Speaker of the House of Commons: Expel - Iain Duncan Smith from the House of Commons(23 Posts)
Speaker of the House of Commons: Expel Iain Duncan Smith from the House of Commons.
After being outed as a liar, and after more than 100,000 people signed a petition calling for him to be held to account, Iain Duncan Smith has been called before - Parliament's 'Work and Pensions Committee' to be held to account for 'statistical deception'.
We NOW learn that he will, after all, be appearing to give evidence before the committee on the production and release of the Department for Work and Pensions - DWP statistics in September, despite evading that committee & having been postponed in June & July.
If he won’t defend himself, then he must stand guilty of the offence. This brings us to the question of the penalty he should pay.
Respect For the Unemployed & Benefit Claimants refers to the following & makes this 'public statement':
"Under British Parliamentary Convention: There is an offence, here in the UK, known as Contempt of Parliament. An MP is guilty of this if he or she deliberately misleads Parliament, and any MP accused of the offence may be suspended or expelled.
He must either admit that he lied to Parliament and to the people in order to justify his despicable treatment of the most vulnerable people in this country…
… or he must be expelled from Parliament like the disgrace that he is.
If any MP is found to have lied & deceived the 'House of Commons' an MP can then be expelled from parliament.: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/misconduct_in_public_office/#a010
We hereby DEMAND the so-called honourable member Iain Duncan Smith a leading figure within the Conservatives be expelled from the House of Commons, Palace of Westminster"
Please sign to get rid of this vile man.
Looks like psychopath IDS is in deep shit again:
And, of course, tries to blame other people again.
Iain Duncan Smith wasted MILLIONS with "extraordinarily poor" benefits reform
Report says “alarmingly weak” management allowed secretarial staff to sign off contracts worth several millions of pounds
Iain Duncan Smith has been slammed by MPs for wasting millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on the chaotic Universal Credit programme.
A “shocking” failure to manage the flagship benefits reform has already wasted at least £140million, a damning report says.
It says “alarmingly weak” management allowed secretarial staff at the Department for Work and Pensions to sign off contracts worth several millions of pounds.
Overall, the management of the project - which bundles six main benefits into a single payment - has been “extraordinarily poor” , the Public Accounts Committee says.
The MPs say it is “highly likely” the Department will have to write off a substantial part of the £425million it has already spent on IT development.
“Management of the Universal Credit programme has been extraordinarily poor.
"Oversight has been characterised by a failure to understand properly the nature and enormity of the task, a failure to monitor and challenge progress regularly, and a failure to intervene promptly when problems arose,” the report says.
It continues: “Some of the IT assets that have been delivered cannot be used in the programme and so must be written off; whilst initial estimates suggest the write-offs could amount to at least £140 million.
"We heard evidence that the precise extent is as yet unknown because the Department’s impairment review is not yet complete, relying so far on supplier self-assessment.”
The cross-party group of MPs said they had serious doubts about whether the Universal Credit could be rolled out across the country by 2017.
They said the Department for Work and Pensions had “neglected to implement basic procedures for monitoring and authorising expenditure”.
“We saw evidence that purchase orders with a total value of £8.7 million were approved by a personal assistant to the Programme Director.
“In another case, two purchase orders, one for £22.6 million and one for £1.1 million, were approved by a personal assistant to the Programme Director whose delegated financial authority at the time of approvals was only £10 million,” the MPs said.
Margaret Hodge Alarmingly weak: Margaret Hodge
And they found the Department made payments to suppliers which could not be linked to any work done on the Universal Credit.
Committee chair, the Labour MP Margaret Hodge, said the management had been “alarmingly weak.”
“The failure to develop a comprehensive plan has led to extensive delay and the waste of a yet to be determined amount of public money.
“£425million has been spent so far on the programme.
"It is likely that much of this, including at least £140 million worth of IT assets, will now have to be written off,” she said.
