A fair approach to welfare system

From Deputy Geoff Southern.

HAVING spent the last year examining how well the new Income Support system supports the vulnerable and needy in our community, and with a Scrutiny Report (SR3/2011) due to be published on 28 March, I have been concerned and angered by the recent cavalier attitude shown to our welfare claimants by some politicians, some of whom ought to know better.

In this election year I hope that Income Support claimants do not become the latest ‘political football’ to be kicked around by those who wish to score cheap political points.

First we saw the launch, with a great fanfare, of the ‘crackdown on benefit cheats’ by the Social Security Minister, Ian Gorst. While there is no doubt that the prevention of fraud is a worthwhile aim, the minister failed to point out that whenever overpayments occur, the sums are always described as ‘fraud or error’.

Those readers who have tried to negotiate their way through the 26 tortuous pages of the Income Support application form and the documentation required will know how easily an error may occur. And error can be on either part. I recently assisted an Income Support applicant through a case which revealed that the department had made a mistake and underpaid the claimant by over £3,400.

Not only is there possible error on both sides, but Deputy Gorst knows as well as I do that in any benefit system, especially those that are means tested, the greatest problem comes not from fraudulent claims but from under-claiming.

In 2010 the Citizens Advice Bureau, along with 27 leading charities, called on the UK government to target the take-up of some £16 billion of unclaimed benefits. I have called on Deputy Gorst, and his predecessor, Senator Routier, to make sure that all those who were entitled to claim were aware that they could, and did so. To date, after three years of Income Support, there has been no assessment of take-up rates.

But Deputy Gorst’s one-sided view of fraud and error and of over and under payment was merely a warm up for the broadside delivered by Senator Shenton two days later. As part of his review of government spending, the Senator chose to focus on the spiralling cost of the welfare bill

Yes, the bill has gone up. It was predicted to do exactly that. First there was a transfer of some £10m of the old ‘welfare’ bill from the parishes to the States; then there was the rising cost of residential care for the elderly; next came compensation for low earners for GST; finally and unpredictably, the recession hit.

As people lost jobs and wages fell, unsurprisingly the Income Support bill went up. But these rises were not the result of the introduction of ‘a system in line with the UK welfare state’.

I agree with Senator Shenton in that these rising costs are indeed ‘a major drain on our limited resources’. But the answer is not to reduce the level of our safety net for those who are suffering from the economic downturn. How well we protect the needy and vulnerable is the measure of any society.

What is more, our resources are only limited by the extent to which we are prepared to allow businesses to trade here tax free or at very low tax rates. If we really want to look after all in our community, then we have to review zero-ten taxation.

Finally, we saw the Economic Development Minister, Alan Maclean, laying into the Income Support system (Jobless total is not helped by benefits JEP, 22 March). Here is a politician who has never had to take work at the minimum wage and has never had to rely on benefits, as far as I know, pontificating that he does not want ‘the benefits system to be a disincentive’ to young people seeking work.

Does he not know that anyone claiming Income Support has to be ‘actively seeking work’ which means applying for every job vacancy that comes up and is remotely suitable several times a week? £92.12 per week, if you are still living with your parents, is not a disincentive to work; the minimum wage at £6.32 an hour, which means working a 40-hour week for £238 take home pay (less tax), is certainly a disincentive. No young person can afford a flat in Jersey on that wage; and there is no rent component in Income Support normally available for those aged under 25. What is the future for our young people? His Advance to Work scheme has placed around 140 youngsters in permanent work. What of the other 400?

These are difficult times. I call on all politicians to show some moral courage and to resist the temptation to go for the easy targets in this, an election year.

Yes, Income Support is expensive; support for the vulnerable always is. The system is in need of serious change if it is to focus support where it is most needed. It should not be the target for expenditure cuts for the sake of political expediency.