In 2008, the Liaison Committee and the Government agreed a process for departmental select committees to undertake pre-appointment hearings in which they examine the suitability of the Government's preferred candidate for certain public posts. The purpose is to test the individual's independence and expertise, consider any potential conflicts of interest and explore how the individual intends to undertake the job, including his or her accountability to the Committee. Select committees do not have the power to veto appointments. However, the Minister is expected to consider relevant observations before proceeding with an appointment. The pre-appointment hearing for the posts of Pensions Ombudsman and Pension Protection Fund Ombudsman (held by the same individual) falls within the remit of the Work and Pensions Committee. On 15 October 2014 the Minister for Pensions informed us that Tony King, the current Pensions Ombudsman and Pension Protection Fund Ombudsman, would be stepping down in spring 2015.[4] He set out the recruitment exercise that would be followed to select the new Ombudsman and invited us to undertake pre-appointment scrutiny of the preferred candidate, in accordance with the agreed arrangements. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) launched the recruitment process on 29 November 2014. The Minister notified us of the name of the preferred candidate on 3 February 2015. In announcing the selection process, DWP also indicated that a recruitment exercise would be undertaken for the post of Deputy Pensions Ombudsman (and Deputy Pension Protection Fund Ombudsman). This is a part-time role and is not subject to a pre-appointment hearing.
The Committee's report examines the Government's proposals for welfare reform set out in its Green Paper 'A new deal for welfare: empowering people to work' (Cm 6730, ISBN 0101673027) published in January 2006. The proposed reforms are designed to help more ill or disabled people move into employment, thereby reducing the number of people claiming incapacity benefits by one million within a decade. Issues discussed include: the future rollout of the 'Pathways to Work' scheme; the introduction of a new benefit called Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) to replace incapacity benefit from 2008; support for ill or disabled people to move back into work; employer attitudes; the involvement of healthcare professionals; the role of the private and voluntary sectors; the costs and resources for the reform programme. The Committee welcomes the Government's aim to reform the welfare system in order to help support more ill or disabled people move back into work, but argues that if its reform programme is to be successful it will need adequate resources, particularly over the next few years, and further detailed work in co-operation with key stakeholders including employers and disability organisations.
The Universal Credit pilots (Pathfinders) will begin in the north west of England in April 2013 and full national roll-out is due to start in October 2013. The Government has designed a welfare system which should help ease the transition from benefits to work, but significant concerns remain about the potential impact of the changes on some of the most vulnerable benefit claimants, especially the online claims system and the proposed single monthly payment. The Government needs to reflect on its ambitious implementation timetable. Under Universal Credit, payments to cover the costs of rent will go to the benefit claimant, rather than direct to the landlord. This is a major change and the Committee therefore recommends that, during the initial phases of implementation, claimants who currently have their housing costs paid to their landlord should have the option to continue with this arrangement. The Committee also notes that it has not yet received sufficient evidence to satisfy itself that the Government will achieve its stated aim of ensuring more generous support for the disabled. The Government plans to calculate monthly Universal Credit payments by using information taken from data feeds from HMRC's new Real Time Information (RTI) system though there are concerns about that programme. The Committee, further, recognises that there is likely to be a significant increased demand for advice services during the four-year transition to Universal Credit. The report also comments on closely-related policy areas, including: the conditionality and sanctions regime; passported benefits; localisation of council tax support; localisation of the Social Fund
