Benefit Sanctions

Although this post is not strictly motoring related I think there are some lessons from the motoring context that can inform how we respond to the issue of benefit sanctions.

Today I was sent a link to this excellent piece by Dr David Webster.

Webster reports that 

Benefit sanctions are an amateurish, secret penal system which is more severe than the mainstream judicial system, but lacks its safeguards. It is time for everyone concerned for the rights of the citizen to demand their abolition.

For anyone who has ever been on job seekers allowance the incredible pettiness of the job search scheme and the ever present threat of sanctions is very real and very demoralising.

For my own view the scheme of sanction is an absolutely disgraceful attempt to undo any understanding of solidarity in the social security system.  This is not to suggest that sanctions are never warranted, of course they may be, but the truly horrifying element of this story is that such sanctions seem whimsical in the extreme.  No due process, no fair hearing, no presumption of innocence, no mistakes are allowed (sound familiar to any claims made about speeding FPN enforcement? although of course at least there the income isn't taken at source and probably doesn't represent your entire income, and you do have the option of an independent tribunal BEFORE any income is taken).

Sanctions may at times be needed but as Webster points out the overwhelming majority of sanctions are aimed at incredibly minor infractions.  Such infractions could include only taking 35 instead of the required 40 job steps that week, taking a Sunday off job searching, failing to log into the governments Universal Job Match (which if anyone has ever used the system as I have should concur that it is absolutely rubbish, it doesn't allow sector specific searches and seems designed solely to cater to agency jobs (which again from personal experience aren't really jobs just speculative adverts trying to get you to sign up or are actual jobs that you can apply for directly  without the agency)).

What struck me particularly, and this is where it links in with motoring enforcement, was the chart.  The data lines look broadly similar to speeding enforcement by way of FPN and Speed Awareness Course.  In speeding the awareness course is now the main means of "punishment", FPN fines have reduced.  What strikes me is that some people I have interviewed for my PhD have given a reason for not attending the course that 'its obvious you shouldn't speed so there is nothing to learn'.  Now I'm not sure this is entirely true, generally such views are accompanied by a view that its easier and cheaper (when factoring in the time) to pay the FPN.  However I can understand that point it really is quite easy to understand the prohibition against speeding.  Now compare that to the situation with benefit sanctions, welfare law is notoriously complex (it probably rivals tax law as the most complex area) and yet in this complex area perhaps where some education would help in understanding the process (and the incredibly complex forms you have to fill in) sanction seems to be the easiest word!

Before anyone objects to the above, think of this.  Would any employer be entitled to run a system like this?  It would be an illegal deduction from your wages in all likelihood, and given that they would in effect be stopping all your wages it is likely that you would have been constructively (if not directly) dismissed.  Only tuppenny ha'penny firms still stuck in the 1970's would ever consider acting in this manner (and would likely have unfairly dismissed you), and yet this is the government we have now.  If you receive benefits not only are you expected to work 365 days a year (and vastly below the minimum wage particularly if enrolled on the work fare program), you are expected to know the intricacies of the benefit regime and if you don't, well then you either starve or get to a food-bank if you are lucky (and look how angry ministers get when food-banks are brought up!)

Where is the compassion or understanding? Again I would reiterate the point I'm not talking about long term unemployed here the evidence suggests that the majority of sanctions are for those who are short term.  It is ridiculous and part of an attempt to shape a particular form of citizenry that approaches an ideal that very few can match.  It wouldn't be so bad if sanctions were a last resort, but they are not, they are the first go to policy option.  If there is a problem a financial sanction can solve it (unless it involves people we like or who might vote for us then we can think about education first).

In any event I hope after reading this you do read Websters blog and report it is depressing and makes me incredibly angry! 

Zero Tolerance Policing

Zero-tolerance style policing is never far away from the headlines, it seems that no matter what area of policy, one can launch a 'zero tolerance crackdown' on behavior.

In motoring enforcement the phrase is never far away from policymakers lips, perhaps the most recent example is the report of a 'zero tolerance crackdown' on mobile phone use while driving in Northern Ireland.  Whilst I certainly do not condone the activity, it is very dangerous, I do have reservations of any policy that sells itself as 'zero tolerance'.  Frequently such policies aren't truly zero tolerance; officers do still exercise discretion albeit perhaps with less frequency than they may have previously.  But my main objection  is that frequently those who claim to want zero tolerance, don't actually want anything of the sort, they want zero tolerance against certain types of people not certain types of behaviour.

