Green Tea - 16/1/2015 11:19
Its impossible that those figures are correct, unless they all own up. A guy with a bad back, anxiety etc, how would you know unless he told you that he is fit for work or not? So unless he owns up, he would be classed with a 99.3% of those claiming that are genuine.
The best way to judge it is by looking at the stats of other countries that are like ours. And out of ALL other major countries we have TWICE as many unfit to work as they do. Which basically tells us a truer picture of the problem. So we in Britain are genetically producing offspring with disabilities, we have a problem with our education, or we have a problem with the welfare state. Because to have TWICE as many people as Germany, France, Portugal, Spain, USA etc then something isnt right.
The other point is that all these other major countries seem to be inline with each other in regards those unfit to work. It averages out that around 2% of their population are unable to work due to disabilities. Britain is 4%.
So what have Labour done to create a society of double the unfit to work than our friends overseas? Thus something the good old Tories are now looking into to sort out!
The Fraud & Error report uses standard statistical 95% confidence limits. That means that they are 95% certain that the true figure lies between 0.6% and 1%.
The National Fraud Office Annual Fraud Indicator confirms that the estimate for benefit fraud covers both identified and hidden fraud, and it also gave the DWP estimate its top "BRAG" rating which means it had "excellent" confidence in that estimate.
The credible evidence confirms that benefit fraud is very low in percentage terms and the monetary amount is much less than tax fraud. Anyone found guilty of any type of fraud should be sanctioned.
As for a comparison with other countries, the same OECD report that showed that people aged 20-34 are twice as likely to be "on disability benefit" (nb being on disability benefit does not necessarily mean they are not working) confirms that "Public spending on sickness and disability makes up 11% of all UK public social spending, slightly over the OECD average of 10%", so not hugely generous.
For all Labour's many faults your attempt to blame Labour for those "unfit to work" shows a fundamental lack of understanding on your part. The caseload for those receiving "incapacity benefits" (ie for those unfit to work) can be seen in the DWP benefit expenditure tables. They cover Invalidity Benefit/Incapacity Benefit/Severe Disablement Allowance/Employment & Support Allowance. They show the total claimant count as follows:
1979 - 1,253,000
1997 - 2,819,000
2010 - 2,662,000
Real terms expenditure was down by over £3.2bn pa under Labour as opposed to rising by £9.8bn pa under the Tories.
As for the Tories sorting things out, sadly for their supporters in the gutter press who produced a series of highly inaccurate headlines, the latest DWP statistical summary confirms that, after nearly all the IB-ESA migration has finally been done (many months behind schedule) the total caseload is down by less than 3.6%. It is also worth noting that the Work & Pensions Committee confirmed that being found "fit for work" does not mean that you do not have an illness/disability. A report also highlighted that many of these people still require specialised help, such as a pa or reduced hours, in order to return to work.
As for the Tories supposedly sorting the bill for incapacity and disability benefits, the actual evidence shows the contrary in pretty spectacular circumstances. Re spending on ESA, the OBR welfare trends report said that current spending had been underestimated by £0.9bn pa and they also have increased their forecast of ESA in 2017-18 by £2.1bn pa. The reasons for this include slow claims processing, people being more seriously ill/disabled than forecast and thus qualifying for the Support Group, more successful appeals (in the last tax year alone there were more than 135,000) and an overestimate of how many would be affected by time limiting.
As for spending on DLA (& PIP), the Tory led coalition said that their cuts would reduce the amount spent in 2014-15 by £1.2bn pa. However, in November the IFS confirmed that spending has actually increased by £1.6bn pa! This is due to the "significant delays" in the implementation of PIP which has been severely criticised by the likes of the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee.
The tenure of Iain Duncan Smith will be remembered for its staggering incompetence which has failed huge numbers of chronically ill and disabled people as well as also failing the taxpayer.