This report comments positively on some aspects of the design of the Youth Contract. It builds on the types of interventions which have been shown to have a positive impact: increased Jobcentre Plus (JCP) adviser support; work experience placements; and apprenticeships. It also welcomes the inclusion of a new scheme for 16-17 year-olds, the large majority of whom do not receive support from JCP as they are ineligible for Jobseekers Allowance (JSA). The Committee acknowledges that the Government has sensibly focused wage incentives - the key new element of the Youth Contract - on longer term young unemployed claimants and there is an attempt to achieve sustainable job outcomes by linking wage incentives to the Work Programme payment structure, in which providers are financially incentivised to keep participants in work and off benefits in the longer term. However the Youth Contract on its own it will not be enough to address the current unacceptably high level of youth unemployment. A significant impact can only be made if all the targets are met. In particular, past experience shows that 160,000 wage incentives is a very ambitious target in the current economic climate. And 250,000 additional work experience placements for young people may also be unrealistic
The Future Jobs Fund (FJF) was established by the previous Government in April 2009 as an emergency response to the rise in youth unemployment in 2008 and 2009. Its aim was the creation of job opportunities for young people on Jobseeker's Allowance and adults on any benefit who lived in areas with particularly high rates of unemployment. The initial target was to create 150,000 temporary (six-month) posts by March 2011, to ensure no young people were left behind due to unemployment. The scheme was then extended and expanded with the aim of creating 200,000 temporary posts by March 2012. In May 2010, the Coalition Government cancelled the extension of the programme as a measure to address the public spending deficit, and announced that no new entrants would be permitted beyond March 2011. The new Government's view was that the FJF was a high-cost programme, with each job costing up to £6,500, and that similar results and job sustainability could be achieved through its new overarching welfare-to-work scheme, the Work Programme, to be launched in June 2011. The Committee states that it was too soon to assess whether the Future Jobs Fund has been successful in supporting unemployed young people in finding permanent employment. The Committee further states, that the Government needs to learn lessons from the FJF and ensure that the Work Programme includes sufficient levers and financial incentives to prevent providers ignoring young people who are more difficult to place in work. Also that apprenticeships may not be the most suitable route into employment for those young people at the highest risk of long-term unemployment and that alternative provision should be made available.
The Work and Pensions Committee report that there is still a level of uncertainty around the impact of the proposed changes to Housing Benefit and their cumulative effect on households. The report examines the wide-ranging reforms to the Housing Benefit system proposed by the Government, and in particular for claimants in the private rented sector, in receipt of Local Housing Allowance. The Committee accepts the Government's desire to slow the sharp rise in Housing Benefit costs, particularly in the private rented sector, and thereby to influence the private rental market. However, it expresses some concerns about the availability of private rented accommodation in certain localities, which tenants are likely to be able to secure at the new Housing Benefit levels.
The Work and Pensions Committee supports the Government's objectives for the incapacity benefit (IB) reassessment, which are to help people with disabilities and long-term health conditions to move back into employment, while continuing to provide adequate support for people who have limited capability for work or are unable to work. However, the report finds that the Government's positive messages about the IB reassessment are not getting through to the public. The report argues that that the Government should be more proactive in explaining its aims for the process and in emphasising the range of support which will be available. Current incapacity benefit claimants are being reassessed to decide whether they are able to work. The inquiry looked in detail at the Work Capability Assessment (WCA), the test which is used to assess whether an incapacity benefit claimant is capable of work, or work-related activity. WCAs are carried out by Atos Healthcare as part of a contract with the Department for Work and Pensions. It is widely accepted that the WCA was flawed, in the form in which it was introduced in 2008 for new ESA claimants, leading to a high proportion of inaccurate assessments and poor decisions by Jobcentre Plus. Many of these decisions were overturned at appeal. The report acknowledges that many welcome improvements have been made to the reassessment process as a result of the review by Professor Malcolm Harrington and the trial of the process carried out in Aberdeen and Burnley, before it was introduced nationally.
