For those of you looking for a feelgood film, the works of
British filmmaker Ken Loach would not be high on anybody’s list. Loach is a
renowned social commentator, whose political stance is avowedly socialist and
who was described by the New York Times as having “the political outlook
of a British Michael Moore.” Loach has been making films for more than 50 years and his 1966
television play Cathy Come Home was one of the most important British TV dramas of all time, offering a savage
critique of the unemployment and homelessness problems facing those at the
bottom end of the social strata. Such was its political impact that it prompted
the foundation of Crisis, the charity for homeless people, in 1967.
Whilst Loach’s work may not be a barrel of laughs, it does
shine an important light on areas of British society that may otherwise be
overlooked by a wider audience. His 2016 Palme d’Or winner I Daniel Blake carries on this grand tradition, offering a gritty take on the Kafkaesque
workings of the UK benefit system. The story centres on the eponymous Daniel
Blake who has suffered a heart attack and whose doctor determines that he is
medically unfit to return to work. However, his benefit claim is denied because
the Work Capability Assessment, to which all claimants are subject, deems that
he is not sufficiently incapacitated. The reason for that is that the criteria
that claimants must pass in order to make a benefit claim did not cover his
condition (see here for a list of requirements).
As result, our hero is eligible only for a particular category of benefit which
requires him to prove that he is looking for work, despite having been told by
his doctor that he is medically unfit.
The point of Loach’s film is to demonstrate that the system
is not fit for purpose and is designed to put obstacles in the way of claimants
to dissuade them from proceeding further, which reduces the numbers and eases
the state’s financial burden. This is not simply a piece of social drama: I
have heard it time and time again from people involved in dealing with benefit
cases. According to the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee (WPC) “290,000 claimants … – 6% of all those
assessed – only received the correct award after challenging DWP’s (Department for Work and Pensions) initial decision.”
The DWP’s own statistics show that between October 2013 and March 2017 roughly half of those people initially
claiming some form of long-term invalidity benefit either had their benefit
withdrawn or were required to claim one which requires them to look for work
whilst in receipt. The WPC highlighted “a deficit
of confidence in the assessment processes. Central to the lack of trust are
concerns about the ability of the Department’s contractors to conduct accurate assessments.”
All in all, the WPC’s report was a damning indictment of a system which
claimants increasingly distrust.
Although the WPC did not touch on the subject, there are
many insiders who claim that there is pressure to impose quotas on the numbers eligible
for benefits. The system of benefit assessment is in any case initially carried
out by people who are not necessarily qualified to make the appropriate medical
judgements, and in 2016 a United Nations report criticised the UK system for
being “focused on a functional evaluation of skills and capabilities, and
puts aside personal circumstances and needs, and barriers faced by persons with
disabilities to return to employment.”
Even though only 6% of cases are
overturned, this still represents 290,000 claimants who are being denied the
support to which they are entitled. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies put it, “this is
arguably suggestive of a system that is not working well.” In an excellent
article in the Financial Times in November, Sarah O’Connor highlighted that “while national policy has been focused on pushing people
from incapacity into the labour market, it is not clear that every local labour
market is willing or able to absorb them.” To put it another way, in areas
where jobs are scarce, getting people off the incapacity register may fulfil
one set of government targets but it does nothing to resolve the underlying
problems.
This is unfortunately all very bleak and depressing and
further undermines the public’s trust in government in general and the benefits system in particular. Whilst reform of
the system is not per se a bad idea, the experience of the past eight
years is that the government has failed to manage the process of welfare
reform. Universal Credit, which was designed to replace a multitude of
different benefits in a bid to reduce outlays, was unveiled in 2013 but is
still nowhere near completion having initially expected to have been completed
within a four year cycle. Moreover, in a report released last month the OBR questioned whether the savings promised by this reform will even be
realised.
Quite why the reform of the benefit system has proven to be
such a shambles is no mystery: It is too complex and insufficient resources
have been committed to make it work. Meanwhile the most vulnerable members of
society are bearing the brunt of the adjustment. For those of us who spend our
time looking at the big fiscal picture, it is quite an eye-opener to look below
the surface at how the system actually works. Whilst such methods have
(arguably) been successful in helping to bring down the public deficit, the
more we look at the social costs the less justified some of the actions appear
to be. With the government now focusing all its policy efforts on Brexit, it is
difficult to see any light at the end of this tunnel.
Of course, the supreme irony is that a good number of those
who appeared to be abandoned by this failed benefit system are likely to have
been those who voted for Brexit on the basis that they had nothing to lose. If
the leading lights in David Cameron’s government ever wonder why they lost the
Brexit vote, they might reflect on their inability to deliver a benefit system
which provides the support it promised.
No comments:
Post a Comment