THE WELFARE RACKETS

A reply to my critics

ROBERT ODAMS

'Robert Odams' is the pseudonym of an official of the Supplementary Benefits Com- mission; his article, 'The truth about the welfare rackets', appeared on 6 September.

In spite of being 'prejudiced and uninformed', of having 'lost the ability to contain (my) emotions' while appearing not to be fit to administer' supplementary benefits, and of writing a 'totally misleading article', which was 'neither honest nor open' but 'one of the meanest' that Mr A. E. Lewis of Burnley, Lancashire, has ever read, I feel I should reply to some of the points raised following my article in this journal on 6 September. As it has also been implied that I am a callous, cavilling armchair dictator, with a small mind and big chip on my shoulder, I will also briefly mention the motives which led me to write it in the first place.

When I joined the Department I had a completely open mind on its work and methods, as I had little idea of its function or role. I had a vague notion that it existed to help those in adverse circumstances, and as a practising Christian I thought that I would be able to do work of some value and service to society. After several years, how- ever, I find myself doing something which is becoming a positive disservice to the com- munity because of the widespread abuse of the Supplementary Benefits scheme which I have to help administer. And as little if any- thing is being done to stop the abuse, I felt that I ought to make the true position known. The Department itself obviously has no intention of doing so.

Several objections have been raised be- cause I used the term 'widespread abuse'; it is pointed out, quite rightly, that this refers to a 'tiny proportion of the working popula- tion'. The article, however, was not con- cerned with the working population as a whole but specifically with those on supple- mentary benefits. It was also suggested that the increase in the number receiving supple- mentary allowances was affected by the con- siderable increase in the number receiving supplementary pensions; and that one third of those not entitled to national insurance pensions had been too old to pay contribu- tions. These points, too, would have been valid if the article had been concerned in any way with old age pensioners, which it wasn't. My main concern was, and still is, with those under pensionable age, particu- larly the various categories of women with dependent children, the malingering 'sick' who repeatedly have, and are, a pain in the neck, and the unemployed. It is amongst this group that the abuse is large and growing, and it is this group which makes up the bulk of the professional poverty-pleaders. It is very doubtful whether this abuse can be truly limited to 'a small minority' of claimants.

I am surprised that my critics did not notice, or chose to ignore, the facts and figures from the latest annual report of the Supplementary Benefits Commission which were printed with my article; but for their benefit I will quote another interesting sentence, this time from a recent circular to staff: 'The longer a man receives an allowance the more the risk grows that he will adapt himself to living on it, supple- mented perhaps by small earnings, and give up trying to find full time work'. Was this written to warn off 'a small minority' and to draw the attention of the staff to a problem which according to Mr Ennals does not exist?

The truth is that people know money can be obtained easily at the local office on a Friday and so take advantage of the situa- tion. 1 am sure that the spectacular increase in the average number of callers per office reported in the Annual Report of 1967 does not merely reflect a growth of planned un- employment by the Government. In Decem- ber 1957 the average number of callers per office was only 590, in December 1965 it had risen to 810 and by December 1967 it had reached the figure of 1,490. The report itself says that these calls were mainly for supplementary benefit, i.e. not for supple- mentary pensions. There was no figure given in the 1968 report, but by all accounts the upward trend has continued. At many offices Friday used to be the main poverty-pleading day, as that was when most of the clientele 'signed on' at the Ministry of Labour and found they had no unemployment benefit; the busy days are now both Thursday and Friday, as the 'signing on' has to be split in two to cope with the assembled multitudes.

It is interesting to note one or two other points from the 1968 report. Of the un- employed receiving supplementary benefit 65 per cent were under fifty years of age and 26 per cent were under thirty. The total number of claims in 1968 including those for supplementary pensions was 6,081,000; ex- cluding pensions, the figure was 5,675,000, compared with 4,509,000 in the previous year. The rise was surely not totally attribut- able to Mao flu. In 1968 only 7 per cent of the claims were from people over pension- able age and the statisticians have cleverly deduced from this that 93 per cent of the

claims were from those under pensionable age. There were 150,000 separated wives and divorced women receiving regular allow- ances and 63,000 mothers of illegitimate children.

Of course, too much emphasis should not be put on figures, as they can be used io prove almost anything. For instance, one correspondent obviously thought I had been suggesting that more money by wav of benefits could be obtained than was possible and mentioned that the average rent for the unemployed was only £2 10s. per week. Be- ing an average figure, this would of course include 'tied' cottages at 6s. per week and old property with rent or rates at only a feu shillings per week. At the other extreme there will be tenants paying rents of £7 or more per week. Incidentally some local authorities also have council housing with rents at this ridiculously high level, which seems to defeat the whole purpose of providing good. cheap accommodation for the working man. It also seems to deny everyone's right to have a decent roof over their heads at a fair rent and makes the continual railing of some people about 'subsidised housing' appear extremely foolish in many cases However, without going into the subject of housing here, anybody wanting to know what can be obtained should get a form from their local post office. This will enable them to work out cases for themselves and show that quite good sums can be obtained (and I would add, are being obtained).

The same correspondent also complained that wives of the unemployed 'are not often working' and quoted the result of a Minis. try of Labour and old National Assistance Board survey which stated that only one in eight were working. I must confess I found her naivety very touching: unreported work- ing would hardly be reflected in statistics. In some regions, particularly where there is sea- sonal work, a more realistic figure would be 'one in eight' not working.

The fact that widespread abuse is taking place is known throughout the Department and it is therefore perturbing to hear the hierarchy continually denying that it exists. It is even more worrying that otherwi,e rational and reasonable people are being conditioned to believe the official line. Al- though denials of large scale abuse have been made by Mr Ennals, the Department ha,

maintained a significant silence on the results of its 1964 survey into the amount of abuse amongst the various categories of women with dependent children. If there is little abuse, what are the Department trying te hide? Was the amount of abuse discovered

described to Mr Ennals, as it was to me, a both 'enormous and unexpected'? If so. the

Department should admit it and do some thing about it. Why is no similar sum) carried out amongst the unemployed, or ha

the 1964 survey and the 60 per cent malinger ing rate (admittedly out of a selected 11.00(1 made them somewhat hesitant to dig mor deeply? Perhaps some of my doubting critic would do well to spend next Friday mornin as observers at their local offices. They \Ail then see why such a survey is required.

The whole question of abuse cannot ignored in the hope that it will eventualh go .away. It is not merely a question of being 'preferable that a few people shou get benefit unjustly than that the decent a hardworking majority should have to suffe the indignities of the parish relief sort system'. Firstly, the abusers constitute CO siderably more than a few people: ana secondly, it is often because of the abuse

that many people who would normally qualify for help do not apply for it, as they do not wish to be associated with the wasters and malingerers. This has many times been Oven as the reason why men and women in -ureent need have delayed making a claim until their situation has become desperate. An honest attempt to clean up the present situation would mean that many deserving people would be less reluctant to make claims than they now are. It is curious to observe that although many 'experts' assume that allegations of abuse are wildly exaggerated, yet to ordinary working people the abuse is very much a reality. They have no illusions about what is going on, and many feel bitter that they have to work hard to keep themselves and supply taxes to pay the 'fiddlers'.

A friend in the building trade recenily confirmed my remarks concerning those'who did not bother to pay insurance stamps. He said that this was common in the building trade and added that of course with all the sub-contracting and self-employment, many gangs had cards, but these were franked every week by the Ministry of Labour when they signed on. He also mentioned one Irish gang nearby (I suppose that makes me a racialist, too) who regularly finish work for the week at 11 a.m. on Fridays, for obvious reasons.

Just as in Northern Ireland Mr Paisley seems to think he has a monopoly of the Holy Spirit, so in this country the trendy left and other assorted experts seem to think they have a monopoly of enlightenment. Therefore, although I work in a department where I see real hardship every week as well as abuse, it came as no surprise when much of my article was written off as untrue by critics who have themselves seen need and hardship but have not seen the abuse. This answers the criticism of my lack of under- standing of the problems of secondary poverty and people from deprived home backgrounds, etc.

Most officers of the Department do see people who are inadequate, who come from bad and broken homes, who have had no real chance in life; and they do make an honest attempt to help and understand them. They also regularly see families and indi- viduals who are having to endure conditions of great hardship, pain and despair and as a result most of them develop real sympathy and compassion.

Although the people Mr A. E. Lewis, ,of Burnley, Lancashire, advises to claim have to 'wait weeks for an official to call', in most other places they are visited as quickly as possible, usually within a week, as there is a genuine desire to help. Officers see people making every effort to stand on their ewn lect after suffering appalling tragedies and in desperate circumstances. One correspon- dent mentioned how he had been left with one child and how abysmally he had been treated by the Department. 1 had dealings with a man in delicate health who had been lett with seven children, all of school age and under, who by his determination to mercome his personal disaster left me with much admiration for him. Time and time again one is left admiring the strength and lesilience of the human spirit as it struggles %kith grief and hardship. This makes the fact of widespread abuse so much more difficult to stomach. That there are decent people in genuine need in no way alters the fact .that there is widespread abuse of the system— abuse by a large and growing number of un- scrupulous people.