Access to Work (AtW) is an important element of specialist employment support for disabled people. It is unique in providing help to people already in, or about to start, mainstream work. It has the potential to be an extremely effective model, helping to address the substantial gap between the employment rate for disabled people and that of the rest of the population. Where it works well, it transforms the lives of disabled people, many of whom would be unable to work without it.There is strong evidence that AtW currently supports only a minority of disabled people whom it might benefit. There is a misperception that the sole purpose of AtW is to provide physical aids, equipment and transport for people with sensory impairments and physical disabilities; consequently relatively few people with other types of disability, and different support needs, currently use the programme. In scaling up the programme DWP needs to address this imbalance. Its priority should be supporting a much greater number of people with mental health problems, and intellectual, cognitive and developmental impairments, including learning disabilities and autism spectrum disorders. AtW's focus should remain on removing barriers to employment for the full range of disabled people who can benefit from it. DWP should make a strong and evidence-based case to HM Treasury for substantial additional funding for AtW and then aim to increase take-up through much more high profile marketing, and proactive promotion of AtW, including through Jobcentre Plus Work Coaches and contracted employment services providers.
This report calls on the Government to establish a more efficient way to administer the statutory child maintenance service, the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission. It highlights that in 2009-10 it cost £572 million to administer its collection service but that only £1,141 million in maintenance payments reached children; a cost of 50 pence for every £1 collected. The report examines the Government's proposed reforms of the child maintenance system, as set out in the Green Paper 'Strengthening families, promoting parental responsibility' (Cm. 7990. ISBN 9780101799027). The report's recommendations include: non-resident parents should be required to pay child maintenance through direct deductions from their salaries or bank accounts, ensuring that parents with care receive agreed child maintenance payments on time and at the correct level; where a parent with care has taken all reasonable steps to reach a voluntary agreement, both the proposed application and collection charge for the service should be borne by the non-resident parent; the proposals for collection charges are excessive and unnecessarily complex and should be replaced by a single, modest administrative charge; the Government must ensure that its proposed network of improved advice and support services is operating effectively in all areas before charges for the statutory system are introduced; the proposed gateway process is a positive development, as mediation and collaboration could resolve problems for separating parents at the earliest stage; the operational weaknesses of the Child Support Agency, including ongoing IT problems and a reported £3.8 billion in uncollected payments must be addressed.
The Government's Welfare Reform Bill includes measures to introduce a new benefit in 2013: the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) will replace Disability Living Allowance (DLA) for working-age claimants, to help meet the additional living costs of disabled people. A new eligibility assessment process will also be brought in. But this report finds that the Government should not introduce Personal Independence Payment (PIP) assessments nationally until it has satisfied itself, in the planned initial roll-out of the new assessment in a limited geographical area, that the assessment is empathetic and accurate. The report highlights a number of areas of concern. The current draft criteria on which the assessment will be based are still too reliant on a "medical model" of disability, and may fail to take sufficient account of the impact of social, practical and environmental factors, such as housing and access to public transport, on disabled people's ability to participate in society and the additional costs they therefore incur. The Committee believes that the Government should listen to the views of disabled people and their representative organisations and conduct a further trial before the criteria are adopted and the new assessment is introduced. Once the initial assessments for PIP have been completed in the first geographical area, the Government should look again at the value of face-to-face assessments for PIP claims where claimants' conditions are severe and unlikely to change. It is also important that DWP gets the contracting process with the private suppliers right.
This report examines contracted employment programmes and focuses in particular on the prevention of fraud, the treatment of subcontractors, and ensuring fair treatment of customers. The Committee found that levels of detected fraud in contracted employment programmes are low, but feels that there is no room for complacency; the frauds uncovered to date have highlighted the existence of weaknesses in the system which could be exploited. Processes for the detection of fraud must be rigorous and robust. In addition, the financial penalties for providers who have fraud in their organisation are not severe enough. The report calls for customer rights to be given a much higher priority, and for a universal, monitored, and enforceable customer charter to be introduced. It also calls on the Department to carry out a "Customer Survey" of customers of contracted employment programmes to enable standards of customer service to be compared between providers and with Jobcentre Plus. The quality of provision to vulnerable groups, particularly those with disabilities, is another area of concern as providers are having to work with customers with more severe barriers than they had anticipated. The Report examines several examples of potential mistreatment of sub-contractors including allegations of the operation of a cartel, and notes that while it does not know how widespread unfair treatment of subcontractors is, neither does the Department.
This report welcomes the improvements in retirement income that the new Single-tier State Pension will bring. However, the key to the policy's successful implementation lies in the Government informing the public as soon as possible about how it will affect individuals. The Committee criticises the Government for hampering its scrutiny of the proposals. The Government not only imposed an extremely tight timetable, but brought forward the implementation date by a year, after the Committee had completed taking evidence. The Committee says that the Government must work with them to ensure the transition is as smooth as possible and that Defined Benefit pension schemes do not suffer as a result. The Government should also develop and publish a clear explanation of how means-tested support, including passported benefits, will operate under the Single-tier Pension, and the transitional protection that will be put in place. Many women born between 1952 and 1953 believed that they would suffer a double adverse effect on their State Pension income, arising from the increases in their State Pension Age combined with their ineligibility for the Single-tier Pension, if it was introduced in 2017 as set out in the White Paper. The Government should clarify the position. Some women did not build up their own NI record because they had an expectation that they would be able to rely on their husband's contributions to give them entitlement to a Basic State Pension. The Government should assess and publish the cost of allowing women in this position who are within 15 years of State Pension Age to retain this right
During the past two years Jobcentre Plus has faced considerable upheaval in trying to accommodate both organisational change and meet the DWP target for efficiency savings (which requires the loss of 15,000 staff by March 20008). This report looks at how these changes have affected the ability of the Agency to meet its objectives in relation to: employment and training programmes; the capacity and role of Personal Advisors; the performance of the Customer Management System; the principles behind and the performance of Contact Centres. It concludes that too much was attempted too quickly, the planning and IT processes were not up to the job and service levels suffered. As a result Jobcentre Plus failed one of the tests of the Gershon programme that service quality should not deteriorate as a result of the efficiency process.
Reforms to the support provided for housing costs - including the Social Sector Size Criteria (SSSC) (also known as the "Bedroom Tax" and the "Spare Room Subsidy") and the household Benefit Cap are causing financial hardship to vulnerable people who were not the intended targets of the reforms and are unlikely to be able to change their circumstances in response. The SSSC is having a particular impact on people with disabilities who have adapted homes or need a room to hold medical equipment or to accommodate a carer. Anybody living in a home that has been significantly adapted for them should be exempt from the SSSC and all recipients of Carers Allowance where the carer lives with the disabled person should be exempt from the Benefit Cap. The Report further urges the Government to exempt all households that contain a person in receipt of higher level disability benefits (DLA or PIP) from the SSSC. Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs) are only temporary, and whether or not a claimant is awarded DHP is heavily dependent on where they live because different local authorities apply different eligibility rules. Local authorities often have no option other than to place homeless households in expensive temporary accommodation and claimants can then fall within the scope of the Benefit Cap. Local authorities then often have to pay the shortfall for those affected by the Cap so there is no overall saving to public funds. All households in temporary accommodation should therefore also be exempt from the Benefit Cap.
The design and delivery of employment programmes are critical to the success of welfare reform and fundamental to the Government's aspiration of an 80 per cent employment rate. The new Flexible New Deal (FND) programme will be part of the revised JSA regime and will be delivered by large prime contractors who will work with subcontractors at a subregional level. Prime contractors will be given longer contracts and have greater autonomy to design individualised support for customers who have been unemployed for more than 12 months. The Committee welcomes the move towards longer contracts and endorses the principles of the FND programme, and was impressed by the work that Jobcentre Plus staff are undertaking to prepare for the introduction of the new regime. Yet there are significant concerns that fundamental flaws exist in the design of FND and the assumptions on which it is based. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) accepts that on-flows onto FND could be 300 per cent higher than first indicated, with implications for resources at the providers, and possible delays in implementing FND in some areas. The Committee urges DWP to confirm that changes will be made to the budget to reflect the massive increase in predicted onflows to FND. It might not be possible for providers to meet the targets on which contractor payments are principally based, and the Committee received evidence to suggest that the financial model for FND is flawed and its targets unrealistic. It is crucial that DWP and other departments ensure that collaborative working with City Strategies, local authorities and other local Partners is facilitated at all levels if joint commissioning is to become a reality.
