Cold Weather Welfare Deficiencies

A PENSIONER was found stranded on his kitchen floor after falling while trying to keep himself warm in front of his oven. Paramedics discovered the man, in his 80s, in Grands Vaux after he had fallen in front of his cooker.
He had been standing with his knees in front of the open oven door open because he could not afford to heat the rest of his home. (1)

Jersey's citizens advice bureau says people living there less than five years will be hit hardest by the rise in the goods and services tax (GST). Malcolm Ferey, from the bureau, said they may not be able to apply for income support. Jersey politicians voted to keep GST on food and fuel and to increase the tax to 5% from June 2011. Malcolm Ferey said he was disappointed the States did not allow goods and services tax (GST) exemptions. He said there was a portion of the community that falls into the gap and loses out on support. This group includes pensioners and those who have been there for fewer than five years. Mr Ferey said that the increases would also hit the middle earners who have no tax buffer and would mean many could not afford "life's little luxuries". He said: "There are people who fall through the gaps and if someone has been here for four years it is feasible they have contributed to society, they have a family and fall on hard times.

"These are the type of people, it is a social group that do need to be looked at.
"They won't qualify for income support because they have been here for less than five years, there is little or no support for these people."

Mr Ferey said there were no reduced tax thresholds to soften the blow of the increases. It is into these "gaps" that the 80 year old pensioner falls, quite literally, and where income support does not catch the relevant people within its net.(2)

Even within income support, and its cold weather component, there can be problems.

A "Memorandum submitted by National Energy Action" to the UK Parliament noted that:

The time-lag in fuel poverty data means that official statistics are not current. However even on the basis of older data covering a period before the worst effects of energy price increases there was no prospect of meeting the 2010 target and little prospect of meeting the 2016 target for England (4)

The definition of households in fuel poverty commonly used-i.e. those households where more than 10% of income has to be spent on fuel for adequate heating

The reliability of official fuel poverty data is compromised as a result of the time-lag between collation and publication of survey findings.(1)

The figures for "fuel poverty" under these thresholds gives a significant weight towards the elderly single pensioner, which is precisely where the pensioner above falls:

One person aged 60 or over 34%
Couple aged 60 or over 14%

Jersey doesn't use this measure of benchmarking and instead bases its component of income support upon "the aggregate of the amount by which the average daily temperature of each day in that month falls below 15.5 degrees Celsius".

When the JEC had an increase of 25% in its heating bills, the basis for doing this was refined so that the component was first increased, and then fixed to the Retail Price Index.

The Minister decided to amend the Income Support (Special Payments) (Cold Weather Payments) (Jersey) Regulations 2008 to increase the value of the cold weather payment by approximately 20% and to link future cold weather payments to the fuel and light element of the Retail Price Index and accordingly requested the Law Draftsman to prepare the necessary draft legislation.

It is possible for fuel prices to fall as well as rise and the regulation should allow the base value to reduce as well as increase from year to year.

This is a better measure for statistics than the UK, where a time lag of several years occurs, but it is still deficient in giving a three month lag, where the cost of fuel - as we have seen in recent months - can increase extremely rapidly. This means the quarterly heating bill may well be hitting the home at least 15 days before the retail index is published. It is also not clear whether the retail index is the best measure - an index based primarily on fuel costs would probably be better, as it would not be reduced by the averaging and weighting effects of other items in the calculation.

Moreover the current advice on hypothermia, which is more likely to effect the elderly (whose temperature regulation is poorer) is to keep the room temperature warmer. The temperature of 15.5C is the minimum given in the UK NHS guidelines, and this reflects the problem of Jersey in taking what might be fine for younger families, and applying such a criteria across the board, without reflecting the very real dangers to older people.

Even if you keep your temperature between 60°F (15.5C)and 65°F (18.3C) , your home or apartment may not be warm enough to keep you safe. For some people, this temperature can contribute to hypothermia. This is a special problem if you live alone because there is no one else to feel the chilliness of the house or notice if you are having symptoms of hypothermia. Set your thermostat for at least 68°F (20C) to 70°F (21C).

The paper on "Evaluating welfare state efforts and the model family approach: problems and promises" notes that one of the problems with benefits systems is "The methods used to target assistance at households which need it most". The Income Support Cold Weather payments does target infants under 3, and elderly over the age of 65 years, which are the two most significant areas, but only for those who are "in receipt of income support".

