convicted and sentenced for a £22,000 benefit fraud.  I had pointed out all along that it was nearer £5,000.  She was so petrified about prospect of going to jail, she tried to kill, herself two weeks before the sentencing hearing.  DWP dismissed my report as irrelevant and inadmissible.  Anyway, two months after she was sentenced (thankfully, a wise and  enlightened judge who didn't quite believe the DWP's figures, suspended her jail sentence), I had a call from a DWP appeals officer to say "Yes Mr Bateman.  You're absolutely right.  it's a closed period supersession.  Overpayment is £5,000".  Anyway, my complaint has been with the Permanent Secretary (and also IDS himself following input by client's MP) since the end of January.  Still we wait.  It appears that the DWP lawyers are playing very hard to get and won't explain what they did or why.  A question in the House looms. 

Absurd: Off up north next week to do an appeal.  Client has horrendous long term health problems with a list of chronic and painful serious illnesses as long as your arm.  Hasn't been able to work since 1984 when he was fired for not telling his then employer about his health condition.  DWP sweep him up as part of welfare reform and assess him for ESA, declare he is fit for work and can go back to work within 3 months. Since then client is also diagnosed with angina.  Let's hope it's like the one I did last week where I got client moved from nil points into the Support Group.  As is standard, DWP didn't even bother to respond to my written Tribunal submission nor to attend the Tribunal to justify their decision.  Outrageous.  Even more outrageous that such behaviour is now the norm.

My first foray into the bloggosphere...

All the main political parties have promoted the myth that the benefits system provides over-generous handouts which destroy the will to work among recipients, half of whom are on the fiddle.  The constant stream of skewed stories in the media, many of which emanate from the DWP's Press Office are largely responsible for creating the folk demon of the benefits scrounger.  it all helps lubricate the wheels of welfare reform and to justify the punitive benefits system which millions have to endure.

Welfare rights advocates spend their working lives challenging the reality of the system - the all too frequent delays, incompetence, errors and off-hand attitudes of too many benefits officials.  Absurd decisions which flout the rule of law and deny people what they are entitled to.  Barmy, illogical rules which defy any logic.  Call-centre based services with their endless waiting-music which ruin one's appreciation of Vivaldi's Four Seasons.  Daft poverty-traps and scary rules which prevent people from improving their lives.

And even when the system works properly, we then explain to our clients, "Yes.  £71.00 a week is what you are expected to live on - pay all your food, fuel, water, travel, replace clothing and worn-out household items out of it.  Any by the way, as many of you also won't get all your rent met by housing benefit, you'll have to make up that shortfall as well."

So this blog shares a few personal reflections about the reality of the welfare reform juggernaut now hitting our streets.