picking up one what andrew fisher said in the 'expedited appeals' discussion - thought it fairer to start a new thread -

"But to me the big problem with the AO/DM change was that it allowed managers to 'streamline' the mindset of their adjudication and administration stratae;"

i agree and would go further. the main aim and achievement of the BA was to enforce cultural change within. i'm sure people can work out why.

the 'good old days' were not really good old days, but everything is relative. the old DHSS existed to deliver the social security system of benefits largely formalised in the creation of the welfare state in 1948, at the heart of which lay the law itself.

the 'business' and focus of the BA was the "cost efficient" delivery of service. the significance of the shift in emphasis can't be overstated. adjudication, or rather, the law, in that context, became an obstacle to the efficient delivery of service, which as we know, is heavily reliant on its IT systems.

the quasi separation of adjudication and administrative powers, which involved the civil service trick known as 'the wearing of different hats' had paradoxically, perhaps _because_ it was so theoretically unsatisfactory, been taken very seriously by many adjudicators, and their independance was quite fiercely guarded.

another problem to be managed of course, were the claimants, who now had to be called customers. there had been more than a decade of rocketing unemployment, the biggest since the welfare state was set up. increased means -testing and high unemployment appear to go hand in hand, fueling a 'demand' for cuts - in benefits and admin costs. The cuts in benefits result in increased means testing, which make the demand for cuts in staff contradictory and absurd, but demands can over-ride even absurdities.

so the law, the staff, and the claimants were all variously problems to be managed by the BA. (the DSS unions are another story.)like the explosion of NHS managers in the 90s, a sad case of mistaking the menu for the meal.

the BA set about abolishing adjudication long before it got the 1998 SS Act. many of todays DM's were the casual staff taken on during those vicious times, on 3 - 12 month fixed term contracts, renewable if they were lucky, and did what they were told.

i just hope the youngsters know what they're up against. not that i'm _very_ old - just slightly neurotic.

jj

Very true and coming round full circle with the fag end of the discussion on CIS/4348/2003 (the implications of which seem to be so horrific that everyone else has their head very reasonably stuck in the sand about it - either that or no-one looks at the other benefits / other subjects columns and stops at decision making and appeals), the implication is that EVERYTHING IS TURNING INTO TAX CREDITS.

Increased centralisation, all of TAS relocating to Manchester, most appeal venues closing, chairmen to be called judges, LSC funding to be cut yet further, months waiting for DWP submissions that if they arrive are written by computer, labyrinthine rules enforced by undertrained staff uninformed of caselaw, caselaw in any case being streamlined to nullify anything previously enacted and to cut a swathe through established good practice and just pay scant lip service to Article 6.

I just hope we don't get an email saying that because our postings are about recovery of overpayments and not about entitlement they will not be sent on.

lol! it is something of a concern. but social security and tax are undeniably political issues, and no reasonable discussion can take place which fails to acknowledge the reality of the situation.

fortunately, as we're a democracy, and therefore value freedom of speech, no one can't touch you for it, without showing themselves to be morons or liars - even if you're a registered charity or variously funded voluntary organisation or LA. the naughty stuff apparently is party politics, and i don't see how that arises in a virtual one party state. : )

sure, any talk of politics makes civil servants and the like nervous, but it would be quite wrong if the LSC or other funders threatened free discussion and debate so as to censor or ban any discourse which verges on the political. not only would it be an abuse of power but it would inevitably compel the speaking of gibberish and only gibberish all of the time, which would bring about the downfall of western civilisation as we know it. i'm pretty sure they're better than that.

and it's public knowledge that the idea of a tax credit system was in the February 1976 conservative manifesto, and i haven't made any point about it at all!

: )

jj

oopsie! 1974 of course.

I think it's very moot that the otherwise excellent Just Law (by Helena Kennedy) concentrates on criminal law and the wholesale changes being wrought on the system to fundamental detriment (a very narrow precis but you get the gist), but leaves out the civil side of things. That somehow never matters as much to those sort of people as the possibility of going to prison.

I think the lack of appeal rights on recovery of tax credit overpayments can have just as devastating an effect on vulnerable groups such as lone parents as criminal matters. Worse, if anything: if someone's benefit is cut to £25 per week under IS levels so they can't feed their children then if that isn't article 8 able if not article 3 able then what is?

And then is it no surprise that crime rates for young women are on the increase?

At least they feed you in prison.

In ones querulous bombastic middle class comfortable youth there lurked the idea of being a revolutionary within the system, of changing things from within. I think that is exactly the tack that the current government has taken. They're all lawyers. They know what they have to change to really change things. And they have. But no-one understands what they've done, and it has been change solely on their own terms.

Oh Boy! I feel a lrant coming on. As someone from a relatively poor working class background I despise the benefits system and always have. It is, and always has been, a means of disciplining the working class; the poor laws, the workhouse, the theory of less eligibility and the undeserving poor, the household means test of the 1930's, and,, means testing in general.

As both a past claimant, and adviser I have fought the mean spiritedness, increasing co-ercion and general indifference within the system and of some (a minority to be fair)of those who administer it.

Prior to the coming into force of The Social Security Act 1988 when most appeals were about discretionary single payments and long term extra needs additions, the (usually working class) appellant had to present before a tribunal as humble, compliant and grateful in order to stand a good chance of success. Attitude, generally, got you nowhere.

Ironically, it was the Tories who put the system on a tighter legislative footing, introducing entitlement based premia into subsistence benefits, which was previously riddled with discretion.

