Fraser Stewart: What my job in a UK job centre told me about today's benefits system

[blacksunday]

CommonSpace columnist Fraser Stewart recalls why he left the "best job" he'd ever had in a UK job centre

I WORKED in the job centre, in a previous life.

To this day I maintain it was the best job I've ever had, as short-lived as it was. After just 18 months, I handed in my notice and left a workplace that had, until that point, felt like home.

I left for one reason and one reason alone – the coalition government taking office in 2010. In a matter of what seemed like seconds my role had changed from getting people into work, to cutting the welfare bill by any means: from merciful to mercenary; helping hand to hired gun.

As orders began to trickle down from the new regime we were given a series of targets, one of which I couldn't swallow with any amount of sugar. I was told I had to sanction a certain number of benefit claimants per month. Sanction. Not "get in to work". Sanction.

I handed in my notice immediately and the following week was my last. This was never supposed to be a badge of honour. I do not write this out of indulgence or self-righteousness, but as a person with experience on both sides of the desk.

Quitting my job was the right thing to do. It was the right thing to do because people should not be treated as targets - nor should they be unjustly tarred as lazy and subjected to universal and indiscriminate suspicion.

There are remarkably few people in this country who don't want to work. My own claimants ranged from joiners and cleaners to neurobiologists and architects and beyond: of the thousands of people I met within various capacities in the job centre, not one struck me as being proactively idle.

To label such a diverse group of individuals as parasites is to dehumanise millions of our own citizens with a repulsive ignorance. Of course, anecdotal evidence will only take any argument so far.

There exists no coherent evidence to support a "culture of worklessness". Collating research carried out by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and TUC, The Guardian reported that roughly 80 per cent of JSA claimants are off benefits and into work before becoming "long-term" unemployed.

Less than one per cent of all UK households had two generations of the same family who had never worked.

This contrived notion of "Benefits Britain", then, is founded on a series of hyperbolic falsehoods, forced relentlessly at us by a seedy and sensationalist media intent on demonising out of context those who cannot reasonably fight back.

commonspace.scot/articles/1887/fraser-stewart-what-my-job-in-a-uk-job-centre-told-me-about-today-s-benefits-system

So this 'expert' was only happy in his Job Centre job, while he could hand out money like confetti and left soon after 2010, when the Coalition was STILL handing out money - despite having inherited a £153 billion annual UK government budget deficit (overspend) and £1 trillion of National Debt -accumulating annually by the 'overspend' plus interest.

"Welfare spending in Britain has increased faster than almost any other country in Europe since 2000, new figures show."
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10574376/Graphic-Britain-outstrips-Europe-on-welfare-spending.html

"The cost of unemployment benefits, housing support and pensions as share of the economy has increased by more than a quarter over the past thirteen years – growing at a faster rate than in most of the developed world."

"In the developed world, only the United States and the stricken eurozone states of Ireland, Portugal and Spain - which are blighted by high unemployment - have increased spending quicker than Britain."

"And in Britain since 2010, when the Coalition came to power, spending on welfare as share of GDP has barely moved – falling by just a quarter of one per cent over three years, according to OECD data."

"By contrast, more than a third of developed nations have cut their welfare bills steeply in that period......"

"Despite Mr Osborne’s promise to get welfare under control, the benefits bill is due to increase rapidly in cash terms, from £180bn this year to £203bn in 2018-19.”

Your Mr Stewart and others would have huge credibility in challenging the REDUCTION in UK welfare & Benefits if;

a) If they had not increased so much in percentage terms from 2000, not matched by any another economy growing strongly with record employment boasting of having "ended boom and busts".

b) If by 2010 there had not been a £153 billion UK overspend, the largest in our peacetime history and far higher than country in Europe, possibly higher than the accumulated annual deficits of the EU 'bail out' P.I.G.S.

c) Any other Labour plans in place to reduce government spending and/or inspire a great recession shell shocked private sector, back to sustainable growth, investment & private sector JOB CREATION.

In 2010 NOTHING was in place by those sitting on their hands, waiting for something to turn up as our national debt was going to rocket from £1 trillion, by our annual overspends - thinking that 'growf' from huge government spending would 'filter down' to the masses who many saw their jobs go, or earnings eroded by inflation since 2008, with taxes going UP to help them e.g. National Insurance.

