Damn statistics and ideology

Churches are concerned that the exaggeration of benefit fraud stigmatises the poorest and most vulnerable in society. According to a Department of Work and Pensions report published in the same week as the spending review, welfare fraud accounts for £1bn of money lost, while tax-credit fraud accounts for an additional £0.6bn. That’s £1.6bn in total. What the chancellor may have tried to do is add departmental error into the equation. But even if he had done that he would not have arrived at the £5bn sum he gave in his speech.

Where does this £5bn come from? It comes from the fact Osborne has added up both fraud and error (from both DWP and HMRC) to give the total of £5bn. HMRC, incidentally, maintain that there’s no such thing as “administrative error”…cos they never get it wrong, apparently! Fraud comes to £1.6bn while error is £3.7bn. The two figures are different, unfortunately Osborne, for ideological reasons, has been lumped them together to further stigmatise and vilify the poor. Frankly, the two categories, fraud and error, should have separate reports. Also, they should break these statistics down further into the types of fraud as opposed to these generalised figures.

Reading this report on “tackling benefit fraud” where one of the author’s is David Freud, it goes about about proposed measures in dealing with benefit fraud:

DWP will therefore introduce a wide range of tougher powers to deal with welfare cheats. For those individuals who fail to take reasonable care of their claim, perhaps knowingly letting a change in circumstance run on and incurring a small overpayment, we will seek powers in line with HMRC to apply a swiftly administered £50 civil penalty as a punishment, and to deter them from such action in the future.

Are there appeal rights to these decisions?

Where we are able to prove criminal intent, we will aim to ensure that no fraudster escapes without receiving at least a tough minimum penalty. This means that DWP will no longer issue cautions. Such fraudsters will also be subject to four weeks loss of benefit payments.

Four weeks loss of benefits. Again, will there be right to an appeal? Will there be a proper investigation process?

And so on…. read the report it’s the shape of draconian things to come…

While the ConDems seek to use the poor as an ideological distraction to the economic crisis. Little is said about benefit underpayments…

Total underpayments in 2009-10 are estimated at £1.3 billion (2008-09 – £1.2 billion), which equates to 0.9% of total benefit expenditure (2008-09 – 0.9%).

And little of the state’s attention is given to statistical investigation into benefit underpayments, or indeed just how much money is saved through benefits not being claimed. Instead there is an obsession and a concentrated effort of fraud and error. These statistics aren’t used to look at the problem in an honest way they are used for dishonest purposes such as waging an ideological war on the poor. Something which NL were also very guilty of.

Advertisement