To think the benefits system needs an overhaul...

[Barbitchurate]

So I am currently going through benefits applications and it's been pretty eye opening. I have three nationalities - a little outing - but have spent a fair amount of time in the UK now and have worked and contributed into the system, but I equally understand there's people who rely on benefits who cannot contribute prior to needing them.

The first thing that struck me when I moved to the UK was that undergraduate students here are not expected to work - the expectation is for students to take out a student loan. Where I came from the expectation was made clear that you had a job, student loans and grants were quite complicated and definitely didn't cover all of your university education; to be honest I didn't really look into it because the expectation was you got a job alongside your studies.

I had to claim benefits due to unemployment and a pandemic-delayed start to a new job - I didn't claim until I was basically hitting my overdraft limit and the job centre coach told me off for this. Apparently I should have claimed the moment I was giving my redundancy notice - opps on my part.

I'm a little shocked though that there is no budgeting / financial sessions or advice when making a claim, and this was brought out again in a documentary I was watching where a care leaver had spent all his UC in the first day of getting it, he was already living in a homeless hostel, but I sat watching and wondered how he would ever be able to improve his situation if nobody explained to him about budgeting and financial skills.

When making my claim I wasn't asked about any lifestyle factors - nothing about children's attendance in school (I don't have kids yet, but I have found out this is not asked), nothing about drug use, alcohol use or smoking. To me it feels like this could be the time that people are offered support for these things - they are reaching out already to make a claim (and no, it was not easy), so perhaps it is the right time to offer additional services to them as well, particularly with a wrap around on budgeting and finance.

In Australia benefits are linked to certain things (vaccination, school attendance) in many states - I'm not totally sure I agree with all of this but I do think that systems could be changed so that child health and education were in some way linked but did not necessarily determine benefits. It could perhaps go a long way to alleviated the loop of generational benefits claims if done correctly, but what would correct look like?

The other thing is, I am actually going to be signed off due to ill health, due to an impending procedure. I've been told that in that time I won't get any job centre support as I will be signed off - so despite the fact I will have a return to work date (or fitness to work date) two months ahead, I won't be able to attend courses, or look for employment or get employment advice during those months. This automatically means that when I am well, I will most likely have to be switched to the non-illness benefit (JSA?) for a period of time to job hunt - wouldn't it be better that there was a system that helped people who were unwell look for appropriate work for their condition, so that when they improved their was minimum time spent on JSA (naturally, if the individual wanted this, I do appreciate some illnesses mean this is not possible).

The other thing is that some of the issues would mean they need mental health support. Then the system would have to admit the support isn't actually there.

[quote Barbitchurate]@RickiTarr would you prefer the higher levels of infant mortality within the ATSI communities then? Or would you prefer the levels were decreased, as they have done?

How would you have decreased those levels?[/quote]
Stop playing games.

Stop goading.

Stop pretending “I’m not sure whether o agree with it myself”.

We in the U.K. don’t generally like the way aborigines have been treated by the Aussies. You sound like a fascist farmer discussing livestock.

I do agree the benefits system needs reform. The idea that an asylum seeker who has travelled across the world to find safety may have to survive on £5.39 a day is appalling.

Some housing benefits paid for houses in a shocking state of disrepair should have greater regulation and control. Housing benefit payment should be linked to acceptable housing; local authorities should be required to ensure that the housing is fit for occupation.

There should be an agreed living income level for varying family sizes and locations - a bit like the supermarket comparable shopping basket cost. That should be the level that benefit is set at.

No employer should be allowed to pay lower than that level for full time employment; wages should bring advantage and the taxpayer should not be subsidising business profits through benefits. There should be better control of worker/director differentials so that people employing others are not raking in a small fortune whilst their staff need to claim benefits.

If you think there are adequate services available for all children (ie that they even exist rather than parents not caring or engaging) then you are naive.

Our service works with UC claimants and we offer this kind of support .There are a fair few that could teach me a thing or too about budgeting. Problem is that in many cases, UC is so low, that it's really difficult to budget on money that isn't there. It's a really low figure that people get, especially young people under 25.
Someone mentioned the Netherlands. Ireland appears to have a similar system and it's much more sensible, to have benefits targeted to your last earnings. Late 70s/ early 80s, there used to be an earnings related element in Unemployment benefit, but that was taken away by the Tories, just at the same time as mass unemployment .

‘I am not saying it's DWPs job - I am saying (and have said) it's an opportunity to offer support and engagement with services...’

By what mechanism if they are not operating the service themselves? Signposting? Referral?

What information are they going to have to gather in order to refer appropriately, and what will the consequences be for the DWP worker if they fail to refer correctly and someone dies?

And what information will other agencies be obliged to provide the DWP with in order for the DWP to refer properly?

Are DWP job coaches going to start attending child in need meetings? Are they going to have access to your criminal record?

@RickiTarr no I haven't - I have given some examples of things people may need help with, traditionally things that services have found difficult to engage with people for.

I very clearly have said that I'm not totally sure I agree with all of this in my OP with regards to the Australian system.

If anyone is being a goady fucker it's you.

There is a link to the Money Advice Service on the Universal Credit Account.

Work Coaches have training on a huge variety of provision for customers. The key is working out what the customer needs in the time available. It can take a while to build a relationship where the customer feels able to talk about barriers to work. The support is there. The interrogation like tactics you refer to wouldn’t work in reality.

@Sleepyblueocean completely agree, unfortunately I cannot see how it is possible. Even if we just look in the UK there are huge discrepancies within areas of London for example in regards to child health (specifically thinking here on the recent case of the young child who died due to pollution).

I would absolutely love this to be the case - knowing every child was born equal, but, the reality is it will remain generational (as child is health is largely determined by the maternal level of education).

@Bringminimoons

I think people think it might not be moral to cause children to starve due to their parents decisions on vaccinations and not getting them to school.

Yup! I can't believe people would really want to live in a place where access to enough money for basic necessities depends on passing a moral code determined by our government?

@StrictlyAFemaleFemale that's really interesting, is it Denmark that has three year maternity leave provision as well? I can't remember if that is Denmark or Sweden now.

Agree, no system is going to be perfect.

The benefits system does need an overhaul, but not by placing more barriers to access it.

But we've already had the reform..

Universal Credit has cost more than it's saved, gives most people less money than they need and doesn't work well for a lot of folk (particularly as it removes the ability to talk to a real human much of the time).

PIP, harder to get, they set a goal of reducing claims by 20% knowing that only tiny percentage of claims were actually fraudulent, therefore knowing that this goal would be to kick people off disability benefits who DID actually need them.

Scrapped the Independent Living Fund, again in the full knowledge that this would impact disabled people who were active in their communities.

None of our benefits system overhauls have been done to help and support people better. They have all been done to cut costs and withdraw help wherever possible, often with it actually costing MORE to achieve this bizarre goal.

[quote Barbitchurate]@RickiTarr no I haven't - I have given some examples of things people may need help with, traditionally things that services have found difficult to engage with people for.

I very clearly have said that I'm not totally sure I agree with all of this in my OP with regards to the Australian system.

If anyone is being a goady fucker it's you.[/quote]
You’ve had answers as to how our system evolves this way and why your suggestions would mostly be considered offensive, unnecessary, or already exist and you’re arguing.

I’m assuming ATSI is Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islanders?

We don’t have disadvantaged First Nations populations like that here who we have bribed and bullied into submission. We haven’t always treated our immigrants very well but as a PP said it would be barbaric to make survival income contingent on vaccination records or school attendance. That kind of open social engineering doesn’t go down well here. There could be religious reasons for opposing vaccines or social or SN issues causing difficulties with school attendance. A system that multiplied those problems by withholding benefits would be viewed as inhumane.

That’s why we don’t do that. That’s the cultural difference between the UO & Australia.

It’s not hard to follow.

Where do you draw the line over what is acceptable items to spend money on? I don't drink wine but I do eat crisps. Am I aloud to eat crisps? There isn't really a nutritional value to crisps. Should I just be eating plain bread instead?
Should I buy my child a new copy of a book? I can get books free from a library?
Financial education in schools = very important and should be mandatory.
Picking over what people spend their money on = no way.

It would be great if we better supported people for a variety of issues but benefits is not the place. IMO they are intrusive enough, not so bad if you aren't claiming disability or sickness related benefits, but if you are they already get very personal.

In the example of the young man who was a care leaver, I don't think it's that UC failed him by not teaching him to budget, he had already been failed at the point he did not know how to budget as an adult. There are opportunities where he could have been educated on those things earlier if it had been prioritised. At school, in the homes he lived growing up, or if he had been provided proper supported move on accommodation with a support worker not thrust into a hostel with minimal support as so often happens. With the right support he may not have even been on UC, who knows. I really think it's the failure of the care system there though not UC.

@LibertyMole I think signposting would be good for many, I didn't know about CAB for instance - I mean I heard of them, but I didn't know what they actually do - it was the UC advisor that told me to get in touch with them re. employment tribunal against former employer. That was super helpful.