“Labour's planned National Insurance increase will cost jobs, Alistair Darling admits”
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/7539343/Labours-planned-National-Insurance-increase-will-cost-jobs-Alistair-Darling-admits.html

Think how busier Mr Stewart would have been under a Labour government, with increased unemployment, until one day due to the weight of national debt, more welfare/benefits taps had to be turned off than had to be under the Conservatives?

Isitme once again forgetting that the national debt was caused by the banking sector.

While the entire country and generations to come are working hard to fill the pockets of aforementioned banking sector, actual lives are being actually lost and destroyed, money pouring somehow magically into the pockets of the Oxbridge Westminster 10% payrise top 1% being taken directly from the lower 1/3 of Britains population.

Do you need a graph to remind you?

Isitmebut wrote;

Welfare spending in Britain has increased faster than almost any other country in Europe since 2000, new figures show."

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10574376/Graphic-Britain-outstrips-Europe-on-welfare-spending.html

..... life expectancy has been steadily increasing for the past half century, which for DWP accountants means that state pensions are being claimed for longer.

According to a Departmental analysis, a man reaching retirement age (65) in 1961 could on average expect to live for another 12.2 years, while a woman of the same age would live for 16.3 year more.

In 2011, newly-retired men and women could expect to enjoy another 21.6 and 24.1 years of life respectively.

In fact, when taken as a share of GDP, the sums spent on working age benefits have changed very little. The DWP expenditure tables calculate that in 2011/12, working age benefits cost 3.5% of GDP, approximately the same proportion that was being spent in 1982/83, and actually a smaller share than was being spent throughout most of the 1990s, where it hit 4.6% of GDP at one point.

Conclusion

Nick Clegg is correct that the welfare budget has grown approximately seven times over during the past half century, although the rise could be as little as six fold or as large as eight depending upon which data is used.

However this doesn’t necessarily mean that the benefits bill has risen as a result of government policy, ^or that the ‘tough decisions’ taken by the Lib Dems in Government will necessarily reverse this. The largest increases in recent decades have been in spending directed at pensioners – and on the state pension in particular – as life expectancies have increased.

fullfact.org/factchecks/welfare_spending_economy_Lib_dem_conference-28294

STIDW ..... sorry, but are you trying to say our benefit/welfare bill went up more than all the other countries mentioned as the UK from 2000 as all of a sudden we an older population than the rest of the countries mentioned - or that under Labour State Pensions were soooooooooo much better than the likes of Italy, France, Germany - did they have a spending splurge after the 72p State Pension rise 'showered' on pensioners around 2000?

So nothing to do with;

Tax Credits other countries didn't have(?) going from a cost of £1 billion to £30 billion?

Housing Benefits rocketing due to rents rocketing, as home prices during a financial/credit bubble rocketed, as our population rocketed - and home building under 13-years of Labour plummeted to (on average) around half those built by the previous Conservative administration?

Etc etc etc.

The OP was about Job Centre sanctions.

Also relevant I think is the appalling JobMatch website that claimants are required to use. Log on and try it. I have never seen such a useless piece of crap before. Word limits on uploading covering letters, CVs and activity history. 'Job matches' that suggest you apply for a job as a dentist or orthopaedic surgeon when you have no such qualifications. A table of options for 'why didn't you apply for this job' that doesn't allow for you to say 'because I'm not actually an orthopaedic surgeon', just stuff that makes you sound a bit fussy or indolent.

Squidzin .... you KEEP telling yourself that dear, repeating factually ignorant socialist mantras, I can prove otherwise and have done so recently on another thread.

The UK National Debt was caused by a Labour/Brown administration's policies creating a government, business and consumer financial/credit/debt boom - and the State Sector growing too fast for a non financial boom economy and its tax receipts to fund it - and when the Great Recession came, our economy/tax receipts crashed, as the 'fixed costs' of the Big State remained, and Labour were too shit scared to REDUCE those 'fixed costs' before the 2010 General Election.

Brown has apologised for his lax banking policies, the FSA monster he 'created' admitted they were not up to the regulatory job and government put pressure on them to relax regulation as bank balance sheet growth rocketed - would you like their statements to prove it?

Another Labour parliament from 2010 if UNABLE to cut the hugely increased cost of running their fat, inefficient State, despite the private sector on its knees and workers real earnings falling from 2008, would have carried on PUTTING UP TAXES from the National Insurance & Fuel Duty in their last budget - and Council Tax already up 110% on average under Labour, would no doubt also have been ratcheted up - all killing the UK economy stone dead.

It cracks me up, as whether listening to the Labour Party candidates or SNP, they always assume/mumble 'economic growth' when talking about keeping all government 'fixed costs' and not paying off our government debts - but don't have the FIRST CLUE how to achieve it, other than TAX IT to growth.

So please place your ridiculous one graph that no doubt will reflect none of the above, in the shade, or worse to that affect. lol

The debt's been there and steadily building for decades. It was not as a result of the banking crisis. What that did was make people wake up to how much debt western governments were in and wonder how (if they can at all) pay it back. In short it shook confidence.

The 10% payrise is simply bad timing and spin. It's not a 'payrise' as such since it's offset by the loss of certain allowances. It would be more like my company giving me 10% more each year but then saying I can't claim food when I travel. The key thing is that overall the proposals are revenue neutral. Ie. it won't cost taxpayers more.

And why have the MP's got this? Because we the electorate scared the living shit out of them when the expenses scandal broke. They were no longer trusted to set their own renumeration so it's now decided by an independent body.

So....either we can accept this supposed independent bodies recommendations or we can whine about the fact they didn't decide what we think they should.

Back on point I completely disagree with handing targets for sanctions. Targets should be based on things like how many people the employee helps back into work annually

A governments debts will rise during a recession; in 1990/91 when our National Debt was around £190 bil, the UK (and others) had a relatively mild recession and when the Conservatives handed our the economy to Labour in 1996/7 it was around £403 bil, with BUDGETS in place to reduce the UK governments annual budget deficit/overspend - that annually accumulates to INCREASE the National Debt by 2001/2 - from which time, when the UK economy was in good shape, we should have started to REDUCE the National Debt.

Instead Labour kept borrowing annually, increasing the National Debt, and when new government borrowing is financing governments fiscally pumping money into the economy DURING A BOOM by way of benefits/welfare rather than stimulate the Private Sector by reducing taxes - rather than keep RAISING taxes to businesses and citizens - it has a NEGATIVE effect on economic growth.

But don't take my word, this link explaining the Automatic Stabalizers that kick in during a recession, also explains the problem when used during a boom.

Automatic stabilisers refer to how fiscal instruments will influence the rate of growth and help counter swings in the economic cycle.
www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/automatic-stabilisers/

Example of Automatic stabilisers

High Growth – "In a period of high economic growth, automatic stabilisers will help to reduce the growth rate. With higher growth, the government will receive more tax revenues – people earn more and so pay more income tax (note the tax rate doesn’t change, the amount received just becomes higher). With higher growth, there will also be a fall in unemployment so the government will spend less on unemployment benefits."

Recession - "In a recession, economic growth becomes negative. However, automatic stabilisers will help to limit the fall in growth. With lower incomes people pay less tax, and government spending on unemployment benefits will increase. This increase in benefit spending and lower tax helps to limit the fall in aggregate demand."

Note that in the "High Growth" scenario taxes should NOT be going up as under Labour they were, as government revenues were already increasing from the higher employment rate.

So when the Great Recession hit, we had to still finance a huge increase in benefits/welfare, as private sector jobs/tax receipts fell, and the continual tax increases by Labour (with low savings ratio) all COMBINED made it harder for the UK economy to cope - especially when inflation affected 'real' wage rises from 2008 resulted in a drop in earnings - and a government ideologically wedded to the fat State monster it created, refusing to HELP the Private Sector recover by REVERSING years of tax hikes.

That is how you get an unbalanced UK economy and hand over in 2010 a £1 trillion National Debt and a annual budget deficit/overspend of £153 billion that ANY government in the 2010-15 parliament had to START addressing.

Too many links.

Even if you are the Link Police I should be bothered about, how many do you see????

Whatever you want to blame Gordon Brown for, he did not choose to sanction people rather than help them actually find a job. That wasn't him.

People in jobs pay income tax and are also able to buy things, benefiting the economy. And more taxes. So that Gideon can 'pay back the debt'.

People who have their benefits stopped struggle with those things.

The welfare system is supposed to help people, not punish them. Especially when the people it is supposed to be helping are not the ones that caused the global financial crisis.

Seffina .... you are not seeing the time line here, and that the whole UK economy was a financial train crash waiting for the first major recession to derail it.

Around 2000 Labour decided our economy needed more 'diversity' and began this Big State experiment where we were to find employment for 3 million EU and Non EU new citizens while our domestic unemployment rose, with the State now paying people welfare/benefits/tax credits to be IN work and OUT of work at the same time (see 'Automatic Stabilisers' above where we were meant to spend LESS on government handouts during High Growth).

While 100% tax funded Public Sector jobs increased by around 1 million increasing the budget fixed cost 'debt' column further, including the higher paid Quango 'creation' and 'non jobs' mainly taken on by local authorities as our Council Tax went up on average 110% over 13-years.

Meanwhile a medium to long term social crisis was building up as our Unemployed 16-24 year old rose from around 500,000 in 2004, to over 700,000 by the 2007 crash and nearly 1 million by the may 2010 General Election with (according to Shelter) nearly 5 million of the poorest waiting for Social Housing by May 2010.

Clearly this perfect shit storm was BEFORE the Conservative administration came back to power.

With Labour's record above, no wonder Osborne is claiming the Conservatives to be the 'party of the people', as all Labour did under Brown's socialism was kick them in the goolies while getting them dependent/high on a an massively increased welfare/benefits/tax credit State.

P.S. All this happened BEFORE the Financial Crisis and blaming the bailout of banks balance sheets that Brown unleashed, when if the Brown economic model had to borrow to spend in the financial bubble BOOM times, it was NEVER sustainable from the beginning.

Ok, I understand that you really really want us to know how you feel about Gordon Brown. If you believe that all the problems in this country are his fault, fine. But this thread really isn't about him.

How should job centres help people to get off benefits long-term if it isn't by finding them a job?

Do you honestly believe that the reason for choosing sanctions over support is because of money and a need to pay back the debt?

It's like one of those posts from house price crash. Or a conspiracy theory board.

Seffina ... re your;

"How should job centres help people to get off benefits long-term if it isn't by finding them a job?"

Well it helps initially if the government of the day doesn't decide the skills the UK needs can only come from abroad, finds them 3 million jobs, and confines millions of indigenous workers to the Job Centre scrap heap.

As for the record since 2010 of creating a few million more private sector jobs that couldn't have happened under Labour's pre May 2010 policies and getting more long term jobless out of the Job Centres with at least one person in a family working, and getting the 16-24 year old jobless back to work - the Conservative led administrations record speaks for itself.

"Do you honestly believe that the reason for choosing sanctions over support is because of money and a need to pay back the debt?"

No, I believe like every bit of head-up-bum socialist propaganda, that people only become Conservative MP's to punish the poor.

Stitchintime1 ... "It's like one of those posts from house price crash. Or a conspiracy theory board."

Not really, as in conspiracy boards they cannot provide facts/links backing them up.

So I guess you like conspiracy boards, as that is why you posted that you didn't want to SEE links, so it become the usual 'she said, then she said back' unqualified facts waste of fecking time.

Good to know that people still have integrity. The way social security claimants are vilified is despicable.

So this 'expert' was only happy in his Job Centre job, while he could hand out money like confetti Did you actually read the article - he left because his ... role had changed from getting people into work, to cutting the welfare bill by any means: from merciful to mercenary; helping hand to hired gun. But why read when you can just make up your own conclusions? Does make me question the content of those hundreds of links in almost every post (that few if any will have time or inclination to read) if this lack of comprehension of the post is a reflection of general misunderstanding.

the Conservative led administrations record speaks for itself Well quite! Doubling the national debt, failure at controlling immigration etc. As for employment, when you factor in that 1 million new jobs were created under Labour after the minimum wage was brought in and that there is evidence that out of the Tory job creation claims, up to 300k of them dated from Feb-April 2010, when their stats may have begun, and a few hundred k may have been sole traders, the tory record may not be as impressive as they make out. (please excuse me adding a couple of links of my own: www.newstatesman.com/politics/2012/10/cameron-hasnt-created-million-private-sector-job

www.socresonline.org.uk/19/3/1.html on the myth of workless communities )

Targets should be based on things like how many people the employee helps back into work annually This, exactly.

