THE WELFARE RACKETS

Investigating the investigators

ROBERT ODAMS

)bert Odams' is the pseudonym of an cial of the Supplementary Benefits Com- scion. His previous articles on 'The wel- t' rackets' appeared on 6 September and October.

ntly I had the misfortune to enter some- y's living room when a ministerial tele- on broadcast was in progress. True, occupants were ignoring it; nevertheless, uas stunned by what was issuing forth m the little box. Mr Crossman was in full about recent pension increases, when denly he began telling how his Depart- s was getting on top of Supplementary nefit abuse and how in any case such use was limited to a very small minority. ause of incidents like this many of my eagues, as well as myself, are concluding t either the heads of the Department are of touch with reality or else that it is itically inexpedient for them to admit the th about the present state of affairs. was interested to read a newspaper ort of a letter sent by an officer of the partment to Mr Roger Gresham Cooke ntly. (For the benefit of the 'witch tern' at headquarters, I did not write it, o not know who wrote it, and I suggest t to save embarrassment they say it is another member of the Department talk- through his hat—this is much easier than ng facts.) In this letter the author told current methods of coping with abuse been described to him as only touching tip of the iceberg. Strangely enough, it recently described to me in exactly the terms by a senior official. I do not w how this can be reconciled with state- s about 'getting on top of the problem'. ecently the Minister of State. Mr Ennals, ealed to all those who knew of abuse ng place to let the Department know hat action could be taken. Yet if letters ng information are received they can be acted upon slowly because of ire of work. There is also evidence to est that some intending informants have turned away because it is considered such sources of information are not able for a Department which deals with 'e 's welfare. The taxpayers' welfare is portant.

s a result I find the attitudes of the e responsible for this branch of social ray completely baffling. They urge to give information yet in reality do not seem interested. They say that t methods of preventing abuse are ful when in fact they are inefficient, ective and inadequate. They say that among the Categories which I have rbed in earlier articles is limited to a minority, yet both inside and outside artment this is known to be wrone —and of course they still have not divulged the figures of the 1964 'liable relative' survey undertaken on deserted wives, etc. An officer who has seen the facts has revealed to me that the figure for proved fraud in this survey in the country as a whole was 25 per cent, while in some areas it rose to the startling figure of 75 per cent. It was stressed that these were proved cases and that there was a considerable element of doubt in many others. If this is so, I would have thought the Department had a respon- sibility to make the figures known to the public and also to make a similar survey of the amount of fraud in the 'unemployed' category.

Let us look briefly at the present 'success- ful' methods of trying to check abuse. I think it will be clear to most people how woefully inadequate they are. Three varieties of officer are principally involved, the Terri- torial Executive Officer, the Unemployment Review Officer and the Special Investigator. The last two are supposed to be specialists in preventing abuse and are described as 'highly trained', although in fact little train- ing is given to either and they are usually told 'you will pick up the job as you go along'.

The Territorial Executive Officer has direct responsibility for all new claims in his area, including questions both of finance

and of welfare. When a person claims benefit either through the post or in person at the office he is visited by the TEO to confirm residence, to see the rent book, and so on. After this initial visit a half-yearly visiting sequence is set in motion and these visits are usually carried out by Clerical Officers. Pressure of work is so great in the Depart- ment (yes it can happen in the Civil Service) that it would not be practical to have more frequent visiting or to make more than a superficial check on a claimant's circum- stances The claimants are normally notified in advance of a forthcoming visit so that if they are on the fiddle they have plenty of time to down tools and stay at home or put the 'boy friend's' tiddlywinks trophy out of sight in the cupboard. Despite this, and the conspicuous nature of his little black bag, if the reo still gets the impression that a fiddle is taking place, or if he considers that someone has been out of work for too long, then he can submit details to the Unemploy- ment Review Officer or the Special Investi- gator. In both cases it can be a matter of weeks or even months before the appropriate officer appears on the scene.

The Unemployment Review Officer, as the name suggests, reviews the employment situation and in theory directs the unem- ployed to vacancies. It is a particularly un- pleasant job. It exposes the officer to regular tirades of profanity and even to the threat of physical violence, as many seem to be fit to fight although too weak to work. However, so far so good; there is a special officer to get the workshy into work. It sounds very sensible. Unfortunately, at most offices this officer is seen for only three weeks once every two years. The overall effect he has on the employment situation is therefore virtually nil. It is true that during his three weeks' stay he will meet with limited short-term success, and the number of men got into work will more than pay his expenses, but what happens for the other 101 weeks in this strange cycle? The simple answer is, nothing.

We have all heard the proud boast of the 80,000 single men under the age of forty- five got into work by the four week rule, but what is to happen to that vast army of men who are not single? It is clear that if this present system of getting people into work is to have any impact then the number of 'specialists' will have to be increased spec- tacularly. But whatever the Department decides to do (if anything), the very existence of the post of Unemployment Review Officer indicates that something is wrong some- where. Surely the Department of Employ- ment and Productivity, with its knowledge of work available, should be sending the malin- gerers to work? They should have consider- ably more knowledge of local employment prospects than a specialist moving in for three weeks from another area. So what is happening? Does it mean that the two departments are doing the same job, or that one of them is doing its work inefficiently?

If there are too few Unemployment Review Officers, then it is also true that there are too few Special Investigators. At the moment there are only about 200 of them throughout the country, and even though this number is considerably more than at such departments as the DEP and the Inland Revenue, which are also being plundered and deprived respectively, it is still only touching 'the tip of the iceberg'. It has been suggested that there should be one sr to every office, but a more realistic figure to cope with the problem would be twn nr 'won than t_ _ _

woattd there be a real chance to get on top of the abuses. It is hard to understand why there are so few. It costs on average about f3,000 per year in salary and expenses to have an st on the road. A very conservative estimate as to the amount of public money he saves suggests it is about £15,000 annu- ally, and some consider it to be nearer £25,000. In either case the overall saving in public money is great and plain to see.

The main job of the st is to stop fraud amongst the 'unemployed' and the various types of 'cohabiting' and working women.

However, although the Si is a success financially, whether he makes any lasting impact on the position is highly debatable. Often he will have the same old cases to

deal with time and time again, for his deterrent value is practically non-existent. Only about one case of proved fraud in five ever gets to a court of law, and when it does the sentences meted out are usually derisory. Recently a self-employed builder was fined £10 after having an income of

at least £40 tax free per week over quite a long period of time. This is the usual story. The money will never be repaid.

Another recent case, again typical of its kind, concerns a dealer who was caught red- handed selling scrap. In the course of ten days he had received more than £70 by way of deals and benefit. This man had a breakdown many years ago; his health is now completely recovered but he has been pilfering public funds for some considerable time. It was assumed by all who knew the facts of the case that a prosecution would be fully justified. The Department's solicitors knew better, however, and directed that he be warned (`You have been a naughty boy, haven't you?') and the money recovered. This man's doctor regards him as com- pletely fit and the police, who know him as well as anyone, also regard him as fully fit; but he is now receiving benefit regularly although he is obviously trading with an- other, unknown, scrap dealer. He will never repay the money paid to him and his neighbours are rightly outraged and can see Mr Crossman's words at their face value. He, and many more like him, are enjoying a good laugh at the Department's and the taxpayers' expense.

In another case involving a long term fiddler the st had just got a good 'lead' when this somehow became known to the man. He immediately ceased drawing his benefit. As the fiddle had lasted for years and hundreds of pounds were involved, in- quiries were continued. They had almost been completed when the man, realising the situation he was in. wrote a letter complain- ing bitterly about the morality of probing into a man's activities when he was not even drawing money, adding that he would be contacting his MP and the press. Needless to say, inquiries were immediately stopped, so yet another man is enjoying a good laugh at the Department's expense.

The result of such episodes is that morale within the Department is low. It has be- come obvious that present methods are not proving effective and are often a complete waste of time. If the Department wishes to keep any self-respect, it must take realistic steps to stop abuse. If it can see nothing wrong in running a system which accepts the fact that it is open to wholesale dis- honesty, then the best thing to do would be greatly to increase the number of staff. If it is desired to tackle the problem honestly, then it is clear that the whole system of supplementary benefits must have a massive overhaul.