Forum Home → Discussion → Other benefit issues → Thread
Charity condemns plan to pay benefits on ‘smart cards’
Family Action has condemned government plans to explore the potential for giving benefit claimants their welfare payments on Oyster-style smart cards as opposed to cash, according to a story in Children and Young People Now.
Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith has asked officials to look into the feasibility of such an approach “in some detail”, as part of attempts to prevent people from spending benefits on alcohol or drugs. If introduced, the smart cards would be restricted so that claimants could only spend their benefits on essentials, such as food, clothing and housing – similar to a system used in Australia.
But Rhian Beynon, head of policy at Family Action, warned that the proposals risk stigmatising families and “fly in the face” of efforts to empower people on benefits to take financial responsibility for themselves.
For the whole story, see Charity condemns plan to pay benefits on ‘smart cards’
Possibly overheard in a corridor at DWP Towers recently:
“I’m not sure IDS is going far enough with his plastic cards. I seem to recall that In 1697, an Act for Supplying Some Defects in the Laws for the Relief of the Poor (8&9 Will II c.30) required the poor to wear badges bearing the letter ‘P’ followed by a letter indicating their home parish. With the forthcoming differentials in council tax support we will really need to keep these chancers in their own boroughs by jove. And we also need to get rid of those food bank do-gooders popping up all over the place. There’s nothing wrong with a few stale crusts and a dirty glass of water if the so-called claimants have to wait around for their handouts. What’s that? You mentioned contributory benefits? Ah yes, we are getting rid of that notion soon; blind ‘em with waffle and keep them paying their stealth taxes while we bang on about the deficit. Anyone seen my bicycle clips…?”
And when some people sell the food and clothing cheap to buy booze or drugs it will add another argument for cuts.
This is all a bit surreal.
This looks exactly the same argumnet as HB direct to landlords.
HB direct reduces choice but ensures the rent gets paid…
Time for both sides to rethink.
Do we want people to be financially responsible or not.
i think the deserving poor are allowed to be financially responsible
Hmm…. most ordinary folks (except on Rightsnet) have a concept of “deserving poor” or “deserving rich”.
Dont they?
Not much agreement about who it actually is.
Still, folks on Rightsnet appear to have the idea that its a vile notion.
So I commend you Seand for posting this heretical idea.
The idea that Rightsnet contributors don’t live in the real world is as old as it is contemptible. Those who reduce notions of deserving and undeserving poor to simplistic sound bites will do well to become better acquainted with history.
The concepts of deserving and undeserving poor began to consolidate themselves around the theory of less eligibility introduced by the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834.
“‘Less eligibility’ was defined as follows: that the situation of the able-bodied recipient of poor relief “on the whole shall not be made really or apparently as eligible as the independent labourer of the lowest class.” By this, it was meant that the condition of a pauper in the workhouse should be not as attractive as that of the poorest labourer outside the workhouse.”
Charles Dickens commented of this theory that “we have come to this absurd, this dangerous, this monstrous pass, that the dishonest felon is, in respect of cleanliness, order, diet, and accommodation, better provided for, and taken care of, than the honest pauper.”
It became popular to believe that being poor was a consequence of a moral failing of the individual rather than a consequence of the trade winds of economic forces, producing unemployment and wealth inequalities.
This notion has not gone away but there has been a subtle transition. Instead of the idea of poverty, which is now relative, being as a result of some moral failing of the individual, it is now seen as the consequence of the individual’s lifestyle choice. But this too is an oversimplification as problems like drug and alcohol addictions (to be sure, not new problems), poor education and mental illness need to be addressed.
Of course, there are, as Dickens recognized, plenty of “dishonest felons”. And we should have no truck with them. And, equally, I doubt if there many, either on Rightsnet or in the ‘real world’ who would not support a more rigorous approach with those who resist attempts by organizations to engage with them to address their attitudes and behaviours. But over simplistic classifications and crude stereotyping merely propagates ignorance and prejudice and helps no one
Of course, there are, as Dickens recognized, plenty of “dishonest felons”. And we should have no truck with them. http://www.victorianweb.org/history/poorlaw/eligible.html
Really. You surprise me Nevip…..
Are not these “dishonest felons” just the very people we should be helping? Not least to cut reoffending?
Would not a least deserving category be…. the workshy sons and daughters of the idle rich?
That’s a fair point. I was thinking more about career criminals and thugs who don’t give a stuff about anyone other than themselves. Workshy amongst the poor is more problematic. Very often that’s about changing attitudes, non-judgemental public services and perceptions of fairness in a society where the rich rip off the poor and then make the poor pay for it. And I agree with you about the workshy sons and daughters of the idle rich. But they are protected from the glare of the state even when tax dodging.
[ Edited: 25 Oct 2012 at 01:21 pm by nevip ]I’ve come across an interesting blog by Simon John Duffy giving his views as to why dependency within a welfare system should actually be viewed as something positive, and which chimes with what’s above.
It is for this reason that modern societies have developed welfare systems. Their purpose is to create systems of mutual assistance that enable people to avoid toxic dependency on others and to replace it with a healthy welfare dependency. Welfare systems create healthy dependencies when:
* People are enabled to get enough to meet their needs - not too little, not too much
* People get what they need as a matter of right - not by charity
* People are treated with dignity and respect at every stage - not stigmatised or treated as less worthy
The problem with welfare in the UK, therefore, is not that it creates dependency. Dependency is good and inevitable. The problem is that the system is badly designed. It is certainly less toxic than a system with no welfare provision - which creates abject poverty and corrosive dependencies and beggary. But it is more toxic than an effective system of universal, guaranteed income security - ideally provided through an integrated tax and benefit system with no visible stigma.
For the whole article, see What’s Wrong with Welfare Dependency?
Come across an interesting article looking at asylum seeker’s experiences of using prepay cards for their finances, and highlighting why this would be an extremely poor method of paying welfare benefits.
Many refugee support groups are campaigning against the use of these cards…[and]...report that some cardholders have suffered abuse from checkout staff, while others have been embarrassed because their shopping is rejected if it’s just a penny over the card’s balance.
Analysis from the Refugee Council found that more than half of cardholders felt anxiety and shame when they used their card. Not only that, but 60% had experienced the card not working, while others had been refused service at participating supermarkets.
If this system was to be rolled out for all social security benefits then it would need huge change or risk widespread hardship.
For example, it is often far cheaper to buy fruit and vegetables at local markets than at the big chain supermarkets. But these existing prepay cards only work at certain retailers, so the users can’t shop at the cheapest places.
Azure card users who still have a balance on an Azure card at the end of the week can’t save that money; just £5 can be rolled over to the following week.
If that system was copied for all benefits claimants then the users wouldn’t be able to save up for big purchases or to bulk-buy items. That wouldn’t teach budgeting skills or the value of savings.
For the whole piece, see Prepay benefits cards already exist – do they work?