It was interesting to watch Ian Duncan Smith and his side kick croany Lord Freud take questions before an MPs committee on the development of Universal Credits. The video is on a government web site which makes democracy more open and viewable. The fact of the matter is UC is still in it's infancy and the software can only cope with simple claims. Their cohort is the easiest set of claimants possible. Those on Job Seekers Allowance, just clean simple no hassle claims. The committee panel had a variety of MPs from different parties which was both good and bad. It's going to be predictable a fellow Tory MP will support another Tory under pressure and not ask too many probing questions. They of course want to look good. IDS reminded the panel how they had listened to the last panel and decided on the pathfinder trial first before bringing in the full UC program. It was as though he was looking for praise and recognition in what is actually just a simple basic and logical thing to do. The original plan for UC did not have pathfinders. It was in effect a Titanic which was going to be launched by the and immediately hit an iceberg. Fortunately for them they listened and fortunately for welfare claimants they did as well.
The answers from IDS's team were along the lines of software would be developed continuously over the next year or so. Agile development was in place. They would start simple and the numbers would increase, with an expected 1.5 million people predicted to be on UC by the end of 2014 or perhaps early 2015. Although I must say there wasn't a great deal of confidence in their answers. It was like they were even surprised by the questioning as the were surprised by the enormity of the task in front of them. Every single member was learning how playing with the Welfare benefits system is an incredibly complex and difficult thing to do. I noticed how Lord Freud used colloquialisms to try and describe the process, "niggling" and "clunky" were amongst the words. It was like they were grasping for a way to describe something which they didn't understand. Equally I thought the panel were not quite up to the job but possibly on the right tracks. The way IDS spoke was as if the numbers would suddenly accumulate in the transition process to UC at a massive rate. But as anyone will tell you the law of 80/20 states, 20 per cent of claims take up 80 per cent of the time to deal with. At the moment UC is trying it's best to cope with getting on board the 80 per cent and sod the difficult cases. One thing I thought they hadn't considered was the multiple changes of circumstances which can happen in a household. Claimant's are not just static and unchanging creatures, they are after all human beings and prone to change. The use of Real Time Information RTI is a feather in an IT cap, but it is not the be all and end all of claim assessment issues. The heavy manual labour comes in determining something which is complex and decision ladden to an extent a computer program is incapable of dealing with, especially the spirit and intention of law, which is rife in the Welfare claims system.
There was no explanation of how Local Authorities would be funded in order to provide local services for people who needed to see another human being. There is a great reliance on IT to do everything. IDS and colleagues stated the more vulnerable members of society would go onto UC last, they needed to get it right and when they did transfer to UC everything would be fine. Of course this is a story or fairy tale explanation they'd give. LA's are not expected to get funding to do what will be transferred to central government. It was as if the pathfinders were only just discovering what welfare benefits were about, they were excited and learning a lot, especially staff at Job Centre Plus JCP. However, why did they not use people who already knew the benefits systems, people who could tell them of what the pitfalls are, these people already exist in LAs in every borough. Well those which hadn't tendered out their services. Ultimately UC is about central government wrestling back the purse strings of funding and cutting it at the same time. It was Glenda Jackson who put IDS on the spot and asked him about the cohort and small sampling. IDS spoke over her, his tone was bullying, he was putting down her line of questioning. But it seemed clear to the viewer IDS and his acolytes have bitten off something way too big. I can certainly see Howard Shiplee (66 years old) lead for the delivery of UC holding a pretty big get-out-of-jail card. He'll simply retire when it all goes south, considering Lord Freud is also supposed to have retired (55) his role is also suspect.
It's a difficult job for sure, one which may lead to their entire downfall. God help the rest of the country with the fall out from it. Maybe next time they are asked a few questions they may even have some answers. Hey no, they are politicians after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment