The Business of Government Goes On

A case for Incapacity Benefit

As appalling as it has been for the country, at least the tenure of Brown as PM has had the benefit of bringing a little unpredictability to British politics. Every time you think that the very nadir of competence and honesty has been reached, it seems that the bar can be lowered further.

Reaction to Conservative proposals on benefit reform has though been much more traditional fare where it has been scarcely worth the wear and tear on the contact lenses to read the reaction from the Government, Lib Dems and various interest groups, so predictable has it been.

As the The Guardian succinctly summarises the policy:

Controversial proposals to remove benefits for three years from people who refuse their third offer of a job are to be announced by the Conservatives tomorrow.

Source: The Guardian

I don't really think any sane person would believe that having 2.6 million on incapacity benefits at a time when, we are told we need vast swathes of immigration to fill jobs is remotely a tenable position, but this is a benefits issue, an area rarely illuminated in the glare of common sense.

It would appear that in some cases 'conservative_benefit_change_response.doc' has simply been attached to the appropriate distribution list and e-mailed without even reading the proposal, as seems to be the case with mental health charity Mind:

A spokeswoman for Mind, the mental health charity, said: "David Cameron needs to bear in mind the 40% of IB claimants who have mental health problems.

"Continuing stigma and discrimination also means many employers will not hire people with mental health problems."

Source: The Guardian

To help out what appears to be a very overworked Mind spokeswoman, I shall underline the key phrase: "refuse their third offer of a job". Listen, think, speak...it really does help.
Even the access to a large support staff is no guarantee of successful critique though, as Peter Hain demonstrates admirably in the same article:

"Their plans to interview 2.6 million people would also be prohibitively expensive."

Source: The Guardian

OK, so interviewing 2.6 million, even in the unlikely event that there isn't some simple pre-filtering that can be done on this number, with the real likelihood of making some compensating cost savings is prohibitively expensive, where as interviewing the entire adult population of the country for their ID card, for negligible gain other than in satisfaction to bureaucrat egos is not?

While we are on the subject of Hain and unhealthy orange glows, what do the Lib Dems think? Some bold blue-sky thinking coming down from their new leader? A realisation that welfare reform is possibly one area where they could be an honest broker in real change? No, they are still the party of 'real opposition', at least to anything that the government opposes:

Liberal Democrat work and pensions spokesman Danny Alexander said: "Once again, the Tories have missed the point about welfare reform. Millions of sick and disabled people want to work, but the government has failed to provide the tailored support they need to find a job."

Source: The Guardian

Let's be fair to Alexander, not only is he one of the more honest people in UK politics bearing his surname, but he is right to point out that the plans on a carrot side could do with a bit more fleshing out, but in general it seems that he too has missed the point that the proposal applies only to those who have rejected job offers, not those unable to get such an offer. There is still the implicit presumption against any application of the stick, anyone who listens to one end of the claimants involved in their willing acceptance of life on the taxpayers' payroll should realise that both are desperately needed.

Looking at the numbers involved and the high bar set for having benefits withdrawn it does appear to be a modest proposal. Personally I'd love to see a more ambitious target and for each and every penny saved over the basic target to fund an increase in Incapacity Benefits so those who are genuinely unable to work, for reasons physical or mental, can live the kind of dignified life that a modern society like ours should be able to offer once the abuse is stopped.

Compare and Contrast

The Lords: The People's House?

There are two principle bodies that are generally acknowledged as having a significant amount of control over the legislation by which we are governed but lack any real democratic legitimacy. One is wholly appointed, rather than elected, the other, for the time being, largely so. I refer, of course, to that venerable constitutional anomaly, the House of Lords, and around two hundred miles away, our lords and masters in the European Commission. I would argue that the Skoda minds of the British Civil Service, especially in cases of secondary legislation can have an unhealthy influence beyond their remit, but for now I will stick to the two more conventional pantomime villains. Both have made the news today, in the case of the former for very sensibly doing nothing, and in the latter for getting slapped down when it tried to do something it shouldn't.

First the good news. As trailed by Ian Dale on Tuesday,
David Maclean's Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill seems to have run into the buffers yesterday. It has fallen foul of a twelve day time limit for finding a peer to sponsor it through the Lords, and now seems unlikely, for timetable reasons to make further progress. Confirmation finally came via the BBC, who I suppose can't be blamed for taking so long to report what is, in effect, a story of nothing happening. Tom McNally, leader of the Lib Dem Lords is quoted as saying:

"It seems very likely that this squalid little bill will no longer become law. We are happy that this bill will not become law.

"It speaks volumes that no member of the House of Lords was prepared to support this legislation.

"It could be revived any time during this session but there is simply no parliamentary time.

"The government would have to extend its already extraordinary generosity to this bill to the point where it would become a government bill."

Source: BBC News

Government sources suggest that even they are now sensitive to this fact and, as much as they may still at heart want the bill, have signalled that no such generosity will be forthcoming.

