| Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| DWP admin and salaries cost twice JSA | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Dec 23 2014, 08:31 PM (1,025 Views) | |
| papasmurf | Dec 23 2014, 08:31 PM Post #1 |
|
Senior Member
  ![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
The DWP spent almost twice as much on salaries, welfare-to-work schemes and administration last year than they did on JobSeekers Allowance. The department’s latest six monthly report shows that £7.7 billion was spent on administration costs in 2013/14 compared to £4.3 billion on Jobseeker’s Allowance. In the current year administration spending is expected to hit £8 billion, whilst spending on JSA is forecast to fall to £3.7 billion as hundreds of thousands of people are harassed off of benefits with sanctions and mandatory work activity. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389260/DWP-mid-year-report-2014-2015.pdf Edited by papasmurf, Dec 23 2014, 08:41 PM.
|
 |
 
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Lewis | Dec 30 2014, 08:32 AM Post #81 |
Senior Member
|
Some imaginary thing he dreamt up perhaps. He's not also known as Walter Mitty for nothing! |
|
|
|
| Affa | Dec 30 2014, 09:40 AM Post #82 |
|
Senior Member
|
"Cuts Cost Money" Lots of it ......... the coined phrase 'Not Fit for Purpose' is the result of administration failure more often than it is from system faults. Faults can easily be corrected without wholesale re-organisation, administration failure cannot be corrected without accountability and more checks. Edited by Affa, Dec 30 2014, 09:42 AM.
|
|
|
|
| ranger121 | Dec 30 2014, 12:30 PM Post #83 |
Administrator
|
In reply to post 79: DLA was introduced on 06/04/92. One should note that IT for dealing with DLA claims was not introduced until around 2006 when a certain Anthony Blair declared that he wanted a computer, internet, intranet and email put on every civil servants desk as soon as possible. He noted that the x286 computers running the system at the time were somewhat out of date. He declared that this IT would increase efficiency in handling claims which would result in staff reductions and reduced costs to the taxpayer. This process took about 2 years to accomplish. Prior to that, for the first 14 years or so of administration, most DWP staff had a basic ‘dumb terminal’ linked to a central server which gave limited access to claim information, frequently broke down and all claims were decided upon by Decision Makers using paper-based information. Decision Makers (DM) dictated decisions on benefits into a dictaphone (or more commonly wrote them out by hand) and they were sent to a “typing pool” to be typed up and then returned to the DM who would check them for errors and then send them out in the post. The first staff reductions were the typists who were no longer needed, as decision letters were available on the shiny new computers and could be sent out without the above process. So all of a sudden the DM was responsible for inputting the decisions into the computer system, (which they had never used before) typing out the decision letters, and the admin staff only had to deal with payments which at the time were by Giro, Order Book or via bank transfer (called ACT). The DM would do everything prior to this, and the Admin Officer would finalise and send the payment. As a result of these measures, the DWP promoted a large number staff from AO to DM in order to have enough staff of sufficiently high grade to carry on the work. This actually resulted in an increase in staff costs. Because paper-based payment systems were frequently subject to fraudulent activity, ie “lost in the post”, “lost” by claimants who would demand a replacement (the original usually turned up having been cashed), the government phased these systems out, and now the ONLY way you can get paid is by ACT into a bank account, and 4-weekly at that. Don’t like that? Tough. Quick anecdote here: I personally took a telephone call from a claimant who had been to the post office, drawn their money and was robbed outside. Naturally, they expected the DWP to replace the money because they no longer had it. Think they got it? Err... no. Anyway, this change effectively ruled out fraud in the payment system. To accuse the GPs and the HCPs of being complicit in bringing fraudulent claims forward is utter nonsense. They report, or make a statement on the condition of the person that they have examined and sign it in their professional capacity. They don’t lie, make things up, or exaggerate. They leave that up to the claimant. Fraud or attempted fraud has not been reported on by the PIP departments, nor has the volume of ‘claim drop-outs’, so where you come to this conclusion from is a bit of a mystery. The reasons why DLA was replaced is obvious from the rhetoric from the government: a) That claimants were given indefinite awards and no further checks were made on their health. b) That some claimants weren’t even ‘checked’ before being awarded. c) That the benefit was so ‘easy’ to claim, that many thousands got it that clearly weren’t entitled to it, as evidenced by the fraudulent claimants discovered and highlighted by the media. a) Is answered by the simple fact that after an initial claim was made, on renewal, the DM was given NO CHOICE by the new computer system but to give an indefinite award, otherwise the decision would be declared incorrect when checked by their peers, and the DM would be declared ‘inefficient’. As to ‘further checks’... the Secretary of State has the right to examine ANY claim at ANY time to see if it is correct and lawful. This appears to have been quietly shoved to one side. b) Is answered by the simple fact that DLA is a ‘self assessment’ benefit, and the DM could not ask for an independent GP home visit unless there was sufficient evidence that what the claimant was saying was not right. (Made up, or exaggerated) c) Is answered by the number of appeals which were generated when people were denied the benefit as well as the fact that people’s conditions would improve thanks to the efforts of the NHS (replacement hips, new drugs, therapy etc, etc) and they would no longer qualify but would not tell the DWP of any improvement. This is where the vast majority of ‘frauds’ are found. As can be found in various data releases, the number of ‘migrants’ that claimed DLA was about 3%, and the nationality of a claimant does not come into the decision except for the purposes of establishing residency in Great Britain. As stated before, only those who have indefinite leave to remain, and a letter from the IND (at the time) to prove this, would be accepted. I'm afraid you cannot 'blame' the migrant population for the DLA/PIP disaster. |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Dec 30 2014, 12:35 PM Post #84 |