AllThePrettySeahorses ….. Re your ”The way social security claimants are vilified is despicable.”

”So this 'expert' was only happy in his Job Centre job, while he could hand out money like confetti Did you actually read the article - he left because his ... role had changed from getting people into work, to cutting the welfare bill by any means: from merciful to mercenary; helping hand to hired gun. But why read when you can just make up your own conclusions?”

I see, as this man in one Job Centre (out of how many) said it, it HAS to be true, and of course under THE Party of Welfare/benefits parties, in 2010 there was no one saying I won’t accept a job as benefits pays more, saw benefits and a way of life and/or never worked a day in their lives????
Now lets take the rest of your little socialist La La Land apart, whether to show the truth or dispel your lies, propaganda or ignorance, which links/facts show up.

• Firstly, for around the seventh time as you appear a bit slow, a Labour Party or their minions cannot leave in 2010 £1 trillion on National Debt and a £153 billion annual budget deficit/overspend, OPPOSE EVERY CUT OF THAT ANNUAL OVERSPEND SINCE 2010 and then blame the Conservatives on increasing the National Debt (as annual overspends accumulate) – as its socialist and basic math fuckwittery – cuts or UK debt reduction, which is it?

• Secondly I have no idea WHY you are using very old data/links/commentaries which are obviously incorrect, the private Sector jobs since 2010 is up well over 2 million, and the 2 million figure in the NET figure having shrunk Labour’s bloated State payroll of non jobs etc which INCREASED nearly as fast as Private Sector jobs were LOST when the recession hit worst from 2008 – an obvious Labour ploy to mask unemployment and resulted in INCREASING the annual government deficit/overspend.

Region after region, town after town, are showing huge cuts in unemployment since 2010, look it up rather than hide behind old inaccuracies.

Next controlling immigration is in two-sections, EU citizens and Non EU citizens, so lets have a look at Labour’s record based on their secret policy around 2000 (in the link below) and the consequences IN NUMBERS;

“Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser”
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

“Labour threw open Britain's borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a "truly multicultural" country, a former Government adviser has revealed.”

More …

Continued...

So this goes to WHY the UK having ‘created’ so many jobs under Labour, many of those jobs (including the 1 million increase from 1997 in Government/Public Sector jobs), did we have so many indigenous UK workers Labour say they represent, unemployed BY 2010?

Firstly official figures show that the Labour non democratic 2000 policy to increase NON EU citizens/workers was secretly implemented;

On NON EU citizens coming here, the annual average of Commonwealth and Other, according to the link below on Table 1, in the 1990’s, the annual average was around 86,000 each section.

Yet in the 2000’s this changed significantly, as looking at just the years 2004 and 2005, when EU immigration was expected and was much larger than expected, Commonwealth and Other figures WE HAD CONTROL OVER were combined at around DOUBLE those immigrants from the EU.

In 2004 (arriving) EU 130,000……Commonwealth 215,000 …...Other 155,000

In 2005 (arriving) EU 152,000.…..Commonwealth 180,000 …….Other 137,000
migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/long-term-international-migration-flows-and-uk

Secondly official figures show the break down of who got Labour’s work under Brown’s ‘British Jobs for British Workers’ mantra.

Mar 2008; 'Nine in 10 UK jobs go to foreigners'
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1580544/Nine-in-10-UK-jobs-go-to-foreigners.html

”The number of British people in work has slumped to the lowest level since Labour was elected in 1997, undermining claims made by Gordon Brown that employment was at a record high.”

”Since 1997, some 1.4 million fewer Britons work in manufacturing, yet 113,000 more foreign-born workers are in the sector. Of the 1.7 million more people in employment since 1997, 1.5 million were born outside the UK, according to the Office for National Statistics.”

Unlike Labour actively encouraging NON EU citizens in, even thought the EU doors and right to work across borders were to be thrown open in 2004, Cameron looked to control that side, but could do nothing about EU citizens coming over here to work as the UK’s economy was to become the strongest by far in the EU – other than offer the people within the UK a Referendum on the EU, Labour, the Lib Dems and SNP didn’t want us to have.

