Skip to main content

Why Mr Duncan-Smith's figures on incapacity benefits don't stack up.


Mr Duncan-Smith has been making a mess of his statistics, with all sorts of ludicrous claims such as working tax credit rising by 58% between 2003 and 2005 when in fact it increased in line with inflation so that over the two years it increased by 8%. It brings into question the  accuracy of other figures used by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). 

 One such figure is the estimate of the numbers receiving incapacity benefit who should not really be eligible. Those IDS considers to be receiving benefit but who should not be. There are 2.6 million people of working age claiming incapacity benefit, 8.5% of the total adult workforce, at an annual cost of £12.5 billion. The stakes are high. The DWP estimate that 30 % of these claimants are not genuinely eligible which if correct would give a potential saving of £2.24 billion annually. But where does the estimate come from?

 The estimate comes from two pilot projects in Aberdeen and Burnley which showed that of 1347 decisions made, 399 (29.6%) were found 'fit for work'. Mr Duncan-Smith has made a great deal of this estimate, but how robust is it? The answer is probably not very accurate at all.  A simple calculation shows us why. 

 We know that some 40% of assessments that go to appeal are being reversed.  This brings into question the DWP's estimate of 30% from their pilot projects.  If we assume that a similar percentage would be reversed on appeal, then this would reduce substantially the estimate of the numbers ineligible for benefit. My calculation from the figures given by the DWP is that the estimate at best falls to 18%.  But it also brings into question the way in which the assessments are being made and also the criteria used. It is clear something is awry with the assessments if such a high percentage are being overturned on appeal. 

 In short, the system being imposed is discredited. It is discredited on the numbers and it is discredited by the yardsticks of fairness, competency and ethics. Many of the decisions appear to be cruel and arbitrary and take little account of the real circumstances of the claimant. Mr Duncan-Smith would have a better case if he used better estimates and if he had a system that would be transparently fair. But he does not.

 Postscript

The Anonymouse in his comment below correctly points out that the figure of 48% reversal on appeal changes to 78% or higher if appeals are made through the CAB.  Using that percentage my calculation blasts the DWP estimates completely out of the ball park. 

Comments

  1. The Anonymouse2 January 2013 at 08:39

    Actually if you look at the real figures, that 40% who win appeals are the ones who do it themselves, If they have a CAB adviser to help that rises to 78% win appeals

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ray Noble2 January 2013 at 11:24

      Thank you for this. This is correct. I noticed one CAB with 90% success on appeal. If we used these figures then it simply blasts IDS case out of the window. I will add a postscript.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba
7 comments
Read more

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to
2 comments
Read more

The Thin End account of COVID Lockdown

Post a Comment
Read more