This report, (HCP 485-I, ISBN 9780215523488), from the Work and Pensions Committee, is entitled "Valuing and Supporting Carers". It examines the issues surrounding the role of carers in society and what the Government needs to do to support them. It is estimated that the public purse saves £87bn each year, from the unpaid support carers provide. Further, with the increase in population and better healthcare increasing life expectancy, there will be greater demand on such care and support. The Committee believes it is essential that carers of working age are able to sustain their ability to remain in work and are provided help in returning to work. In June 2008, the Government published its new 10 year vision for carers "Carers at the Heart of the 21st Century Families and Communities" (http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/publicationsandstatistics/publications/publicationspolicyandguidance/DH_085345?IdcService=GET_FILE&dID=166685&Rendition=Web). The publication set out a number of commitments, including: the provision of information and advice; breaks provision for carers; improved support from the NHS; support to help carers better combine work and care. The Committee though expresses disappointment that the issue of benefits for carers was not directly addressed in the Carers Strategy and has only been identified as a long term priority from 2011 onwards. The Committee states that the current system of benefits for carers is outdated and recommends the introduction of two distinctive tiers of support for carers, offering: (i) income replacement support for carers unable to work, or working only part-time; (ii) compensation for additional costs of caring for all carers intensive caring roles. The financial pressures on carers arise from additional costs of caring and from reduced working hours, moving into lower paid work, or giving up work. One of the major reasons that carers struggle to remain in work is because of a lack of affordable, reliable and flexible care services. Carers often lose touch with the work environment and the Committee believes that where people have been caring for someone over a long period of time, they require a tailored support to re-enter employment, supported by advisers. The Committee believes that a joined up cross-governmental approach is required to ensure that carers are supported in the wider social care system. For Volume 2 of this report, oral and written evidence, see (ISBN 9780215523495).
In light of the recommendations of the Leitch Review "Prosperity for all in the global economy: world class skills" (TSO, ISBN 9780118404792) published in December 2006, the Government produced two policy papers setting out its plans to improve the co-ordination of employment and skills training so that people who are low-skilled and out of work have a better chance of finding and keeping employment. These documents are the Green Paper "In work, better off" (Cm. 7130, ISBN 9780101713023) and a related document "World Class Skills: Implementing the Leitch Review of Skills in England' (Cm. 7181, ISBN 9780101718127), both published in July 2007. The Committee's report examines these key policy statements, assessing the Department for Work and Pension's plans for future reform and how the Department will fulfil its role in improving the skills levels of people entering work, drawing on the findings of previous Committee inquiries into welfare reform issues.
The Work Programme will be implemented nationwide from June 2011, and will replace the range of existing programmes to help benefit claimants find jobs. It will be delivered on a regional basis by a framework of prime contractors, the majority of which will come from the private sector. These prime contractors will be paid by the Government based on their results in achieving sustainable employment for jobseekers. Prime contractors are expected to subcontract service provision to specialist local organisations, including voluntary sector providers. There is a risk that, even under the payment-by-results model, Work Programme providers might focus on the clients they assess as being easier to help. The Committee recommends that the Government keeps the payment model under review and assesses the outcomes for all participants. The Work Programme creates a significant financial challenge for prime contractors. This might lead to some clients receiving lower quality support and to significant costs to the Government in responding to service failures. The Government should put contingency arrangements in place to ensure the continuity of provision for clients. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) should remind prime contractors that a key aspect of their role is to bear financial risk, rather than passing it on to subcontractors disproportionately. Contracting arrangements need to ensure that subcontractors are fairly managed and that prime contractors are able to hold subcontractors to account for poor performance. The DWP must establish robust and independent arbitration and sanctioning arrangements.