So the REAL jobs scandal are the Labour policies that ensured so many of our indigenous workers were unemployed by 2010 after a decade of job growth, not some policy hearsay from a Job Centre worker used to a Labour governments bribes to those they threw on the unemployment and homelessness dung heap.*

Not a new Conservative led Coalition helping the Private Sector to grow/invest/hire and trying to get the unemployed back to work – many having been given a shite Labour education as a preparation for work.

The thing with benefits is that they are set to the minimum amount required to survive in our society.

So if you sanction people, what are you condemning them to?

It's pretty well established that sanctions have been invoked for spurious reasons and have led to numerous deaths and great hardship. There is evidence that has been presented to the Houses of Parliament that the DWP knew this would happen, that they have absolutely zero effect on finding new jobs. There is evidence out there to prove what we can all see if we wish, that the whole austerity culture is destroying the lives of many people and helping just the top 4% or so get ever richer, from the OECD and IMF.

I'm really not interested in debating the ins and outs of whether New Labour or Tories are more to blame for the current state of borrowing (as Squidzin said, it was the bankers). I'm interested in finding an end to sanctions immediately. They are a state crime as far as I'm concerned and I am absolutely appalled that they have been permitted by our august rulers to remain in existence this long.

The deficit and debt crisis has zero relevance to the discussion of benefits sanctions.

Jobseeker's allowance accounts for a tiny percentage of the social security budget:

fullfact.org/economy/welfare_budget_public_spending-29886

Sanctioning people this way is not only immoral and ineffective in getting people in to work (they already want to), but is positively harmful to outcomes and the economy at large.

The facts are we are where we are as one government decided that we would become a honking Welfare/Benefits/Tax Credit highly complicated jobs-for-the-increased-public-sector-boys, State.

That experiment was flawed in many ways, as mass immigration was diluting the workforce/lowering wages and government increasing taxes and also paying credits to people in work earning £60k plus, it became and administrative nightmare and as it cost so much - destined to crash at the first recession as the tax receipts funding it falls away - as those tax receipts have in EVERY recession since before John Wayne was a cowboy.

If the whole benefits system hadn't grown riddled with fraud, skivers and false claims, then there might have been more 'trust' - but for anyone to say that in sorting out this unholy shit stack that for spurious local reasons for sanctions anyone meant to cause any "deaths or great hardship" - is both unfair and harsh on those at 'the front line'. IMO

But then again, what would the whinging lefties who STILL believe in the viability of a huge Welfare/Benefits/Tax Credit State whether annually the UK is STILL spending £70 bil a year we don't earn, have to complain about?

isitmebut, I've said it before, I hope the Conservatives are paying you well, you are never off these threads, with your over long, linked posts and your condescending "dear" "lol"

actually, I take that back, I think that Labour are paying you to actively turn people against the Tories.....you're doing a bloody good job of it, all by yourself

you are starting to come across rather unhinged, now...

"but for anyone to say that in sorting out this unholy shit stack that for spurious local reasons for sanctions anyone meant to cause any "deaths or great hardship" - is both unfair and harsh on those at 'the front line'. IMO"

I don't know what the hell is going through the minds of those on the front line. I suspect that it was always a tough job emotionally dealing with people who are struggling, and as official attitudes have hardened so have the frontline. Most people who are unwilling to be forced into uncaring mode, like the op, will have left. Bluntly - they won't be caring much about the people in front of them because they can't afford to. It's a guess. If right, it's an odd attitude to instil in the state service designed as a safety net to support people in hardship, no?

The spurious reasons are well documented on the internet, I can try and dig out some links if you like but mumsnet's IT difficulties are affecting me quite badly right now. Try googling for the blog 'The poor side of life' or Johnny Void, or dig out the transcript of the evidence presented to the house of commons inquiry - which has still produced no results.

"If the whole benefits system hadn't grown riddled with fraud, skivers and false claims, then there might have been more 'trust' "

Well there's an interesting thing, because this is a myth put about by the right wing and sensationalist media and nothing more. The amount of fraud is miniscule - again there is proof of this out there, google it - and I woukd guess that a lot of that is caused by the need of people scraping the barrel trying to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads and I have nothing but sympathy for that. The amount of fraud caused by 'skivers' will be half that again.