Ok.
Firstly, who do your think administers your new claim to benefit? Is the work coach a drug/alcohol specialist, a doctor, a counsellor, a specialist on child nutrition? No. They are low-paid civil servants, with no specialist knowledge on any of the things you mention. Later in your claim, they will refer you to agencies who are specialist in the things you need, where they are available.
Secondly, whoever has told you that your won't get employment advice and will have to move benefits while you're are signed off sick is just plain wrong. If you are on UC, you will stay on UC throughout. What will change is your 'work group' - if you are available for work, and expected to be looking for work, you are in 'Intensive'. You'll have contact with a work coach regularly, at least every couple of weeks and probably more. They'll help as much as they can, though it's not their job to actually find you work. If you are sick and signed off, you'll stay in 'intensive' to start with but your 'commitments' will be written to explain that at present you cannot work. You'll need to provide your Fit Notes l. Eventually, you'll be referred for a work capability assessment and if this decrees that you can't work, you'll be moved into a different work group (but still stay on UC), but regardless of your work group, you'll still have access to a work coach, employment advice, CV help etc, and access to support services provision as well.

It’s also incredibly rude to assume people are feckless, addicted or lacking basic skills because they’ve hit a tough patch.*

I found this attitude made everything worse for me when I needed help. I am very good with budgeting, no drugs, no addictions. I have disability issues that aren't my fault and a violent partner. I don't need a patronising course telling me what I already know. I just need safe secure housing but I'm not allowed that. Councils apparently have a statutory duty to help but they do the very opposite of help. They ignore calls and emails, they ask for the same information again and again, delay and postpone, lie, made things up, ask for evidence then say evidence offered isn't enough even if its very obvious evidence. It's nothing to do with me being feckless. It's to do with not being given a chance to maintain a safe tenancy of my own in the first place.
It's the same for jobs. I'm currently not able to at all but I wouldn't be this bad if I'd been given the help I begged for with housing and medical care when I first needed it. I don't need to do one of the stupid courses the jobcentre offers though because I can spell my name and I can write a CV. The courses are patronising and waste of time for lots of people. I don't see a way out for myself but if I had been allowed a safe home and then become well enough to work it would help if employers didn't discriminate against work gaps and disability instead of having my food and energy bill money taken away from me. I prefer honesty and if they want to kill me, I'll happily take assisted suicide but wouldn't want them leaving me with no money to survive on because I don't want a slow painful humiliating death.

@pointythings

The benefits system does indeed need an overhaul, but your suggestion of asking intrusive lifestyle questions is just going to prevent people from claiming. Those people will then still be in need, falling into rent arrears and poverty.

I would support a contributions-based benefits system like the one they have in the Netherlands, where what you get out is linked to what you put in. So if you've worked for 20 years and lose your job, in the Netherlands you get a % of your last salary up to a maximum of 75%, for a fixed term. This means you don't have an immediate gigantic income drop and you can afford to look for work, go for interviews and continue some sort of life. It's generous, but only if you earn it. The basic on the other hand is very basic.

The UK system is broken and inhumane and has been deliberately engineered to be so. It's shameful.

I agree, the Dutch system is great and I believe it is similar to the systems in Sweden and Denmark too, but I might be wrong.

But the British would never accept it - its far too left wing here. It would be political suicide for any British party to suggest that benefits should be tied to the ability to work, or that people should be responsible for themselves. Look at all the claims about child killing policians sending people to their deaths by introducing means testing, for instance.

Yet the British will also claim that countries like the Netherlands and Sweden are much more socialist and give more generous welfare benefits than the UK.

@ZoeMaye I haven't had my health-related meeting yet, but I do have the PIP forms sitting downstairs and yes, it's great to know I get points on how I need assistance to pee.

The questions are incredibly invasive - and they aren't really things most people would like talking through with other people when asking for advice.

Secondly, whoever has told you that your won't get employment advice and will have to move benefits while you're are signed off sick is just plain wrong.

I would have to move from JSA to ESA to JSA - and it affects UC in all cases - is that not correct? Because two people have told me this from the job centre and CAB also said the same?

The PIP bit doesn't change if it's awarded.

@safeornotsafe

That sounds hellish. I saw one of your posts the other day just as I got busy again and forgot to come back and answer. It all sounds terrible. Do you think COVID has made it worse in terms of services?

Isn’t there a local DV or disability charity that could intercede for you? Your MP? Sometimes simply the act of someone else looking into it works by shaming them.

I am not saying it's DWPs job - I am saying (and have said) it's an opportunity to offer support and engagement with services...

This is exactly what your Work Coach will do. It's part of their job to spot things that are making it harder for you to find and keep work, and to refer to services that can help you overcome your difficulties.

We haven’t always treated our immigrants very well

Actually our treatment of asylum seekers in the UK is absolutely horrific - "haven't always... very well" understatement of the century.

Regardless, I would prefer to discuss this with people interested in a discussion rather than throwing insults at me so that's all I will say in response to your post.