I got round to seeing one of a series of programmes currently running on TV on benefit fraud. It is called 'On the fiddle'. This focussed on lone parents who are actually living with a man but continuing to claim benefits as though they are alone.
Of course every TV programme is not as natural, unrehearsed or objective as it appears. Having made that proviso, I found it fascinating how the lone parents were upset and felt it unfair that they should cease to have their benefits when a man moved in. It was easy to see the logic of their position:
A man had moved in but he was not the father of her children. So why, two or so women argued, should he be expected to pay for them? They would sometimes claim that the man was not contributing the expenses of the household. And anyway, they would say, they could not be sure how long the relationship would last. (One of them referred to having a few bad experiences with previous boyfriends.)
It was clear that some of the anti-fraud staff sympathised with the plight of some of these women. Only once or twice did we see a sense of outrage. One of the women staff did say something like 'They go to astonishing lengths to keep off benefit. what is so dreadful about going out and getting a job?'.
The claimants who are committing fraud were treated with great politeness and often sympathy by the staff. Perhaps this was for the cameras but it accords with my own experience when I spent a day with benefit fraud staff.
There seemed to be no point at which claimants (who, from memory, are called 'customers' by benefit officials) were made to realise that their benefits consist of money taken from other people (including poor people) and given to them. They therefore come to think of the money, I suspect, as coming from 'government' and being their entitlement. Benefits are just what you get when you have children without the father around.
In all jobs, there is a tendency to 'go native'. This is true of diplomats, people sent to Brussels to work for the EU, journalists, lawyers and on and on. People in many jobs start thinking in terms themselves and of the people with whom they come into contact. Those who visit prisons often come to be more concerned about the prisoners they come in contact with than the victims of their crimes, whom they never see. I wonder whether benefit officials come to be more sympathetic to benefit frauds than to the taxpayers these fraudsters are stealing from? Maybe not. It could be the other way round. Perhaps the work of trying to catch them and meeting with so much evasion and lies makes them angry with the fraudsters. It would be interesting to know.
It was remarkable to see so much snooping going on. The fraud officials were out in the evening and again in the morning, seeing if a particular man's car was parked outside a lone mother's house. The cost - if this were a private investigation - would be enormous. It also reminded me to the intrusion or noseyness which newspapers are accused of. This is not to say it is wrong. It is only to say that a system which avoided the need for such activity would be preferable. If, say, lone parents were required to work after their children were past 3 months and if their benefits were time-limited (as in America) then the scope for such fraud would be much reduced. The need for personal surveillance would similarly be much reduced.
When I talked to benefit fraud officials some years ago, they maintained that they saved taxpayers many times the cost of their operations. I believe this is true. But I also heard a former permanent secretary of state say to a Commons committee that he could not spend more on anti-fraud because 'it is not in the budget'. That is Whitehall logic.
Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in Welfare benefits
Comments (8)
TrackBack (12)
Comments
Have to agree with you HJHJ. I've calculated that a lone teenage mum can get the equivalent of a £25k annual salary by claiming the right benefits... the fact that most go on to become pregnant again within 3 months of having their first baby also suggests there is a financial incentive at work.
Posted by: Raw Carrot at February 2, 2006 03:34 AM
HJHJ's comment, "The solution surely has to be to remove any economic incentive to have children without having the economic resources to support them yourself (i.e. usually with a husband) and to give people the best prospects of being able to get into such a situation by their own efforts."
....sums it up very neatly.
That paragraph is all it would take, and I would give such sentiments my full support, but how can we get (back?) to such a society? That is a huge problem. The radicals, reformers, and revolutionaries since the second world war have torn apart the previous three hundred years of the West's history. OK, we always need some change, but the baby has long since disappeared with the bath water.
Restoration of a society where we have no irresponsible single parents is currently nowhere on the horizon, and it won't be on the horizon until the current society has changed drastically.