My objection to zero tolerance stems more from the idea that it represents something that we, the public want.  Frequently we don't want anything like zero tolerance policing on the roads, just listen to anyone debating speeding and you will soon hear the call for greater discretion

In speeding enforcement the argument typically means that we want zero tolerance against boyracers etc... but in our case, good honest upstanding decent hardworking citizens that we are want our police force to have a bit of discretion, a bit of common sense, to recognise that although we may speed, we are not speeders.

True zero tolerance policing would not recognise that difference, the zero tolerance is to behaviour not motivation.  Thus if we accidentally speed, under zero tolerance, the accidental nature of our speeding is unimportant we will be punished in exactly the same manner as if we had deliberately set out to speed (£100 fine and 3 Points).  It is no exaggeration to suggest that great feelings of injustice typically accompany being found to be a speeder, and typically our first complaint is that the officer / police force lacks discretion and common sense.

These calls to commonsense are the antithesis of zero tolerance, it's a call for personalised discretion based on our common understand that it is the other, not us, that is the real problem, and the officers / agencies zero tolerance focus should be on them. 

Actual zero tolerance policing can, thus, create greater problems for law enforcement agencies, where citizens feel that the actions they are taking are illegitimate and used for an illegitimate purpose ("to catch out" or "prey on the easy target").

Zero tolerance certainly does have benefits for enforcement agencies, and can be defended on a principled basis.  It removes the potential for "bad" discretion (where officers undertake enforcement for less noble purposes e.g. racism), although, short of constant surveillance of officers actions, even a policy of zero tolerance cannot outlaw this practice.  However it does save officers the need for having to justify each instance of punishment, especially in hard cases, and can thus encourage more robust action against behaviour.  (Note behaviour not motivation!)

Do we really want zero tolerance, I suspect not, what we want is an operationalised form of zero tolerance, one that can recognize the difference between behaviour and motivation, and punish those where both motivation and behaviour are aimed at law breaking.  However this is not what zero tolerance generally implies.

Zero tolerance is an easy statement to make and conjures up images of an efficient, effective enforcement scheme that captures all the people we want it to capture.  But the hard cases, what about them? What about the car that parks 5cm over the line, or 1cm over the line.  With ZTP we should say, a la Hawaii Five-O, 'book em Danno'? I suspect not many would agree with that.  Thus do we really want zero tolerance? Probably not.  

Do we need zero tolerance?  Well that is a question for another day.

Should the law be moral

Whilst perusing the news stories reported in the lower right of this blog I came across this letter to the Derby Telegraph

What interested me were two things, firstly the letter writers claim that they were going to appeal the notice after having paid the notice. A very poor strategy in my opinion because there will be nothing to appeal once the notice is paid.  It seems that the writer intends to launch a judicial review of the police decision to issue the notice, a very high risk and expensive strategy for a speeding ticket!  The average judicial review is now estimated to cost in the region of £10,000's a hefty price to pay to challenge a notice.

Note to all: it is never a good idea to risk financial ruin over any fixed penalty notice!

The second interesting part of this letter was the reference to an earlier letter entitled "Morally wrong to catch speeders on safe road".  I have read this letter and the complaints in it are quite familiar, anyone wishing to understand how these complaints come about would do well to have a look at this brilliant work from Dr Helen Wells (portions available at Google books) at the University of Keele.

What I find particularly interesting about the second letter is the claim that

If one is speeding near people or schools, fair cop, but to set up shop where the road conditions lull you into a false sense then it is morally wrong and he should be ashamed.

It is interesting that it is the officer that should be ashamed, according to the writer, not the person caught speeding.  This seems a reversal of the way in which criminal justice should work, it is the offender who is meant to feel shame for their offence and in doing so come to see the law as legitimate and to be obeyed.

It seems with speeding enforcement, and the mechanisms used to capture speeders, that there is a victim / perpetrator reversal.  Undoubtedly this writer feels that receiving the notice has imparted some really unwarranted criticism of their driving and this has led them to reevaluate not their driving, but their attitude to the law and those who enforce it.  This is a powerful social impact for what seems to be such a minor penalty (£100 + 3 points).  

I have found this process takes place in most on the spot penalty punishments, whether it is for disorder, littering or speeding, the notice means a lot more than what has been described previously as "just another bill".  The notice transmits meanings to those who receive them, but not those that are intended by enforcement agencies.  Instead what happens is that those who receive them are generally outraged at being labelled a "problem" by the agency as the above two letters show.  The first writer is considering drastic legal action to challenge their FPN and the second suggests that they should not be criticized at all, instead the police should for enforcing the law in this way.