I've got nasty images of some trumped up FOI disclosure hitting the headlines to apply CPR to this one, but, for now, I'll settle for keeping the hundred plus MPs who were prepared to vote in favour of this bill, bringing the institution they represent into disrepute, on my watch list. It's rare any Parliamentary chamber can claim to have entirely clean hands over the fate of a piece of legislation, but to a Lord and Lady the upper chamber can on this occasion. For all their anachronistic nature, they've once again put the people first. I'm going to put this one on the back burner now, but the campaign banner stays for now. After all, the EU Constitution has been stabbed with more steely knives than this bill as we know the beast is far from killed.

Which neatly takes over the water to Brussels and, erm, more good news, but only because the European Court of Justice has stepped in to stop the European Commission making 24 carat gold plated prats of themselves. The European Commission were very upset that under British Health and Safety law:

...every employer must ensure, "so far as is reasonably practicable", the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.

Source: EU Observer

This was obviously an anathema to a body for whom reason and practicality are unwelcome, alien concepts like referenda and democracy, so naturally they hauled the British Government in front of the ECJ.

The ECJ, probably being intelligent enough to realise how ridiculous this would, once again, make the EU look, threw out the case, regardless of how much they may sympathised with the desire for more opportunities for nit picking micromanagement, thereby saving the Commission from heaping more contempt upon themselves.

The commission apparently:

...saw the British phrase as "opening doors for employers to escape their responsibilities" if they could prove that extra safety measures would have been disproportionate in terms of costs, time or trouble when balanced against relevant risk.

Source: EU Observer

You could almost cry. There must be somewhere, buried in a dark recess of the Berlaymont, someone in the Commission with enough residual brain function to understand the connection between statements like this and the prevalence of what they like to write off as 'Euromyths' (Usually proposals that were so stupid, that though considered, couldn't quite garner enough support to try and push through the legislation, so where quietly shelved for another day).

The Berlaymont: Heart of the Beast

The Commission, as well as much of the rest of the European infrastructure, seems to feel that they operate under a different system of reality from the rest of us mere mortals. As with so many slightly reasonable sounding statements from the Commission, all you have to do is consider the underlying logic to realise what kind of cloud cuckoo land these people live in.

To rephrase, without changing the meaning of the Commission statement above, what it is saying is that there is "no safety measure which can be considered disproportionate in terms of time, cost or trouble, if there is any risk whatsoever". It says exactly the same thing, but doesn't sound so reasonable anymore does it? But that's exactly how the Commission appear to see things.

It doesn't even begin to sound reasonable. Every day, for example we weigh up risk versus time and trouble every time we cross a road; when we opt for many kinds of investment we weigh risks against the financial rewards. To expect companies not to do some of the same calculations is preposterous. To do so is to ask them either to reduce risk to zero, which is not remotely possible, or in the alternative to spend an infinite amount of time, trouble or money to mitigate the ever diminishing but never disappearing risk. The weak position of the Commission is that they accept some risk is "unforeseeable". This does not help at all; not all potential risk that it is unreasonable to guard against is unforeseeable, it is just infinitely improbable.

This latest battle in the Commission's endless war on common sense is far from over, as they are going back to discuss the matter with the "social partners". Even the "social partner-in-chief" in the UK, the TUC, don't seem to want to associate themselves with this nonsense, and according to EU Observer, "British trade unions have poured scorn on the EU executive's general approach".

REACH: More Moronism

Another example of this lack of rational thought came back to haunt the land of common sense a few days ago, with the coming into force of the REACH chemicals directorate. Many will remember the Communications VP, Margot Wallström's blog contribution a few months ago, praising the then proposed directive, where she proudly announced:

"What does it change? REACH will reverse the burden of proof. Instead of the public authorities trying to prove that a chemical is dangerous, the producer will have to prove that it is not dangerous or that we can manage the risks"

Margot Wallström, EU Vice President
Source: Margot's Blog

Ok, not all negatives are impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt, but this one effectively is. There is simply no way to 'prove that it is not dangerous', absence of evidence of danger is not evidence of absence, no matter how many tests fail to show such danger. What was the issue anyway? There was a day when the companies producing did behave recklessly but that was yesterday. The risks of litigation under existing law, along with the potential damage to the companies' image is more than enough to ensure a responsible attitude to safety. When exactly was the last case of the reckless use of a chemical known to be harmful anyway, that directives like REACH would have prevented? My guess that you'd be looking back to the Seventies, which I suppose is pretty much where the EU is still rooted.

I guess that the truth behind REACH lies in the combination of a lack of centralised, well paid job opportunities for the scions of the European elite to mismanage the process, the EU's aversion to efficient operational systems that demonstrate the failures of the ones it sponsors, and its unbreakable, but very damaging addiction to the precautionary principle.

The interesting consequence is for those, and I suspect there are many, who are members of both general environmental organisations like Greenpeace, who support REACH, and any of one of the varied hues of animal rights bodies, who are presumably against the increase in animal testing REACH will inevitably entail. It's really no longer intellectually consistent to be a member of both, but judging by the general coherence of the arguments by both types of body I suspect I won't hear too many membership cards being torn up. At heart, it's bashing business that's the real goal of these refugees many from the discredited hard left.