|
I have been reading the Governments response to the Social Security Select Committee report published in March (see todays Rightsnet news story).
It's full of jargon and cr*p and long words and doesn't really say a great deal. I wonder if it's written by Mr Blair's speech writer...?
Anyway, three points I thought worthy of further comment are reproduced below:
SELECT COMMITTEE'S COMMENT:
33. Those eligible for Crisis Loans are, by definition, already in circumstances of extreme hardship. We (the select committee) believe, therefore, that it was unwise to pilot a revised model of Social Fund applications at the same time as major systems changes to the benefits application process were underway. The claims process must reflect the vulnerability of this client group and a choice of application methods must be made available. We also recommend that DWP should commission research into the fall in the number of Crisis Loan applications and the extent to which this is linked to the new application model. (Paragraph 203)
GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE:
Social Fund legislation was changed in October 2002 to enable Crisis Loan applications to be taken by telephone, offering customers better access. This is an additional facility. Customers who are unable or unwilling to make their applications by telephone may still apply and receive decisions face-to-face at Jobcentre Plus offices, or apply by post.....
MY RESPONSE:
In Berkshire, we have been told that crisis loan applications can only be taken by telephone. Clients that go to the jobcentre are turned away with the phone number, which is impossible to get through to, and forms that are sent in are lost or returned. The DWP has kindly said that they will help people in person if we write to say why they can't claim by telephone.
SELECT COMMITTEE'S COMMENT:
8. Departments have agreed to provide the Office of Government Commerce with quarterly updates on their progress against the efficiency challenge. We ask DWP and Jobcentre Plus to make those reports available to this Committee, if necessary on a confidential basis. (Paragraph 57)
GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE:
The Department reports on performance to Parliament and the public in a number of ways including through the Budget, the Pre Budget Report, the Autumn Performance Report and Departmental Reports. The Government instituted quarterly reporting for Departments against their efficiency targets to enable the centre of Government to monitor and direct the achievement of those targets. The principle of confidentiality underpinning those reports is essential to ensure absolute openness and honesty in reporting and reports are not published by Departments. The Government believes that the disclosure of quarterly reports could be prejudicial to the effective conduct of public affairs.
MY RESPONSE:
Note the last two sentences. Is it not a paradox that "absolute openness and honesty" can be achieved by keeping performance statistics secret? I can only think of three, related, reasons for keeping performance statistics secret:
1. They are doctored
2. They reveal the awful truth
3. It backs up what two seperate DM's have told me 'the aim is to pay as little as possible and do away with benefits altogether'.
The final sentence is very interesting: pulishing reports will be "prejudicial to the effectice conduct of public affairs". Errm, any1 know how or why? I stumped! Maybe the hidden message is, "The government believes that the disclosure of quarterly reports could be prejudical to our chances of re-election".
SELECT COMMITTESS'S COMMENT:
19. We are not convinced that the current measurement system is sufficient to prove positively that performance is not deteriorating and ask the DWP and Jobcentre Plus to expand on the comment in the Department's Efficiency Technical Note that their output measures will be adjusted to reflect qualitative factors. (Paragraph 110)
GOVERNMENTS RESPONSE:
The Government believes that the measures in the Efficiency Technical Note already demonstrate that performance is not deteriorating. The output index for Jobcentre Plus benefit processing takes account of quality by excluding cases which are not paid correctly, so if average accuracy falls, so too will the measure of output. Supporting quality information will include clearance time and customer service measures and the level of fraud and error....
MY RESPONSE:
See what I mean by jargon...?
What I believe this to be saying is that the standard of decision making is measured without reference to claims that are being paid incorrectly. For want of a better expression, that seems somewhat delusional...? Can anyone shed any light on the logic here.
On the plus side to all of this, it seems as though we can expect more serious changes which will keep us all in jobs for many, many years to come!
As an aside, I've often wondered, how much of the DWP's savings in maladministering benefits, is offset by the cost to the tax payer in funding advice and related services (e.g the NHS, esp mental health teams, specialist support, temporary accommodation for those made homeless, running county courts for those in debt, etc, etc..) ... Any ideas?
OK rant over... 
|