But the paper notes that:

The correlation between social assistance levels and poverty risks is probably rather weak because the model family approach focuses on only one specific dimension of social protection, that is the level of fiscal and social benefits. The adequacy of social protection arrangements however also depends on other factors.

and in particular, because:

Firstly, the eligibility rules can exclude certain categories from income protection. (3)

If this is the case for the pensioner - that he falls into the "gap" where eligibility ceases, but need is still there, then clearly the rules need reconsideration. Part of the problem may be how the family types considered by income support are defined:

Because the impact of social protection measures is necessarily calculated for only a limited number of family types, model family results are far more illustrative than representative. (3)

But what is equally significant is to do with how "pro-active" claimants are. In the days of Parish Welfare, the disadvantage was that the system was not on a universal Island wide statutory level, but the advantage was that Parish officials were employed to proactively seek claimants who - perhaps like the pensioner in question - may have a need but had little or no idea how to go about that. This is a finding of a problem across Europe of pretty well all welfare systems:

Secondly, family models assume that all families claim and receive the benefits for which they are eligible. In other words, family models do not take into account the administrative feasibility of social protection measures and related non-take-up rates. Nevertheless several studies indicate that non-take-up rates for social assistance benefits can amount to 20 % and more

The UK Report on "Winter Fuel Payments and Cold Weather Payments" to the Select Committee noted that the problems with take-up were significantly high to pose a risk to the health of those vulnerable to cold weather, and that a universal fuel payment was probably a better safety-net.

There is understandable ambivalence about the Winter Fuel Payment as a fuel poverty initiative and this is inevitable whilst the payment is based solely on age with no reference to need. However the universal nature of the payment overcomes a number of difficulties including non-take-up of entitlement, which is common amongst pensioner households, and the issue of those who would be marginally excluded from entitlement if the benefit were to be means-tested. (4)

That is, of course, a political decision, but so is the decision not to exempt domestic fuel from GST. Clearly better safety nets need to be organised so that a near tragedy does not turn into a real tragedy, and people like this pensioner are found and given help. This occurrence should act as a warning, flagging up deficiencies that need to be addressed sooner rather than later. For later may turn out to be too late.

First Collector: At this festive time of year, Mr. Scrooge, it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and destitute.
Ebenezer: Is there no income support?
First Collector: Plenty of income support for those who can access it. Although it barely supplies enough to keep off the cold, and little enough for food.
Ebenezer: Oh, from what you said at first I was afraid that something had happened to stop it in their useful course. I'm very glad to hear it.
First Collector: I don't think you quite understand us, sir. A few of us are endeavoring to buy the poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth.
Ebenezer: Why?
First Collector: Because it is at Christmastime that want is most keenly felt, and abundance rejoices. Now what can I put you down for?
Ebenezer: Huh! Nothing!
Second Collector: You wish to be anonymous?
Ebenezer: [firmly, but calmly] I wish to be left alone. Since you ask me what I wish sir, that is my answer. I help to support the establishment I have named; there is income support, and forms to complete, and those those who are badly off must go there.
First Collector: Many can't go there. They are not eligible.
Second Collector: And some don't know that they can, and would die.

Links
(1) http://www.thisisjersey.com/2010/12/17/concerns-for-elderly-as-cold-snap-returns/#ixzz18dgm4ujI
(2) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-11968866
(3) http://www.spsw.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/static/Espanet/espanetconference/papers/ppr.16.NVM.pdf
(4) http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmenergy/424/424we28.htm
(5) http://www.gov.je/Government/PlanningPerformance/Pages/MinisterialDecisions.aspx?showreport=yes&docid=cb8c5db95c88c7cb5408c3402808b278_MDs
(6) http://www.nia.nih.gov/healthinformation/publications/hypothermia.htm

A Mean form of Testing

Where a patient claimed he could not afford treatment, an investigation would have to be made into his means, with all the personal humiliation and vexation involved. This scarcely provides the relaxed mental condition needed for a quick and full recovery. Of course there is always the right to refuse treatment to a person who cannot afford it. You can always 'pass by on the other side'. That may be sound economics. It could not be worse morals.... The essence of a satisfactory health service is that the rich and the poor are treated alike, that poverty is not a disability, and wealth is not advantaged.

Aneurin Bevan, "In Place of Fear"

The Jersey system of attendance allowance is described as follows:

Attendance allowance (income-tested): Payable to a severely disabled person or a disabled child aged 4 or older who requires extra care and attention. The allowance is paid after 6 months of disability. The allowance is subject to an annual income ceiling of £51,511.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/ssptw/2006-2007/europe/jersey.html


Recently (see article below), Paul Routier, the Minister in charge of Jersey's new income support scheme has come under fire, because attendance allowance for minors is being assessed as part of parental income, and under the new scheme, parents are worse off. It is not helped by the fact that in place of a simple application for one kind of benefit, there is now a form that weighs in something of the order of 20 odd pages to be completed.

I was reminded of Lord Addington, speaking on this kind of thing in England, with means testing. He said:

One has to go through a bureaucratic process and therefore, on the margins, that will probably waste money--through reassessments and so on--and incur greater costs. The bureaucratic system does not help.

Attendance allowance is given to those who, under the old Poor Law in England were termed "impotent poor".

The impotent poor could not look after themselves or go to work. They included the ill, the infirm, the elderly, and children with no-one to properly care for them. It was generally held that they should be looked after.


Because of this, and quite rightly, applicants are is subject to a medical report by an independent doctor appointed by the social security department for this purpose.

