HM Revenue & Customs has improved its approach to tackling error and fraud in tax credits but has not yet achieved a sustainable reduction in the level of losses. In 2009, HMRC announced a target to reduce error and fraud to 5 per cent by 2010-11, down from 9 per cent. HMRC missed this target. Error and fraud losses for 2010-11 were just over 8 per cent, amounting to almost £2.3 billion, around £850 million higher than if HMRC had achieved the target. HMRC has been innovative in how it tackles error and fraud, developing a wide range of activities to tackle specific types of risk and monitoring their effectiveness. HMRC believed it was on track to meets its target, but had overestimated the impact of its activities to tackle error and fraud. It estimated that it had prevented £1.4 billion of error and fraud in 2010-11, but has revised this to under £500 million. HMRC has not yet developed an effective response to stop error and fraud recurring after it has corrected a claim. It has also been less effective in tackling certain types of risk, such as the misreporting of hours worked by claimants. Despite HMRC increasing the number of checks to tackle error and fraud, there remain a substantial number of incorrect awards at the end of each year. In 2010-11, in the case of 1.4 million awards, claimants were paid more than they were entitled to

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.

High levels of benefits and tax credits fraud and error remain unacceptable. Overpayments cost every household in the UK around £200 a year and waste money that government could spend on other things. HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) and the Department for Work & Pensions (DWP) have made some progress in tackling fraud and error, but both departments have shown a paucity of ambition. HMRC has reduced fraud and error, but does not fully understand how it has achieved this, or how much further it can go. DWP did not meet its 2014-15 target for reducing fraud and error, and is relying on welfare reforms to make future improvements. These reforms will not solve all the problems, and DWP expects fraud and error to still be £5.8 billion in 2020-21, once Universal Credit has been fully rolled-out. While the departments can recover some of the money overpaid, this can create huge difficulties for people as they struggle to pay back money paid to them in error. During the next few years both departments must improve their understanding of what reductions are possible, and increase their focus on preventing both underpayments and overpayments due to fraud and error. We intend to return to the issue often during this Parliament

There are around 30 different types of benefits and pensions, and £148 billion was paid out to 20 million people in 2009-10. The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that £2.2 billion of overpayments and £1.3 billion of underpayments were made in 2009-10 as a result of administrative errors by its staff and mistakes by customers. Efforts to tackle error have had little success and levels of error have remained constant since 2007. A joint HM Revenue and Customs and Department for Work and Pensions fraud and error strategy announced in October 2010, along with additional funding of £425 million over four years, is an opportunity to inject a new impetus. Importantly, the Department has not addressed underpayments, despite the hardship that benefit underpayments can create for people in need. Interventions to reduce error must be targeted where they are most likely to get the greatest return. Progress on reducing error requires a better understanding of where and why errors arise, and a greater focus on preventing errors occurring in the first place. The Department is not making use of all available sources of information to identify the reasons why staff make mistakes, where guidance and training efforts should be directed, and to identify which customers are most likely to make mistakes on their benefit claims. Wider welfare reforms have the potential to reduce errors in the long term by simplifying benefits administration, but waiting for the implementation of the Universal Credit is not an option.

A broad, accessible introduction to the benefit system in Britain which can help readers to make sense of the system in practice.

Approximately half of the total UK population are in receipt of one or more welfare benefits, giving rise to the largest single area of government expenditure. The law and structures of social security are highly complex, made more so by constant adjustments as government pursues its often conflicting economic, political and social policy objectives. This complexity is highly problematic. It contributes to errors in decision-making and to increased administrative costs and is seen as disempowering for citizens, thereby weakening enjoyment of a key social right. Current and previous administrations have committed to simplifying the benefits system. It is a specific objective of the Welfare Reform Act 2012, which provides for the introduction of Universal Credit in place of diverse benefits. However, it is unclear whether the reformed system will be either less complex legally or more accessible for citizens. This book seeks to explain how and why complexity in the modern welfare system has grown; to identify the different ways in which legal and associated administrative arrangements are classifiable as 'complex'; to discuss the effects of complexity on the system's administration and its wider implications for rights and the citizen-state relationship; and to consider the role that law can play in the simplification of schemes of welfare. While primarily focused on the UK welfare system it also provides analysis of relevant policies and experience in various other states.

Drawing on 20 years of experience as Comptroller and Auditor General, and head of the United Kingdom National Audit Office, Public Sector Auditing: Is it Value for Money? is Sir John Bourn’s own account of the role and influence value for money auditing has in holding governments to account and in helping public bodies improve the ways in which they deliver services. Key features include: In-depth case studies from UK, US, Canada, China, India and Australia; Detailed analysis of complex areas of public expenditure such as health, education, privatisation, regulation, defence and IT; Examples of how auditing can promote positive outcomes rather than negative post mortems. This book is relevant for people working in both the public and private sectors, and should be essential reading for the staff of public sector audit institutions around the world, as well as commercial accountancy firms and students of accountancy, politics, economics and public management.