Perhaps this is a good thing, the Fixed Penalty Notice should be something more than "just another bill", but what else it is, at present, is at times hotly contested.  What do you think? Would you ever think of a fine as just another bill to add to all the rest?

Insurance and the Speed Awareness Course

An interesting piece in Daily Telegraph leads with the headline "I took a speed awareness course and my car insurance doubled".  Of course this represents just one instance of one policy doubling in amount so perhaps one shouldn't get worked up about the 'doubling'.  Indeed the piece overall is quite balanced in how it reports insurance decisions.  What will be interesting to many motorists however is the fact that ones insurance can increase if one attends a speed awareness course.

The idea of awareness courses in motoring stem from the Road Traffic Law Review conducted by Peter North in 1988.  This report recommended the use of one day driver retraining courses for those drivers who it was felt were responsible for accidents.  It was not taken forward by the Government at the time but Devon and Cornwall Constabulary did take the idea forward at the local level.

At present a number of such schemes exist, some covering more serious instances of driver offending (Drink Driving) whilst the majority aimed at the more minor end (Seat-belt, Traffic Lights, Speeding, Mobile Phone Use, Careless Driving).  The use of such courses has gained impetus by being a centre piece of current government policy.

Attendance on a speed awareness course is not compulsory, instead it is offered as an option alongside the FPN and prosecution alternatives.  There has certainly been an uptake of the course by drivers, indeed more people sit the speed awareness course now than receive a fixed penalty notice for speeding.

One should certainly be wary of any claims that speeding offences have reduced overall, over the last 5 years the number of speeding offences actioned by the police has risen by approximately 200,000.  Thus the idea that the speed awareness course reduces the likelihood of offending is somewhat undermined, in that more offending than ever is occurring.  The course merely displaces offenders at the lower end away from FPNs and prosecutions.

Herein lies the problem for insurers, the actual risk on the road from speed is not decreasing (based on the official action statistics) it is increasing.  Insurance is all about risk and it seems only sensible (no matter how much we may dislike it) that premiums increase as risk increases.  The ultimate question though is whether such courses lower the risk of speeding for those who attend them.

It is fair to say that those who attend speed awareness courses on the whole are lower risk than those who accept an FPN (I accept that I am making huge generalizations here).  The course is typically offered to those who speed only a small percentage above the thresholds for speeding enforcement (10% plus 2 mph).  For example those speeding 13 mph above a 30 mph limit will not generally be eligible for the course and instead offered an FPN.  Those caught driving between 35-42 will be offered the course as an option, providing they haven't sat the course in the previous year.  Thus the more risky drivers are not offered the option of a course, although as the course is an option even low risk drivers may still accept the FPN instead of spending time on the course.

This is an interesting approach to say the least.  Surely attempts at lowering risk through education have more potential benefit when they are aimed at the more risky drivers?  Be that as it may at present the course is seen as suitable for low risk and the fixed penalty for higher risk drivers.

There is some evidence to suggest that such awareness courses do improve driver behaviour, although this is typically short term and a relatively modest effect.  Of course vehicle insurance is a short term deal (typically one year) which may support the idea that attendance on such a course should reduce not increase one's premium.  Certainly more concrete evidence is needed before that claim can be made with confidence, the studies to date aren't definitive.

 ACPO (The Association of Chief Police Officers) were, in 2012, critical of insurance companies who raised premiums based on attendance at a speed awareness course.  They argued similar to the above points that attendance on the course lowered risk by making driver behaviour better.

ACPO's position is somewhat problematic.   If it believes the awareness course is the better option for combating problematic speed then it should have the courage of its convictions and recommend the removal of the FPN as an option for speeding between certain thresholds.  My own research has found that the availability of the awareness course certainly contributes to officers issuing more penalties than perhaps they would have done.

By making the course available the police are given a "positive" option (the course) which they can "sell" to the motorist as a cheaper alternative to the FPN.  This makes it easier for officers to enforce legislation that they may otherwise  have some difficulty in justifying to themselves.  The course is not stressed as a punishment but a positive alternative to punishment in which the driver obtains a reduction in the FPN cost and an educational opportunity at the same time.

In any event awareness courses are here to stay and the best advice one can give when it comes to insurance is to shop around.  The best way to avoid the problem all together is to drive safely and below the limit, although I certainly accept that this is not always possible particularly in unfamiliar locations.