When it comes to the point that such applicants would clearly be unable to understand or complete any form, however simple, because of the severity of their handicap, and they are children, their parents have to apply on their behalf. Unlike other matters regarding income support, the lot of these children is unlikely to improve substantially in terms of independence, they may often need supervision for the rest of their lives. If the parents threw up their hands, and asked the State to take over this job, it would be at considerably greater cost. And yet these same parents are burdened with vexatious form filling and scrutiny where a medical report should be sufficient.

There is a wonderful debate in the Irish Parliament, where the speaker completely loses touch with reality. Here is his rational argument for means testing:

The real trouble about all this appears to be the means test. This only seems to arouse a lot of discussion and a lot of discord. I can never really understand this because through all our lives whether we are looking for a loan from the bank to buy a house or getting a car on hire purchase there is always the means test, no matter what class one belongs to.

Of course, you don't have to buy a car, it is your choice whether you want to be means tested and buy one. Having a severely mentally handicapped child is not a matter of choice. It is not something that people go out and actively seek! The complete inability of the speaker to see the difference shows how utterly removed he is from the lives of ordinary people.

Returning to the matter in hand. Not only is the State getting "community care", it is also getting a cheap alternative to institutional care, and it is no surprise that parents are going to be angry when after all the bureaucratic hoops, they are actually ending up in a worse regime than the ancient Poor Law, which despite its many deficiencies, looked upon the "impotent poor" as needing to be looked after by the State, not dumped on parents. Means testing under these circumstances is a mean form of testing, "a principle that eats like an acid", as Bevan put it, of those already facing a struggle that will not go away.

Kathleen Jones summed it up well, when she said:


To the politician, community care is a useful piece of rhetoric; to the sociologist, it is a stick to beat institutional care with; to the civil servant, it is a cheap alternative to institutional care which can be passed to the local authorities for action, or inaction; to the visionary, it is a dream of a new society in which people really do care; to social services departments, it is a nightmare of heightened public expectations and inadequate resources to meet them.

We have a long way to go to find a just society like Bevan's vision, in which the essence of a satisfactory social security support service is that the rich and the poor, but severely handicapped and in need of care, are treated alike, that poverty is not a disability, and wealth is not advantaged.

---

http://www.thisisjersey.com/2008/05/23/parents%e2%80%99-anger-at-income-support/

Parents' anger at income support

By Harry McRandle

PARENTS with disabled children at Mont à l'Abbé School vented their anger to a Scrutiny panel yesterday at the prospect of being much worse off under the new income support scheme. They were among various members of the public who told the Economic Affairs Scrutiny sub-panel how means testing of the attendance allowance benefit will make life more difficult for them. Their stories led to some spiky clashes between panel member Deputy Geoff Southern and Social Security Minister Paul Routier, when he later gave evidence on the new system. Deputy Southern accused the minister of depriving the most vulnerable by means testing an allowance paid to 750 Islanders at a cost of about £4 million a year. Senator Routier may be on the verge of a u-turn on attendance allowance for families with disabled children.

Income Support

Jersey has a new centralised income support scheme, but a letter in the JEP highlighted that people are having problems with it. A letter relating to this was in the paper yesterday (details below).

I wonder if any survey of any kind is planned to see how people are coping with the new income support scheme. This is one of several anecdotal cases of people writing to the JEP from having problems with income support.

It is not clear to me what mechanisms are in place for assessing feedback in relation to the scheme, and addressing any deficiencies; after all, it is unlikely that any brand new scheme of legislation will be perfect from the start. Lack of complaints do not necessarily mean the scheme is working well, but may just mean that people imagine that their concerns may be ignored and dismissed.

I notice from the Minutes of the Scrutiny sub-committe that they are looking at a "call for evidence" which may well address this issue "once the system has bedded in". That is mentioned in the January Minutes. Now that we are in March, and GST is only one month away, is there any definite scale for that or plans for how it is to be implemented? We shall see.

http://www.scrutiny.gov.je/minutes.asp?panelid=32
http://www.scrutiny.gov.je/view_doc.asp?doc=documents/minutes/S-27356-37939-632008.pdf&panelid=32&reviewid=0&target=min

---

Income Support system is not doing its job

From Peter Marriott.

80 Journeaux Court,
St Helier.

I AM prompted to write this letter because it affects not only my wife and myself, but also all elderly disabled or semi-disabled persons, of whom there are many who, for various reasons, cannot use the bus.
We are 70 and 77 years old respectively and many people like us find it difficult getting on to a bus or getting to a convenient collection point, so we have to use our own cars.
We were able to maintain our limited independence with the help of the transport allowance, but that has now been removed, thereby depriving us and restricting our everyday activities which we previously enjoyed.
Other readers' comments would make the authorities reconsider, perhaps. As I see it, all the new Income Support scheme has achieved is to further humiliate the very people who need it most.

Published 26/3/2008