She added: “From the outset, the Department has failed to grasp the nature and enormity of the task; failed to monitor and challenge progress regularly; and, when problems arose, failed to intervene promptly.
“Lack of day-to-day control meant early warning signs were missed, with senior managers becoming aware of problems only through ad hoc reviews.”
A Department for Work and Pensions spokeswoman said: “Universal Credit is a vital reform that rewards work instead of trapping people on benefits.
"It will ultimately bring a £38billion economic benefit to society.
“This report doesn’t take into account our new leadership team, or our progress on delivery.
"We have already taken comprehensive action including strengthening governance, supplier management and financial controls.
“We don’t recognise the write-off figure quoted by the committee and expect this to be substantially less.
"The head of Universal Credit Howard Shiplee has been clear that there is real potential to use much of the existing IT.”
Signed ~can't stand the man or his ideologies.
Iain Duncan Smith to miss 'bedroom tax' debate in Commons
Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith won't take part in the planned Labour debate on the "bedroom tax" later today.
The welfare reform - which the government refers to as the "spare room subsidy" - is the subject of an Opposition Day debate in the House of Commons.
The Secretary of State in charge of the policy however will not be there to defend it.
Read: Iain Duncan Smith not attending 'bedroom tax' debate
The Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Rachel Reeves is expecting to debate the issue with a more junior minister from the government department.
A number of protestors are planning to travel to Westminster ahead of the debate and Labour sources suggest the Work and Pensions Secretary is "running scared".
Labour is forcing a vote in the Commons on a motion calling on the government to repeal the controversial policy.
Rachel Reeves claims the welfare change hits 660,000 housing benefit claimants with an average loss in payments of £720 per year.
The Labour motion reads:
That this House regrets the pernicious effect on vulnerable and in many cases disabled people of deductions being made from Housing Benefit paid to working age tenants in the social housing sector deemed to have an excess number of bedrooms in their homes; calls on the government to end these deductions with immediate effect; furthermore calls for any cost of ending them to be covered by reversing tax cuts which will benefit the wealthiest and promote avoidance, and addressing the tax loss from disguised employment in construction; and further calls on the government to use the funding set aside for Discretionary Housing Payments to deal with under-occupation by funding local authorities so that they are better able to help people with the cost of moving to suitable accommodation.
What a cowardly and sad little man.
Signed. IDS is almost as corrupt as Hunt.
Why not? By what criteria could you possibly say that he has been a competent minister?
'By what criteria could you possibly say that he has been a competent minister?'
By every criteria
Why don't you just stop commenting on politics and become a football fan instead? That way you don't actually have to think about evidence or consistency of anything you say, and you can just root for your team because you affiliate with them.
That's what you're doing now. If you enjoyed football instead, you'd make less of a fool of yourself and you're spare us all your incoherent ramblings.
How dare you speak to Mignonette like that!
By what criteria could you possibly say that he has been a competent minister?
By every criteria
claig I've learned to really like you even though we're different.
But Irritable Duncan Syndrome is a thin-skinned blunderer and streets ahead as my most despised Conservative politician in what's such a crowded field it would be a Health and Safety hazard if the Tories believed in nonsense like that.
Thanks limitedperiodonly, the feeling's mutual
‘Moaning’ Work and Pensions committee lets IDS ‘off the hook’
It is said that you can get the measure of a man, not from his words, but from his actions. Iain Duncan Smith brought bodyguards to the Commons Work and Pensions Committee yesterday. (Monday)
Why did he need the muscle? Probably because he knew how his behaviour would be received. This is a man who is absolutely not going to accept criticism, in any form at all.
The man whose benefit reforms were mocked by Ed Balls last week as “In Deep Sh…ambles” batted away concerns about inaccurate statistics as somebody else’s fault and, when confronted with a whistleblower’s claim that jobseekers were being sanctioned indiscriminately, said he wanted to see the evidence.
That’s a bit much, coming from the man who is still withholding the mortality statistics of people going through the assessment regime for Employment and Support Allowance. Where is that evidence?