Posted by: John East at February 3, 2006 12:34 AM
Until quite recently there was a stigma attached to having a child 'out of wedlock' but that was abandonded as we all became more enlightened. Perhaps that stigma arose initially because of the expense and social problems that were caused. Just how clever were we to abandon the stigma? Has society improved as a result?
Posted by: simoncp at February 5, 2006 01:03 PM
Aside:
This is right up your alley
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1708253,00.html
Posted by: Daniel Lucraft at February 13, 2006 09:11 AM
I agree it is hard to reform this or retrospectively change peoples' benefit situation without howls of protest.
However, what could be done is to change the regulations so that if somebody is on benefits they cannot claim ADDITIONAL benefits that they might be entitled to as a result of subsequent births. Thus, a single unemployed girl with no kids would not get additional benefits (including housing preferences) for a child. An existing single mum on benefits with 2 kids will stay at that level but no additional benefits if a third appeared.
Such a scheme could be enacted rapidly, nt change anybody's existing circumstances but "curb their enthusiasm" for future expansion at the taxpayers' expense while still catering for those who fall into poverty.
Posted by: Tim at March 9, 2006 01:54 PM
I work for the DWP on the Lone Parent section and am confronted with lone parents quite blatently fiddling the system all the time, unfortunatly because the government has cut so many jobs within the sector our fraud section only deals with a minute selection of cases. I have come across people who have had sanctions imposed on their benefits for not attending appts and then a further sanction imposed for not responding to the sanction. This in my eyes would say to me that they are either working or got someone helping them out with money as surely they would've noticed 40% of money gone if on such a tight budget? Another common thing we see quite often is that as soon as the child of a lone parent is about to turn 16 the parent gets pregnant again just so as to stay on benefit. I believe that the government should bring in something so that if a lone parent has another child while on benefit they get little or no benefits with it. I'm not trying to to sound harsh but this would save the government millions and also force parents back into work when their child reaches 16 rather than just sitting back and doing nothing while us tax payers pay them for it!
Posted by: ANON at April 27, 2006 04:01 PM
It is interesting to read that these comments are mostly posted by people who are not a single mother and do not have to struggle to live on Income Support.
I recently attempted to return to work part-time and the govt were very helpful in assisting me and offering me large incentives. Unfortunately as my son had over 2 weeks sick in the first 5 weeks of my employment and needed counselling I had no choice to give up and be there for him. BUT what I did notice that was my child tax credit almost doubled to £135 a week for my two children to help with my child care costs when it was only costing the govt £54.75 a week for me to stay home and take care of them. I think everyone will agree that the children's own mother is no substitute for a paid stranger.
Posted by: Holaar at April 18, 2007 02:24 PM
Warning: file(http://63.247.138.2/~bartholo/randomquotes.dump) [function.file]: failed to open stream: No route to host in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2006/02/lone_parents_on.php on line 332
Warning: implode() [function.implode]: Bad arguments. in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2006/02/lone_parents_on.php on line 332
Personally, I am unconvinced about proposals to get single mothers into work after a certain time. The reason is that I'm not sure that this is productive or saves taxpayers money. The type of women referred to are usually unskilled and poorly educated and could only get the lowest paying jobs. Meanwhile, they have to pay for childcare for their children - childcare which is inspected (by Ofsted), subject to minimum (qualified) staff ratios and staff pay for which is subject to income tax. All these factors mean that childcare for one child can consume most of the income of the single parent concerned and childcare for two can consume more than their income. So the taxpayer has to subsidise childcare - perhaps to a greater amount than the benefit they were receiving. An expensive 'solution'.
The solution surely has to be to remove any economic incentive to have children without having the economic resources to support them yourself (i.e. usually with a husband) and to give people the best prospects of being able to get into such a situation by their own efforts. Cutting the cost of employing people (e.g. by reducing or removing employers NI contributions) and by taking the lowest paid out of taxation altogether would seem to b good starting points.
Posted by: HJHJ at February 1, 2006 06:02 PM