|
Senior Member
|
Try backing up your opinion with fact. |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Dec 30 2014, 12:38 PM Post #85 |
|
Senior Member
|
Quite, that disaster traces straight back to Iain Duncan Smith. |
|
|
|
| Nonsense | Dec 30 2014, 05:32 PM Post #86 |
Regular Member
|
In reply to post #83. "To accuse the GPs and the HCPs of being complicit in bringing fraudulent claims forward is utter nonsense. They report, or make a statement on the condition of the person that they have examined and sign it in their professional capacity. They don’t lie, make things up, or exaggerate". They leave that up to the claimant". Exactly, the GP's are acting as the 'messenger' for such claimants, even though many GP's are fully aware of the 'malingerer's' that they have contact with. However, GP's are also expected to take an 'objective' view of patient\claimant in any reports required of them. This action helps the DM to make the correct decision in most cases, save for the 'expert' malingerers, who manage to 'fool' some GP's, perhaps even the examining doctors. Such criminality is often exposed by neighbours or investigators for the department involved in casework. As can be found in various data releases, the number of ‘migrants’ that claimed DLA was about 3%, and the nationality of a claimant does not come into the decision except for the purposes of establishing residency in Great Britain. As stated before, only those who have indefinite leave to remain, and a letter from the IND (at the time) to prove this, would be accepted". The last time I checked the ONS(2008), the numbers of (migrants)* claiming DLA within SIX Months of arrival, was 6.8%. The definition of a *migrant, is a difficult one in terms of research, such is the manipulation of data by various quango's that it becomes pretty meaningless, as is the aim such manipulation to transform facts into propaganda with the sole purpose of deceiving the public through the political message. " |
|
|
|
| ranger121 | Dec 30 2014, 05:49 PM Post #87 |
|
Administrator
|
My figures are from 2011, published in 2012. 3.5% disabled. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/196677/nat_nino_regs.pdf |
|
|
|
| Nonsense | Dec 30 2014, 05:53 PM Post #88 |
|
Regular Member
|
You are asking the impossible there PS. You pay your money & take your choice. What is factual, are the prosecutions\convictions of 'migrant' claimants. Defining a 'migrant' in a 'man-in-the-street' manner would seem obvious, to a politician of one or another hue, may seem opaque or impossible, depending on their view. For a quango that reports such statistics, there is no gold standard on what constitutes a 'migrant', HMRC records all oversees nationals through the PAYE system. This records NI\tax payments or deductions at source, as a way of providing the ONS with data on 'migrants'. However, many 'migrants' do not REGISTER under the system, whether that is for avoiding detection or for fraud is an open question. If one is a 'legal' migrant, one would not enter the country in\under a lorry, why otherwise would they avoid registration for NI purposes? HMRC figures are different from say the (IPS)International Passenger Survey or the (LFS) Labour Force Survey & (IMS)International Migration Statistics. The Quarterly Migration Statistics takes the stats from these various quango's ,analyses them to present a pictorial trend that is actually far from a true picture. Many migrants give an untruthful answer when asked how long they have been in the country or how long do they intend to stay here, often, "less than a year" is the answer, but population levels tell a very different story. |
|
|
|
| ranger121 | Dec 30 2014, 06:02 PM Post #89 |
|
Administrator
|
Please read page 17 of the publication that I linked to. It gives an idea on entitlement to public funds in the UK. |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Dec 30 2014, 06:09 PM Post #90 |
|
Senior Member
|
Not when it comes to DLA/PIP |
|
|
|
| Steve K | Dec 31 2014, 02:01 PM Post #91 |
Once and future cynic
|
That's because he misquoted it Try "Seven Grams of Lead" (to the head) As in This history of modern Russia Seems it was a regular Stalin quip for how to deal with those who disagreed with him |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Dec 31 2014, 02:39 PM Post #92 |
|
Senior Member
|
Stalin must have used a small bullet if it only weighed 7 grams, a .303 bullet weighs 12 grams. |
|
|
|
| ranger121 | Dec 31 2014, 02:55 PM Post #93 |
|
Administrator
|
So which should the government cut? The DWP has had an effective ban on recruitment since 2006, salary increases have been fixed at 1% for the last nine years (which with inflation is an effective year-on-year cut) and staff cuts were ordered by Gordon Brown as chancellor by the 140,000 or so actual heads) and the plan is still in operation today. If the DWP cut welfare-to-work schemes and all its other attempts at stimulating the job market, they they will be roundly criticised as doing nothing for the unemployed. I don't really understand what is termed 'administration' - is it the general running costs of office space? As it's mostly privatised and under contract, how is that cutting that going to work? With staff numbers continually reducing, the need for office space is also reducing and buildings are being demolished and sold off to developers. The Norcross site is a recent example. So they're doing what they are asked to do, whilst cutting staff numbers and not recruiting, keeping wages pegged, and providing as many services as they can with limited resources, whilst at the same time reducing the need for office space by putting things online and on the phone. Yet are still criticised. Amazing. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
12:34 AM Jul 14