some suggested cost savings for DWP
the benefits system has become "unsustainable" (like it does in every parliament)
As a worker who sometimes has to “engage” with public sector services, I thought I would suggest some ways of saving money. I was recently reflecting on how “value for money for the taxpayer” is always the primary reason people vote Labour. So I am very glad that this is their current focus.
A shared filing cabinet for the NHS and DWP
I would like to query why we have a National Health Service that apparently has no way of directly contacting the Department of Work and Pensions, and vice versa. I mean I still don’t understand why citizens have to keep asking their GP for letters, proving they have this and that diagnosis. Can’t DWP and NHS share some sort of online filing cabinet. I can’t tell you the amount of money I have spent, printing and posting letters to DWP. They refuse to give out an email address for one thing.
You’re both part of the “welfare state” can’t you just.. err communicate?
If you need to commission other parts of the public sector to support your customers to navigate your systems - it might be an idea to simplify those systems?
£1bn promised to deliver “tailored support”, (it’s always “tailored” isn’t it in the press releases). I’m sure this £1bn includes many jobs, many more jobs, for the professional classes. I’m sure they will soon put out various tenders, once the green paper turns white, for “experienced providers” to deliver something ahistoric, and make welfare to work, err… work.
I was at a PIP assessment recently. The assessor, a clinician, and rather warm person,1 sat across the room from us, behind a desk, with a laptop in front of them, for about two hours as they asked a series of questions.
Of course they told us on multiple occasions that they were not the assessor, someone at DWP would do that. They were there, just doing the job that needed to be done.
Later, when the person being assessed made a comment about NHS waiting lines, the assessor drolly remarked; “that was the reason I left the NHS.”
No shade intended, but I would be very curious to know how much the taxpayer, via outsourcing to the private sector, pays former NHS nurses to conduct PIP assessments. It’s an odd dichotomy, considering that for many of the conditions that make you eligible for PIP and other health-related benefits, you need to contact an NHS professional to write and sign a letter proving that you have said condition. (Again see my first money saving suggestion).
Advo being just one of these for-profit companies that deliver PIP assessments for the state. Perfectly nice health care professionals deliver these assessments, who rightly let us know they have no decision making powers. I’m just curious of how much it costs compared to, I don’t know… the current Poor Law-esque sanctioning?
It’s not just the private sector outsourcing and related costs. I wonder, when you factor in the merry-go-round that is third sector commissioning, of often short-term projects, employing loads of key workers, peer workers, advisers et al - I wonder then, how much the taxpayer benefits in the longer term.
Because PIP assessments are errr… anxiety inducing. (You don’t say?) Traumatic even. In Thomas More’s Utopia, people didn’t have to justify their right to live. He was one of the earliest proponents of universal basic income, which if I listen to some of my err comrades is apparently “reactionary”. I began to wonder, if Saint Sir Thomas More was a reactionary, than what does that make old coppernose?2
When you have complex bureaucracy, like the PIP application and assessment, the state tends to commission middle class charity bureaucrats to support people to navigate them. Which is another burden on the taxpayer. DWP basically outsourced universal credit migration to Citizens’ Advice. Is this really the best way to run the welfare state? I remain unconvinced (but you won’t hear much about this in the discourse, I wonder why…)
I think the state, when it works, should allow us to flourish not just survive. I’m not convinced a state-funded bureaucrat has the right to tell anyone that they are not “disabled enough” nor “sick enough”. And I’m certain it doesn’t save us money in the longer term. Rather, we should all be questioning the mental toll that this takes on people already suffering. It’s no wonder people want a safety net, in the form of disability benefits like PIP. (If it is indeed such a safety net when reassessments are every couple of years.)
Stop penalising people for work and training
Disraeli wrote in Sybil;
“To be harassed about money is one of the most disagreeable incidents of life. It ruffles the temper, lowers the spirits, disturbs the rest, and finally breaks up one’s health.”
People on benefits, particularly universal credit are often permanently in debt to DWP, but I will focus on that in a future piece. I suppose I could suggest that citizens, ie DWP’s “customers” charge the state interest for this venture, but I doubt that would go down too well with HMRC (and besides this piece is about how we save money for the taxpayer).
Now I know this could sound most reactionary, but I’m not convinced keeping your citizens in debt is the right approach. But perhaps DWP wishes to ruffle people’s tempers? You don’t want the unemployeds getting too comfortable, amirite?!
Then there’s the blatant penalties for working. As others have stated such as Fraser Nelson in his Dispatches report, it is a high risk venture, returning to work. Many are worse off, as universal credit is cut when your pay reaches a certain level.
So for those who pay the living wage, an interesting task for employers is working out how not to penalise staff who are reliant on universal credit top ups. My own employer, Groundswell, are doing wonderful and innovative stuff in this area which we believe is a possible template for other employers. It actually comes down to some rather intricate maths at the end of the day.
And it’s not just a question of the state penalising you because you are working. There’s the fact that your UC gets *cut* if you are studying for more than 12 hours a week.
So yes, just a few suggestions for the green paper! And again, I’m sure some policy guys have already discussed all this - but perhaps have a look at how you support people financially into work and training, by putting money in their pockets, before you commission more services, to support these same people to navigate your dysfunctional systems?
Just a thought!
ps: kudos to HMG for using an Office 365 online form for the green paper consultation, consisting of 17 heavily-worded questions, with open text answers. Another wonderful example of efficient government consultation. I wonder if they will announce a tender to employ people to sift through the answers? Might I suggest AI? And also might I also suggest that you send this form via paper to every citizen in the country, cos I have a feeling people dependent on state welfare won’t be bothered much with this ridiculously obtuse form.
as warm as one can be I suppose while they deliver such questions as, “do people ever comment that you smell bad?”
Haha historical sectarian banter.