Changes to benefits must allow for nuance

OVER the last couple of weeks there has been much talk of Daniel Blake, the central character in Ken Loach’s latest film, a joiner from the north east of England who is forced to rely on Britain’s Kafka-esque benefits system when a heart attack means he can no longer work. Suffice to say things don’t end well for Daniel, whose descent into poverty and indignity at the hands of the system is both quick and brutal.

I saw the film and it troubled me in many ways. I was haunted by the poverty it depicted, which I don’t doubt is entirely based on reality. But I also felt the characters had been cursed beyond necessity; anyone who has ever read Thomas Hardy’s Jude The Obscure will understand what I mean.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, there was little evidence of my ambivalence in the political response to the film. Those on the right were predictably determined to rubbish Loach and dehumanise benefits claimants. The left, meanwhile, appeared overly keen to turn everyone who has ever claimed Jobseeker’s Allowance into a Daniel Blake, and to suggest condescendingly that all working class people are noble, put-upon and entirely at the mercy of an evil state.

The reality, of course, is much more complex than either of these two narratives allow for and the Scottish Government would do well to avoid such over-simplification when approaching the creation of its new benefits system. Among the payments in the process of being devolved to the Scottish Parliament are Disability Living Allowance, Carer’s Allowance, Attendance Allowance and some elements of housing support. Most benefits, however, will stay at Westminster.

I don’t doubt that all this will be extremely challenging for Scottish social security minister Jeane Freeman to negotiate. Not that she can do any worse than Iain Duncan Smith, of course, whose Universal Credit policy – aimed at making work pay for the poorest – is already renowned for punishing the very people it was set up to help. Duncan Smith was never going to be the right man to reform welfare policy, though his experience offers stark and pertinent warnings to all parties around how difficult welfare policy can be to get right.

We can perhaps dare to hope that things may change for the better if Ms Freeman’s approach so far is anything to go by, however.

‘‘ We need to hear directly from the sick and disabled about how the system can help rather than hinder them and their families

Her recent announcement that 2,000 volunteers will be recruited to help shape the new system is a welcome and sensible start. Not only will benefits recipients themselves be an important part of this taskforce, but also frontline staff who have seen the system work at its best and worst. Ms Freeman is right to say we can only hope to avoid the pitfalls of the current UK system by listening to the experiences of real people. We also, of course, need to hear directly from the sick and disabled – those most affected by the new devolution settlement – about how the system can help rather than hinder them and their families.

I don’t doubt that Ms Freeman, a successful activist and campaigner before being elected to parliament, will listen carefully to these voices and do what she can to avoid the worst blunders of the UK system. But without control over the whole system the Scottish Government can only tinker around the edges. And the honest truth is there are probably many within her party heaving a discreet sigh of relief that more benefits are not coming Scotland’s way; they know the sort of government action required to really make a difference in people’s lives would cost the sort of money that makes politicians and the electorate alike wince.

Talk to the experts and they will tell you that tackling the ingrained poverty of aspiration that has been festering away in our poorest communities for generations would require intensive state intervention on a massive scale. Long-term solutions to problems like chronic unemployment, lack of education and addiction – we’re probably talking expensive, round-the-clock key workers for every affected family - don’t come quick, easy or cheap. And just imagine what those opposed to a so-called nanny state would make of it.

Then there are the working poor, folk who work hard but are paid a pittance, who can’t afford the astronomical private rents they’re forced into because there are no council houses left. The questions raised by these different plights are fundamentally complex. How far should society supplement the incomes of people trapped by the forces of global capitalism? How much more tax are the comfortably off willing to pay to invest in their fellow citizens? I honestly don’t know how to answer; unlike Ken Loach or Iain Duncan Smith I don’t have ideological dogma to guide me on this one.