The Work Programme has the potential to work well for relatively mainstream jobseekers but is unlikely to reach the most disadvantaged long-term unemployed people. The Government spent some £248 million less on the Work Programme than anticipated in 2012/13, due to providers' under-performance in a "payment-by-results" programme. In the short term, the Committee urges the Government to use the unspent Work Programme budget to: extend proven, alternative provision for disadvantaged jobseekers, such as the Work Choice programme for disabled people; extend and continue to promote Access to Work to help disabled people overcome the practical difficulties of starting a job; and provide further support for individuals who complete their two-year attachment to the Work Programme without finding sustained employment. The Committee also highlights that people with the severest barriers to work, such as homelessness and serious drug and alcohol problems are often not ready for the Work Programme and need support first to prepare for it. It recommends that DWP pilots ways of providing this additional support to prepare these groups for effective engagement with the Work Programme before they are referred. In the longer-term, the Committee calls on DWP to consider moving away from the current differential pricing model, which is based on the type of benefit a participant is claiming, to a much more individualised, needs-based model. The Report recommends that DWP should assess how a needs-based pricing structure could determine the appropriate level of up-front funding and the types of services required to support individual jobseekers.
The Government has set itself the challenging target of halving the number of children living in poverty by 2010-11 and eradicating child poverty by 2020. With 2010 fast approaching, Ministers are still committed to the targets, and the Committee wanted to ascertain whether DWP has the right measures in place to meet its objectives. Significant progress has been made, but the target remains challenging: there are still 2.8 million children living in poverty and the most recent data shows a slight increase in this number. The Committee is convinced of the damaging effect of poverty on a child's self-esteem and expectations, and also its effects in contributing to social exclusion. Children growing up in poverty are also more likely to have poorer health and poorer educational outcomes. There are groups of children who have a much higher risk of growing up in poverty, for example if they or a parent are disabled, and there are higher poverty rates amongst Pakistani, Bangladeshi and black children. Getting parents into sustainable work should be the focus of the strategy to lift them and their children out of poverty, but there are concerns that the Jobseekers' Allowance regime is not sufficiently flexible to reflect the complexity of lone parents' lives. To eradicate child poverty by 2020, the Government needs a long-term strategy on benefit income for those who are unable to work. If benefits are uprated in line with inflation, the gap between the incomes of those in work and those on benefits will only get wider, as benefits will not keep pace with earnings. As poverty is measured as a percentage of median earnings, the implications for the 2020 target, in particular, are serious.
The Committee conducted a pre-appointment hearing with the preferred candidate, Mr Deep Sagar, on 30 March 2011. (This was over a month later than expected due to the protracted selection process - the Committee remarks that the Department for Work and Pensions should ensure that timescales for selection for such posts should be realistic and deadlines met throughout.) The Committee endorses Mr Sagar's appointment, though has some concerns over his lack of direct experience in social security policy, which is a complex and technical subject area.
The Government established NEST as a low-cost pension scheme to help deliver the auto-enrolment programme and to address a market failure in the pensions industry which meant that many employers and employees were unable to access low-cost, good quality pension provision. However, the Committee believes that certain restrictions placed on NEST will create complexity for employers and will disadvantage some employees. The Committee's report recommends that, if state aid rules allow, the Government should remove the following restrictions: the cap on the annual contributions an individual can make to a NEST scheme; and the ban on individuals transferring existing pension pots into NEST. The Committee further urges the Government to proceed with its plans for State Pension reform, introducing a flat-rate State Pension and reducing the level of means-testing without delay. The report also highlights the difficulties and complexity employers and employees currently face in comparing the fees and charges applied by pension providers and recommends that, from 2013 onwards, if some auto-enrolment schemes still have hidden charges, or charges that represent poor value for money, the Government should use its powers to intervene. Auto-enrolment will impose new costs and may be particularly challenging for small employers however the Committee considers that the Government has taken appropriate steps to minimise the impact on businesses through its gradual and flexible approach ("staging and phasing") to implementation. Exempting small employers would create significant complexity, as well as excluding many employees from the benefits of workplace pension saving
This document contains a range of written evidence submitted to the joint inquiry by the Home Affairs Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee, in relation to the Governments proposals to reform the law on corporate manslaughter, as set out in the draft Bill (Cm 6497, ISBN 010164972X) published in March 2005 for consultation.
