I thought this exchange, reported in Hansard, was telling:
Mr Meacher: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many benefit claimants have been sanctioned for (a)four weeks, (b) three months and (c) three years in each month since January 2010. [191565]
Esther McVey: The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Why doesn't the DWP know to how many people it denies benefits?
Or is this just a benefit fraud i.e. they know, but won't tell?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Esther McVey’s response is totally deceitful. I would put money on it that had the number of cases been high, figures would have been released in order to fuel the opprobrium of the unemployed. Where’s the transparency in government?
It affects the unemployment figures if they have to include these unfortunates which suggests McVey, IDS et al deliberately don’t want to know.
Dont want to know? or don’t want anyone else to know?
They used to track food bank referrals as part of the data, when the use of food banks increased they conveniently stopped collecting that data.
If they are not willing to show it, in depth, with all the bells and whistles, it must make them look really bad making it a lot to hide or omit.
Similarly Osborne admitted that people referred to the work program (still claiming Job Seekers or other) are not included in the unemployed tally, that was years back in 2011 I think.
As to McVeys comment,, it was a cop out,, they either collect the data or note. It is not up to her when a freedom of information request is made to obstruct the flow of that information.
Smith should know, as according to guardian:
“The total number of sanctions against benefit claimants in the year to September 2013 was 897,690, the highest figure for any 12-month period since jobseeker’s allowance was introduced in 1996.
The figures published by the Department for Work and Pensions cover employment support allowance and jobseeker’s allowance.
The number of JSA sanctions in the year to 30 September 2013 was 874,850, the highest since JSA was introduced in 1996. It compares with 500,000 in the year to 30 April 2010, the last month of the previous Labour government.
In the year to 30 September 2013 there were also 22,840 sanctions imposed on claimants of ESA — the chief benefit for the sick and disabled — in the work-related activity group. This is the highest for any 12-month period since sanctions were introduced for such claimants in October 2008.
The figures are derived from the latest quarterly set of sanctions totals published by the DWP.
Disproportionate cost -the price of a Guardian, or free on the internet!
Sanctioning people at the drop of a hat is clearly linked with Job Centre target setting ( http://slutocracy.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/interview-with-a-job-centre-advisor-sanction-targets-corruption-revealed/) despite thedisingenuous denials of Duncan Smith. Labour started the whole sanctions culture and it has accelerated massively under the present bunch.
That’s the benefit fraud that I referred to
Truly shocking – what sort of society are we becoming?
As usual the weakest and most vulnerable are victimised.
A side issue is one of IT service and the IT service providers. It is likely that an accurate report on the figures requested would require a scan of the relevant databases/systems. If the systems were provided without this facility (like an Access database with reports and queries)then any request for a scan like this would require something like a service change request. Whoever the ISP is, someone like HP, they command enormous fees to enable civil servants and ministers to access information on their own systems. IN this case I expect the minister was told it was going to cost several tens of thousands for the information and decided not to bother. It does beg extra questions about tails wagging dogs in the public sector IT arena not to mention an MP being denied when making a reasonable request.