This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/03/why-iain-duncan-smith-knighthood-was-a-slap-in-the-face

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Why Iain Duncan Smith knighthood was a ‘slap in the face’ Why Iain Duncan Smith knighthood was a ‘slap in the face’
(32 minutes later)
Stephen Pacey on why 30 years judging benefits cases led him to attack architect of universal creditStephen Pacey on why 30 years judging benefits cases led him to attack architect of universal credit
The new year honours list is a reliable source of controversy, with perennial outrage about the worthiness of the recipients.The new year honours list is a reliable source of controversy, with perennial outrage about the worthiness of the recipients.
But the award of a knighthood to the former work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith this week proved particularly unpopular, with more than 237,000 people signing a petition objecting to the award for a man “responsible for some of the cruelest, most extreme welfare reforms this country has ever seen”. But the knighthood given to the former work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith has been particularly unpopular, with more than 237,000 people signing a petition objecting to the award for a man “responsible for some of the cruellest, most extreme welfare reforms this country has ever seen”.
One person with decades of experience adjudicating on the benefits system was particularly appalled. “As a retired social security commissioner and upper tribunal judge, I spent a lifetime hearing thousands of appeals of decisions made by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP),” wrote Dr Stephen Pacey in a letter to the Guardian. One person with decades of experience adjudicating on the benefits system was especially appalled. “As a retired social security commissioner and upper tribunal judge, I spent a lifetime hearing thousands of appeals of decisions made by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP),” wrote Stephen Pacey in a letter to the Guardian.
“Under the Conservatives the already dysfunctional system became ever more punitive and of increasingly byzantine complexity. Universal credit has been an abject failure, and if Iain Duncan Smith had the merest inkling of the harm his changes had caused he ought in honour and simple honesty to have declined the award.” “Under the Conservatives, the already dysfunctional system became ever more punitive and of increasingly byzantine complexity. Universal credit has been an abject failure, and if Iain Duncan Smith had the merest inkling of the harm his changes had caused, he ought in honour and simple honesty to have declined the award.”
The letter went viral as anger mounted, with at least one former MBE recipient announcing they were going to give their honour back, wanting no association with a system “that rewards social cruelty above social conscience”.The letter went viral as anger mounted, with at least one former MBE recipient announcing they were going to give their honour back, wanting no association with a system “that rewards social cruelty above social conscience”.
Talking to the Guardian this week from his home in North Muskham, Nottinghamshire, Pacey explained why he was so disgusted by Duncan Smith. Now retired after more than 30 years in the judiciary, mostly ruling on appeals against DWP decisions, he is free to speak his mind. He seems happy to show his political colours, serving up tea in a mug bearing the legend “socialist”, a copy of Terry Eagleton’s Why Marx Was Right on his desk. Speaking from his home in North Muskham, Nottinghamshire, Pacey explained why he was so disgusted by Duncan Smith. Now retired after more than 30 years in the judiciary, mostly ruling on appeals against DWP decisions, he is free to speak his mind. He seems happy to show his political colours, serving up tea in a mug bearing the legend “socialist”, with a copy of Terry Eagleton’s Why Marx Was Right on his desk.
“To my mind and to many people’s minds, Iain Duncan Smith will always be Mr Universal Credit,” said Pacey. “To my mind and to many people’s minds, Iain Duncan Smith will always be Mr Universal Credit,” said Pacey. “I think the whole thing has been such a dismal failure that to give him a knighthood is a slap in the face, not just to universal credit claimants but benefits claimants generally. It’s just an inept thing to do.”
“I think the whole thing has been such a dismal failure that to give him a knighthood is a slap in the face, not just to universal credit claimants but benefits claimants generally. It’s just an inept thing to do.” Pacey, the grandson of Nottinghamshire miners and the son of factory workers, is perhaps unusual among the judiciary in that he has claimed benefits, having briefly signed on for jobseeker’s allowance when searching for a solicitor contract early in his career.
Pacey, the grandson of Nottinghamshire miners and son of factory workers, is perhaps unusual among the judiciary in that he has claimed benefits, having briefly signed on the dole when searching for a solicitor contract early on in his career. Receiving welfare did not carry the same stigma then. “In those days, it was an easy system. Not easy to manipulate and fraud or con people, but it wasn’t subject to the ifs and buts and what have you that you get nowadays. I don’t think it was as stigmatised as much,” he said.
Receiving welfare didn’t carry the same stigma then, said the 70-year-old. “In those days it was an easy system. Not easy to manipulate and fraud or con people, but it wasn’t subject to the ifs and buts and what-have-you that you get nowadays. I don’t think it was as stigmatised as much.” Pacey, 70, became a tribunal judge in 1984 and spent the final 16 years of his full-time career hearing appeals in the upper tribunal – the administrative appeals chamber of the high court – against benefits decisions by both claimants and the DWP. He noticed a system becoming ever more prescriptive and burdensome, which sometimes lacked heart.
Pacey became a tribunal judge in 1984 and spent the last 16 years of his full-time career hearing appeals in the upper tribunal, the administrative appeals chamber of the high court, against benefits decisions by both claimants and the DWP. He noticed a system becoming ever more prescriptive and burdensome, which sometimes lacked heart.
He recalled a “desperately sad” case involving a man who had helped his terminally ill wife to die and had his widower benefits stopped as a result. Pacey reversed the decision on the grounds of “humanity – there wasn’t a lot of law involved in that particular case. It was an exercise in discretion. I thought it would have been cruel to penalise him. The poor chap had suffered enough already.”He recalled a “desperately sad” case involving a man who had helped his terminally ill wife to die and had his widower benefits stopped as a result. Pacey reversed the decision on the grounds of “humanity – there wasn’t a lot of law involved in that particular case. It was an exercise in discretion. I thought it would have been cruel to penalise him. The poor chap had suffered enough already.”
He believes the media have played a role in demonising claimants over the last 20 years. “I think the attitudes of some sections of the press changed, along with certain politicians, who took a much harder line and the public fed on that,” he said. He believes the media have played a role in demonising claimants over the past 20 years. “I think the attitudes of some sections of the press changed, along with certain politicians, who took a much harder line and the public fed on that,” Pacey said.
He would like to see a change in the way politicians and the media talk about welfare: “I want to see proper, reasoned, civilised language about the benefits system so that people aren’t demonised.” He would like to see a change to the way in which politicians and the media talk about welfare: “I want to see proper, reasoned, civilised language about the benefits system so that people aren’t demonised.”
People do not claim benefits as a lifestyle choice, he insisted. “I’ve seen tens of thousands of cases and in any system devised, operated and accessed by human beings there will be abuse at one end of the scale … but my feeling is that the vast majority of cases that I saw were just ordinary people who had fallen on hard times. There but for the grace of God go we all.” People do not claim benefits as a lifestyle choice, he insisted. “I’ve seen tens of thousands of cases and in any system devised, operated and accessed by human beings, there will be abuse at one end of the scale … But my feeling is that the vast majority of cases that I saw were just ordinary people who had fallen on hard times. There but for the grace of God go we all,” Pacey said.