MSN have just published an opinion from me on Iain Duncan Smith's claims on benefit fraud. Since the version on line is less technically robust than the first draft let me offer that earlier version here, instead:
It's been widely reported that Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary in the Coalition government, has claimed that £10 billion has been lost in fraud and error under the tax credit system put in place by Labour. The result is that je has claimed that the tax credit system is "not fit for purpose".
It's an interesting claim for a number of reasons. First of all, to come up with his headline number Iain Duncan Smith had to spread his calculations over a period of seven years from 2003 to 2010.
Second, he claims that the loss should be compared with total tax credit payments of £171 billion during that period. You would think as a result that the fraud and error rate was as a result about 5.8%.
That, however, is completely misleading. From 2003 to 2010 total benefit payments in the UK came to £1,089 billion according to HM Treasury Budget documentation for the years in question.
And, according to latest data on the error rate in the benefits system as a whole the cost of fraud is no more than 0.7% a year. In 2011/12 that meant £1.2 billion was paid because of fraudulent claims. And given that this fraud rate has been remarkably consistent over time, it also implies that in total fraud might have cost over all benefits, including the old age pension, just £7.6 billion during the Labour years Duncan Smith referred to when making his claim.
Of course, error is an issue too, but it's also not as big as the claim made would suggest, especially when many errors result in underpayments. In fact net errors (that's over payments less underpayments due to error) amount to just 0.5% a year. Over the Labour years that might, therefore, imply an overspend of £5.4 billion. Put it together and over spending of £1,089 million fraud and error cost a total of just £13 billion in seven years under Labour, which is extraordinarily low. Most complex human systems would expect to see a much higher error rate than that. What is more, it means Duncan Smith's claim that £10 billion was lost to just £171 billion of tax credit payments just does not stack.
Making that claim does though draw attention away from a much bigger problem. H M Revenue & Customs admit that tax fraud and error costs at least £23 billion a year. The FT did however, suggest in 2012 that this was “complete guesswork” suggesting the number may be much higher. I think it is. My estimate of tax fraud in the UK is £70 billion a year.
Now we can disagree about whether the right number is £23 billion of £70 billion or somewhere in between, but however it is looked at the cost of tax fraud is many, many times bigger than the £1.2 billion that benefit fraud will cost in total this year. And that then leads to the real question Iain Duncan Smith and the government need to answer, which is why are they tackling the wrong issue when it comes to fraud, because they very obviously are?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
It is a typical tory story…. Dont let the facts get in the way of a good story
Iain Duncan Smith, graduate of the University of Perugia as he used to say on his CV…no not that University of Perugia silly! The one that teaches you Italian as a foreigner and doesn’t mind if you don’t sit any exams. Now as for the Dunchurch College of Management…well don’t get me started…I think this all came out around 2002..the stretching of a threadbare CV that is…funnily enough this was the same year as the Easterhouse Epiphany…unfortunately the latter didn’t cover up the former, so do we have Michael Crick to thank for winding up IDS so tightly that his epiphany became an apocalyptic delusion where 0.7 becomes 58 and the answer to every failed attempt at govt. computerisation is another super-computer, this one specifically designed to make you homeless, beg and steal, to make you ship-shape for a private prison coming somewhere near to you very shortly? Just asking.
Apparently IDS feels physically sick before going on TV and also apparently the disabled, the poor, the underemployed feel physically sick every time this pathetic excuse for a human being appears on TV. Does anyone know of a competition that would make better and more appropriate use of the letters IDS to describe this slimeball, apart from Iain, Duncan, and Smith?
I’ll start…how about and off the top of my head….Inveterate Deceitful Scaremonger or
Initiator of Disability Suicides or Iffy Dodgy and Shameless…endless fund for stressed-out families as they walk 10 miles to the nearest food bank. Don’t thank me, thank him!
Much as I would like to agree with you on this, and my experience is completely anecdotal, dealing with tax credits as a professional, I have been struck by the lack of understanding by claimants of what data they should be putting on the claim forms. Even more struck, by the lack of knowledge of those processing the claims on the HMRC side. Furthermore the paperwork generated by the tax credits office is completely opaque so even a well-informed claimant would have little chance of detecting an error.
I cannot argue with the statistics here, but given my personal experience I would be surprised if there were not very significant inaccuracies.