Wednesday

I am talking to a woman from an African country, who has five children and is sharing a friend's flat until she can get her own council home. She has been here for three days, and is applying for benefits, and then going to see about schools for her children. The family have Dutch passports, as that is where they claimed asylum, have a home there, and were claiming the Dutch equivilent of Social Security benefits. So why has she come to this country? After much discussion with her friend, who is translating, I find out that she has fled domestic violence. What I don't see is why it was necessary to flee so far. Could she not have gone somewhere else in the Netherlands? This question seems impossible for the friend to translate, so I produce the HRT form, and the three of us set about filling it in. Now can she have a letter from me stating that she is on benefits to enable her children to get free school meals? I tell her that she is not on benefits yet, (and if I have my way, she never will be) and she and her friend march off together to the local council. The friend is the same one with whom she is sharing a flat, and I think she is rather keen to get her and her children into their own place. The Chinese have a saying: 'Guests, like fish, begin to stink after three days,' and I think that is very well put. I wonder if the reason she has come here has anything to do with the fact that the Dutch expect you to do some work if you are on benefit there for any length of time?

Next comes a young woman who has a bandage over her left eye and the left side of her head. When I ask her what has happened, she tells me that she had an argument with a pellet gun. What did the police say? Oh, she didn't bother to call them, she and her boyfriend have made it up now, and he won't do it again. Being fory-something, I don't have much contact with young people except when I am at work, for which I am devoutly thankful.

A social worker rings, (they are as much of a pain as the average solicitor). She is ringing on behalf of a woman with eight children, who made a claim for benefit three weeks ago, and has not yet been paid. When checking, I find that the woman has previously made fraudulent claims, such as claiming for herself and eight children, when five of them are in her country of origin with her husband. No benefit is to be paid to her, until a visiting officer has been to her home, and seen all the children and all their passports, at the same time. A visiting officer is due to visit the house in three days time. I tell the social worker this, and she wants to know how the woman is going to keep herself and her children until benefit is paid. I am tempted to reply that she could always try being honest, but think I had better not. Social workers hane a nasty habit of ringing managers and making complaints. I enjoy saying that I am only obliged to answer questions about the benefits we pay.

My next interview is with a forty five year old man who has been made redundant from his job in a warehouse where he has worked for nearly thirty years. I do have a vacancy for a warehouse manager, but he lacks the self confidence to apply for it (his words), and goes off to an interview for a hospital porter job.

This morning, my first customer is a young woman from one of the ex-Soviet Union countries, who speaks good English, and has a degree in economics. Clearly, just the sort of immigrant we need, but when I look into her record I find that although she has lived here for ten years she has never worked for a single day during that time, and now has ensured she never will, as last month she gave birth to a baby girl. When I make noises about child support and maintenance she bursts ino tears, and wails that the baby's father was a horrible man, that he has gone back to his home country, and she will support the child herself. I point out (although I am not supposed to) that she is not supporting the child at all, the taxpayer is, and if you have fled persecution to a foreign country, is having a baby, when you have no work and no partner a sensible thing to do? She tells me that sometimes these things happen, and you can't help it. Funny, I always thought that having a baby was something a woman did because she chose to do so.
This young woman lives in a flat in a lovely old house nearby. This area is actually quite expensive, being close to where a famous film was made, and the rent of her flat is extremely high. I won't give you three guesses as to who is paying the rent, because you only need one.

Next up is a pretty young girl of nineteen who is claiming benefit for the first time. She's never had a job before, either, so I ask her how she has been supporting herself since leaving school, and receive the news that she was in prison, or the youth detention equivalent, and that she has a conviction for armed robbery. I do not comment on this, for the simple reason that I can think of nothing to say. I ask to see her passport to verify her immigration status (anyone not from an EU country must have their immigration status checked, in case it is 'no recourse to public funds') and find that not only does she have no passport, neither dos she have any Home Office documents. The only thing she has is a letter from a solicitor, stating that leave to remain has been applied for. No immigration status, no benefit, so I send her on her way, hoping she will not decide to hold up another off-licence at gun-point. I then ring Immigration and give them her name and address,secure in the knowledge that they will do nothing at all, but at least I've told them.

I need a cup of tea after that, so I go off to the tea room accidentally knocking against the chair of a colleague on the way, disturbing him from his diligent application to his computer game. I look at his score on the bottom of the screen and see that it runs into millions, but then I'd expect him to be good, he spends so much time at it. All the staff have access to the Internet here, but we're only supposed to use it in our own time, eg lunchtime, however some of us have very long lunch hours.