Of course there were losers but at least if you were legally entitled, attitude did not matter. Under Labour complexity has been re-introduced back into the system but with increasing unfairness; no right of appeal against tax credit overpayments, the anti-test case rule, the re-integration of administration and adjudication functions(previously mentioned by JJ), the tightening of the civil legal aid budget, pressure on,and stigmatisation of, ICB claimants (languishing indeed!), work focused interviews for the world and its dog, etc. I could go on.

Finally, Tax Credits and its predecessors (and you dont want to get me started on this one). A means to subsidise employers who dont pay decent wages in the first place but squeeze every last drop of profit from the workforce before outsourcing their jobs to third world ununionised sweatshops and then pay themselves fat bonuses.

Andrew, you make a great point about increasing crime rates among young women. Had not thought about that before.

Aaaarh! Thats better! I needed that. I feel better now, and relax!

Regards everyone
Paul.

recent figures suggest personal tax evasion of between 15 to 85 billion quid.
As for corporate tax evasion - that's anyone's guess.

1% of the population get 20% of the income

apparently (in the guardian - yeh i no you can't believe everything) 264,000 families own roughly 64% of the land in uk.

which begs the question - who are the real scroungers.

the ideologues who think it's fine for the rich to become even richer, and to sell of state assets in favour of privatisation and the largesse of the multinationals , and to limit state provision of services eg utilities, care services, welfare and access to legal advice to the people.
or the victims of the above.

anyway just to add that the above observations are merely my own muses and don't represent my employers opinions etc etc

yes! yes! and yes!

i hope we all fell a little better!

like paul, there are things you don't want to get me started on...: )

<rant deleted>

just to confess - i came across the Feb 74 labour party manifesto quite by chance last week, while searching for something else. there were two elections that year - interesting times again. i know, i sound like a saddo... : ) but...

here's the link, just in case anyone wants to read it - and weep...: )
it's fascinating stuff for the that way inclined. particularly in conjunction with the conservative platform, which i attach in the interests of even-handedness.

http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/man/lab74feb.htm

http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/man/con74feb.htm

i think andrew fisher definitely should read it, in revenge for that secret trust thingy!

jj

In keeping with the direction this thread is taking, I copy in below several lines from the new DWP report on the evils of Incapacity Benefit to be found on the NEWS page.

I leave it up to the reader to interpret the reasoning behind the conclusions reached in this report, bearing in mind it is drawn up by the DWP themselves: if you find reading the extracts below somewhat disturbing, I suggest you read the whole report - other than that I will make no comment, other than to draw attention to the wording of the third paragraph in particular:

==========================================
The safety and security of access to benefits for those incapable of work is a potential barrier to successful take-up of Vocational Rehabilitation, according to new DWP research.

The launch of the framework followed DWP research that found however that the benefit system is a potential barrier to successful take-up of Vocational Rehabilitation. The research highlights that Incapacity Benefit, for example, can be seen as providing a secure, safe source of income, especially for those with lower earning potential -

...........looking at GPs’ approach to signing patients off work due to sickness/injury, and "how they might be encouraged to modify their thinking".

===========================================

that must be the, watch my lips, Education, Education, Education.

education appeals. Up.

hmmm. unified tribunal service. JOINED UP THINKING.

Had only a little time to look at the framework document, and had the usual difficulties with the puke-inducing language.

Vocational rehabilitation.

uh huh! apparently it can mean whatever you want it to mean.

"the premise stakeholders must start from is that everybody is employable." nothing like getting your pre-suppositions out in the open is there?

some lengths went into avoiding the use of the words 'sick' especially, and to a lesser degree, disabled.

i have a bit of a joined up thinking problem myself so... i'll post it elsewhere in the forum... and let the dots get joined as they will.

jj

jj - I've done my best with those manifestos but blimey give me a bit of the old secret trust malarkey any day of the week. However - you haven't quoted in full the tax credit part of the Conservative manifesto, and it is so historically fascinating thirty years on:

"We shall continue our programme of tax reform with the Tax Credit Scheme. We will introduce legislation in the next Parliament in order to implement the scheme as soon as the economic situation allows.

The separation between the systems of taxation and social security has proved, in recent years, an increasingly difficult obstacle to the creation of a fair society. In particular, it has made it difficult to give sufficient help to those who, while not in acute poverty, are nonetheless struggling and hard pressed.

The Tax Credit Scheme will bring the two systems - of taxation and social security - together in a single coherent scheme, which will greatly alleviate this problem and bring immediate help to those now affected by it.

The introduction of the scheme will further simplify and modernise our tax system, and bring substantial savings in the cost of administration. For social security, it will represent the most important advance since the implementation of the Beveridge Report more than a generation ago.

The first step would be to pay tax credits for children, including the first child, for whom mothers at present receive no family allowance at all. These child credits, which will be paid to the mother, will be worth more than the existing income tax child allowances and family allowances which they will replace. Mothers will get cash each week through the Post Office, in exactly the same way as they cash the existing, but less valuable, family allowances.

When fully implemented the tax credit scheme:

will provide a positive social benefit in cash to millions of hard-pressed families with low incomes, especially where there are children;
will give credits as a right - automatically and without a means-test;
will relieve hundreds of thousands of pensioners from the need to claim supplementary benefit and give a significant increase in income to another 3 or 4 million pensioners."

Lumme!

there! wasn't it worth the trouble?

that 'Alice in Wonderland' feeling, without taking the pills or the shrooms!

: )

Not unlike my Wife's culinary skills

- the final product never looks anything like the recipe said it would ...........






The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist
is that the taxidermist leaves the skin.
-- Mark Twain