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. 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. 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

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well. No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing. The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party. That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team. Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't