Our evidence that he had a bodyguard comes from Paula Peters on Facebook, who attended the meeting. She wrote: “The police, and they were armed, hustled him into the room. He had a bodyguard in the room with him! What the hell for? We are entitled to watch proceedings and follow due process.”
Dame Anne Begg, chairing the meeting, pointed out that the UK Statistics Authority has received more complaints about the Department of Work and Pensions’ use of statistics than any other government department.
His response: “Yes, but I’ve had two letters. One was about two years ago, concerning something about the use of them on immigration, but they let that one sit – and the last one was where we had a discussion on the use of where I referred to those going back to work on the back of the benefit cap. They said that … I should not make the link. I believed it to be the case – that those people were going back to work due to the fact of reducing the cap; that’s my belief. They said it should not remain as a flat statistic, which we’ve accepted.”
So in that one respect, he admitted that he was wrong.
But he also said: “We have published, over the period that I have been there, over 500 statistical releases. We’ve also started the innovation of ‘ad hoc’ releases – which, actually, we were congratulated for by UKSA… We try and publish as regularly as possible… We try to sell a positive message, and I know there have been issues around negativity with regard to disability benefits.”
Pressed on the fact that Grant Shapps had claimed nearly 900,000 people shuffled off ESA because they weren’t willing to take the work capability assessment, the Secretary of State denied responsibility: “We didn’t actually - and have never - given them that idea about those figures. It was something that they put together and released themselves. I wasn’t even aware that they were going out with that comment at the time… I have had conversations with him and others about being careful to check with the department.”
Committee member Debbie Abrahams wanted to know about the claim by a whistleblower in Job Centre Plus, that JSA claimants were deliberately being set up to fail, contrary to the Civil Service code, with ploys including making appointments without telling the claimant, in order to create an easy opportunity for a sanction and thereby distorting statistics – not after they had been collected but in the collection itself.
She said the whistleblower had tried to raise the issue with managers at all levels, but had been rebuffed each time.
“Well, I’m not aware of that,” drawled Mr Duncan Smith, “and I have to say that I would like to see his evidence for that. With respect, he is making an allegation about some of the incredibly hard work that job advisors do. There’s always one or two people who have a different view about operating in an organisation. I happen to believe that, unless it is proved to the contrary, people in Job Centres do a very good job, work very hard, and they apply sanctions within the rules.”
Challenged on this by Dame Anne, he started to claim that sanctions are always issued because of failure to comply with the strictures imposed on claimants, provoking an interruption from Debbie Abrahams that caused his mask to slip momentarily. “I have listened a lot to what has been said – and moaning about this… You’ve had a fair crack at this.”
So there you have it. Statistical errors are nothing to do with Iain Duncan Smith. Sanctions are always applied fairly and never to distort the statistics.
And anyone who thinks otherwise is “moaning”.
Paula Peters, in her Facebook post, said that disability minister Mike Penning met people from organisations representing the disabled. She reported his words as follows:
“Our disabilities are our fault.
“Diabetes is a lifestyle choice.
“Everyone who claims benefits is frauding the system.
“Everyone who uses the access to work programme is frauding it.”
The public verdict on the meeting has been universally negative. Nicola Clubb (again on Facebook) summed it up well: “I have just watched an hour’s worth of IDS and the DWP evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee and they let him and his three cronies off the hook.
“They did not push him him to explain his use of dodgy stats, they just asked him about a couple of pieces of data released by people.”
I think IDS has quite a lot of support across all sectors of the Commons and in the wider public. What he's doing to simplify the welfare system is long overdue and the previous administration know very well they should have taken the initiative to reform when times were better.. Managing the transition was never going to be easy or without cost, especially when the civil service gets involved in an IT project. Nitpicking over statistics is diverting and yes, the communication of progress could be better, but I think this is too important a project to allow it to be sidetracked.
Join the discussion
Please login first.