20 SEPTEMBER 1969, Page 8

SOCIAL SECURITY

The welfare rackets

In our issue of 6 September Robert Oddatns (the pseudonym of an official of the Supplementary Benefits Commission) wrote 'The truth about the welfare rackets'. His article has led to a heavy correspon- dence from readers; and in view of the importance of the issues involved we publish here a selection of these letters.

Sir: It is as 'painfully clear' to those con- cerned with the welfare of the old, sick or disabled, unemployed and fatherless families as it is to Robert Odams that 'neither politicians nor the public at large have any real understanding or knowledge of the present state and functioning of the Supplementary Benefits Scheme'. Attempts to gain further knowledge are often fruit- less: his department is remarkably reluctant to publish facts. Why, for example, were the results of the survey on unmarried mothers and deserted wives mentioned by Mr Odams never published? Why is the latest report on the Supplementary Benefits Commission less than half the size of the NAB report in 1965? Mr Odams is absolutely right to conclude that 'the time has come for an honest and open discussion of the whole question of social security benefits'. Unfortunately, he provides us with an account of SB recipients that is neither 'honest' nor 'open'. He fails to provide us with the few facts that are available.

It is true that the number of recipients of weekly allowances has increased by 50 per cent since 1965. How far does this reflect more abuse of the system? Two thirds of the increase consists of old age pensioners who, quite rightly, have been encouraged by recent publicity campaigns to claim supple- ments to an inadequate pension. With a rising unemployment rate it is not surpris- ing that the next largest increase has been among the unemployed. If we paid adequate old age, disability and widows pensions, adequate sickness and unemployment bene- fits and adequate family allowances, then the number of people needing supple- mentary allowances would fall to little more than a quarter of the present number. Mr Odams is right to point to the discrep- ancy between SB rates and NI rates, but where is his evidence that 'large numbers' of those not entitled to insurance benefits have chosen not to pay insurance stamps? In the first place, a third of them are old age pensioners, some of whom never had a chance to join the National Insurance Scheme. Secondly, employees cannot choose not to pay a stamp—the choice is their employers'. What of those whose ill-health prevents them working sufficient weeks in a year to pay enough contributions to qualify for benefit? Only the self-employed can choose to pay a smaller insurance con- tribution and how many do so? I agree that if the state wants to stop people opting out of the insurance scheme, then it must stop providing financial incentives to do

so, but this must be done by paying adequate insurance benefits.

Mr Odams's evidence about the extent of malingering is shaky to say the least. The report of the SBC does not tell us how many of these long-term unemployed normally find a job after about three months, so we cannot say what difference interviewing them made. The latest evidence from the Ministry of Labour in 1964 did not suggest that work-shyness was a major cause of unemployment. From their study of 237,000 unemployed men, only 53,000 were expected to get work without diffi- culty. 'Standard malingering diseases' ,are not as widespread as Mr Odams implies, for in only 10 per cent of cases was the man's attitude to work regarded as a difficulty. Is this what he means by 'large numbers'? In any case, the financial incentives are only strong for the very low wage earner. In 1968 only 2 per cent of the unemployed received a weekly allowance of more than £12 10s. To receive £20 a week a man would have to have at least five children and pay a rent of £2 lOs (the average rent of unemployed recipients of SB in 1968). The wives of the unemployed are not 'often working'. The Ministry's own study of families, carried out in 1966 with the help of the NAB (so presumably Mr Odams knows about it), showed that only one in eight did so.

It is surprising that Mr Odams has rarely encountered child poverty. He must know of the Ministry's own study, which revealed that the extent of low incomes among families with children was as great as Professors Abel-Smith and Townsend had estimated. Where does he get his evidence that 'a large number of people choose to live in the most appalling squalor'?

No system for giving financial assistance could ever prevent some people from abus- ing it, but 'the truth about the welfare rackets' is that the number of such people as described by Mr Odams is a tiny minority compared with those who genuinely need assistance. What is far more worrying is the number of people needing assistance who do not ask for it. The Ministry's study showed that one in three of those who had been temporarily unemployed or sick in the previous year had not claimed a supplementary allowance, although entitled to it.

Hilary Land The London School of Economics Political Science, Houghton Street, Aldwych, London wc2 Sir: Mr Odams offers us a blinding glimpse of the obvious: the idle and the improvi- dent are with us yet and will use any subterfuge to steal from the country's biggest and easiest sucker, which prefers, as a matter of expediency, to ignore the facts. This means a drain on the taxpayer (the ordinary working citizen), and a loss

to the genuine needy. The alarming prosperity of the pubs and betting shops established close by 'hand-out' offices is only one symptom.

It is often said, by one 'class' of another, that they are well paid for little work. What now becomes clear is that it is increasingly possible to be remunerated for no work at all and until active steps are taken by the authorities, and realistic penalties applied, progress is unlikely. The evidence is all around us.

However serious this is, as yet, a minority problem. What equally concerns me is the underlying philosophy of hand-out—usually inaccurately termed welfare—culminating in the absurdity of wage related benefits without the option; to him that hath shall be given. As things stand those of us with reasonable incomes are, in the short term, better off for being sick in a lot of cases. A brief spell at home results in PAYE refund (unless wages are made up), no stamp to buy, no travelling expenses, etc, and if in hospital you are fed free. Of course, if you are unfortunate enough to be laid up for a long time benefit goes down at about the time things are getting really difficult. Can short-term expediency be stretched further?

To be very brief, would it not be better if, for anyone earning £20 per week or more—and who surely has reserves to see him through a few weeks—no sickness, industrial injury, unemployment; or other benefit should be paid for the first four weeks. Thence on a scale of about pre- 'wage related' figures for twenty-six weeks and thereafter substantial, and possibly wage related, increases. This would vastly reduce the flow of small claims and release staff and money to deal objectively and effectively with problems, hardship, and fraudulent cases. Why compel us to insure beyond our needs?

G. Smith 121 Chandag Road, Keynsham, Bristol Sir : Robert Odams's article is fascinating.

I recently heard that many bank mana- gers, on retirement at sixty, have learnt that they too can benefit from the system. They can sign on at the local labour exchange for the job of bank manager, or the equivalent, almost impossible to obtain for those over sixty; and for the five years before they become eligible for old age pensions are able to draw unemployment benefit. Who can blame them?

In the words of Wilde—'Really, if the lower orders don't set us a good example. what on earth is the use of them?'

Anthony Gaddlittz Heather Bank, Chelford Road, Prestbur', Cheshire Sir: Robert Odams's report may or may not present the 'truth'. Certainly in the light of the Ministry of Labour Survey (1964) in which reasons for lone-term unemployment were assessed by the staff of local Labour Exchanges, Mr Odams's alarm would appear unjustified. Have people become so much more scrupulous In the past five years?

However, even if most of what Mt Odams says were true, I still find his prejudiced and uninformed approach to the social and psychological reality of secondary poverty quite appalling in some• one with his responsibility.

'A large number of people choose to live in the most appalling squalor'—reallY- Mr Odams? I am afraid I cannot see where the choice lies either for the tenants of the depressing and rotting old council accommodation (which can hardly inspire pride in one's environment) or for the miserable tenants of slum landlords, very many of whom remain on housing waiting lists for years.

Mr Odams wants to make supplementary benefits even more difficult to come by at a time when we are just beginning to realise the large proportion of families who do not claim their rightful benefits due to ignorance, pride or fear of refusal.

Perhaps in a less materialistic society we could solve the problem by providing welfare workers to teach families how to budget on the 'survival ration' of welfare benefits. As things stand however the type of people Mr Odams is talking about are the victims of our social and economic system which, in spite of the welfare state, is increasingly soul-destroying and com- munity-destroying.

Usually these people have had the initial educational disadvantage of a deprived home background and have been early assigned to the self-perpetuating streaming system at the 'C', 'D' or `E' level. After their 'equal opportunity' has equipped them educationally they are 'free' to choose their sphere of work from the stimulating range of jobs available!

The truth is that for large majorities of people work is becoming increasingly fragmented, meaningless and totally unsatisfying. At the same time we are encouraged through ever more subtle advertising, hire-purchase and credit schemes to believe that the way to be happy and to acquire status is to be found in possessing 'things'.

Is it surprising that those at the bottom of our status hierarchy should fall prey to such suggestions and try to obtain a little bit of status and self-respect by 'mis- spending' their money on these possessions sometimes? Presumably Mr Odams can indulge in the odd extravagance without the ghastly consequences of rent arrears, cut- off electricity, etc, which is so often the result of his clients' partaking in the con- sumer norms of our society.

And if the whole value-orientation of society lies in the direction of consumption and leisure while the work situation of men is experienced as purposeless and alien to creative involvement, is it surprising that men 'regularly get tired of their jobs'?

In the nineteenth century it was generally believed that the poor were at the bottom of society, unemployed and destitute due to their own fault. Mr Odams thinks that we no longer have any poverty and that we are now back to 'sinful human nature' and the 'sturdy beggar'. I would suggest that 'human nature' is not 'given' but is infinitely pliable. What we are discussing is a problem of 'human nature' which has become robbed of much of its potential humanity by a schizophrenic society which encourages materialism on the one hand and then condemns those who conform to its materialist values in a way which it does not like, on the other.

One can only be surprised that in such a profoundly unequal and competitive society there are not many more who despair of achieving the 'goals' by keeping the rules, and resort to other means of acquiring the 'goodies' so tantalisingly offered.

Lorna V. Forrester Potteries Community Action, 21 Victoria Street, Basford, Stoke-on-Trent