A report that discusses the problems experienced in the child maintenance system since the establishment of the Child Support Agency in 1993. It covers the changes in legislation; the introduction of a 'twin-track' approach with the three year Operational Improvement Plan and the establishment of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission.
For auto-enrolment to continue to work successfully, NEST must be allowed to thrive. Employers want simplicity. They want to be able to choose one pension scheme to cover all their employees. The cap on annual contributions to NEST means that employers can't opt for NEST for their higher-earners or if they want to make more generous contributions. So some employers are dismissing the NEST option and choosing a private pension provider who can offer a scheme for all their employees. NEST is required to be a low-cost scheme and to offer good value. Other pension providers don't have this same obligation. There is therefore a risk that the restrictions will mean some employees are prevented from having access to the best value pension scheme available. The Government has already made clear that it will need to "fix" the issue of transfers in and out of NEST if it wishes to implement its "pot follows member" solution to the current problem of small pension pots. Amongst recommendations made in the report is that the Government should make it a priority to gain certainty on the conditions for the European Commission's approval of state aid for NEST, to ensure that this is no longer perceived to be an obstacle to removing the restrictions. Auto-enrolment begins for medium and small employers from 2014. They will begin preparations a year to 18 months before then. Now is the time for action to be taken, it cannot wait until 2017.
It remains uncertain how the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) will manage the housing costs element of Universal Credit without increased risks of fraud and error. The Government has stated that an IT system (the Integrated Risk and Intelligence Service (IRIS)) will allow it to cross-check data and provide similar safeguards against fraudulent claims under Universal Credit as are currently operated by local authorities within the Housing Benefit system. However, the National Audit Office found that IRIS was 'missing' from the UC Pathfinders, and it remains unclear how or when DWP will achieve automated access to the range of property data currently available to local authorities. The official estimated benefit fraud rate is 0.7% of total benefits expenditure. The general public's misperception is that it is some 34 times higher. To reduce the risk of confusion or conflation in media reporting, DWP should publish statistics relating to the estimated level of benefit fraud on a separate day from those related to error in the benefits system. Fraud and error rates have plateaued from 2005/06 to 2012/13 and DWP must employ innovative approaches which are aligned with the known risk factors associated with each benefit to achieve reductions. Biometric identity systems could have an important role to play in identity verification processes across government. The Single Fraud Investigation Service (SFIS), which will investigate all social security benefit fraud across DWP, HMRC and local authorities, should be implemented in line with the roll out of Universal Credit.
The introduction of auto-enrolment makes rigorous pension scheme governance essential. This Report calls on the Government to reassess the case for establishing one body with sole responsibility for regulating workplace pensions. There are concerns over current gaps in regulation and the potential for further gaps to arise as a result of now having three regulators, the Pensions Regulator; and the new Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority, set up to replace the FSA. The Report argues that a single regulator is necessary to ensure that all members of workplace pension schemes are adequately and consistently protected. It also highlights that deferred-member charges and member-borne consultancy charges have the potential to cause serious consumer detriment. It recommends that both are banned by the Government, if significant progress is not made in the very near future by the industry towards ending them. There is particular concern about member-borne consultancy charges and those charges applied to deferred members - people who stop contributing to their pension scheme. The trend towards lower pension scheme charges is welcome. However, a good average is not sufficient and there is potential for consumer detriment in schemes that persist in retaining high charges. The Government should also regularly review its policy on capping charges for auto-enrolment schemes. Consumers are also continuing to lose out when they buy annuities because pension providers are not doing enough to ensure people are aware that they can shop around for the best annuity rate rather than being obliged to buy an annuity from their pension provider.
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.