In the afternoon, my colleague at the next desk interviews a man who arrived in Britain yesterday. He comes into the job centre, waving his EU passport, and stating that he has no money abd nowhere to live. I ask him why he has come to a foreign country with no money and no means of support, but he does not understand me. That is strange, for his English has been quite good up till now. He makes a claim to Job Seeker's Allowance, and is then referred to the homeless unit of the local council, so departs quite happy.

At the next desk, a colleague is interviewing a fat middle-aged Frenchwoman who has neglected to shave this morning. She has been claiming benefit since 1989, and now wishes to do a three-year college course, and has come to enquire if we will give her any extra money. When my colleague tells her that we won't, she becomes abusive and starts shouting and waving her arms about, with many references to 'this f...ing country.' (This same f...ing country has supported her since 1989, it is now 2006.) All the male staff in the vicinity start to disappear, and I later find out that is because the woman, who is a complete nutter, has a habit of taking off all her clothes and jumping up and down naked, when she has an angry moment. This time, she is calmed down by the combined efforts of our three managers and told to apply to the local education authority for funding. For those of you who thought that LEA grants were a thing of the past, try being one of our claimants. The woman goes on her way to the town hall, and I'd like to send her even further on her way with the toe of my boot.

After that, I take a telephone call from a solicitor who wants to know why a client of his has failed the Habitual Residence Test. This test is, or should be, applied to all citizens of a European Union country who claim benefits before they have been living in this country for two years. It is designed to make sure that Britain is really their home, and they have not just come here in order to claim benefits (as if they would). This particular client is HIV positive. I explain to the solicitor (who knows this already) that the European Union allows for free movement of workers, that his client is not a worker, and she has not established that Britain is her 'centre of interest'.
The solicitor informs me that his client is a worker, she has worked here for three months, but our system tells me that she has actually attended her place of work for just five days, and has of course been dismissed. I tell the solicitor that she is not going to receive benefit, and he says that he will appeal. He will probably win the appeal, the people who sit on Appeal Tribunals and who are independent of us, think that the pocket of the Britsh tax payer is lined with gold. Unfortunately, the government thinks the same.
Finally, the solicitor asks me if I will post him a copy of the questionnaire we use for the HRT. Clearly, he thinks that I am an absolute mug, and that I do not realise he wants to be able to tell his clients the questons they will be asked when we test them When I refuse, he calls me something unpleasant, and puts the phone down rather hard. I expect language like that from the 'customers,' but not from a solicitor. However, you live and learn.

I've worked for the Department for Work and Pensions for many years, but never in a job centre before, and I'm looking forward to it. This one is newly decorated, in bright colours, smart as paint.
I sit down at the desk allocated to me, and am introduced to several colleagues, including one who is so hugely overweight that if she fell over sideways, it would be a while before she realised it. I at once resolve not to have a biscuit with my morning tea. (Civil servants drink as much tea as possible).
My first customer (as we are instructed to call them) is a young gentleman who is incandescent with rage as his Jobseeker's Allowance has been stopped. When he has calmed down enough to give me his National Insurance Number, I look into the system and discover that his benefit was stopped because he was not deemed to be 'actively seeking work.' For some of our young people, the link between receiving JSA and actually looking for work will remain forever missing.
When I tell him this, he replies indignantly that he is indeed seeking work. Why, he attended an interview two weeks ago! The reason he didn't get the job is because the employer was: 'Racist s..., yeah!'
I ask him what he wore to the interview, and the answer I get is: 'What I've got on, yeah!'
I do believe that the employer is prejudiced, against a young man who wears a hooded top, with the hood pulled up over a baseball cap, and jeans hanging round his knees. I suggest that different clothes could perhaps be worn to job interviews, and he stares at me with such blank incomprehension that I wonder if I have suddenly started speaking in Russian.
Next, he demands; 'How am I supposed to give money for my yoot, yeah?'
I have no idea what a 'yoot' is, perhaps some kind of musical instrument for which he is trying to save?
Wrong. His 'yoot' is his three month old son, who lives with his mother, from whom the customer is of course separated, that is if they were ever together for longer than it took them to conceive their 'yoot.'
I say that it might make a difference to his JSA being put back into payment if the processing centre know he has a child (it won't) so he gives me the mother's name and address. I'm surprised he actually fell for that one, most of our customers know the system better than we do. As soon as he has gone, I look up the mother on the system, and find that she is also on benefit, (never!) and has given the Child Support Agency the usual excuse that she met the child's father at a party, didn't bother to ask his name(!), and has not seen him since. I ring a contact at the CSA and give them the new information, so that if he ever does get a job in the future (unlikely) they will hopefully jump on him.