Re: The Welfare Reform 'Car Crash'

[nickd]

(1) The Welfare Reforms are delayed; it's a good job, but it's merely postponing one almighty car crash!!


Iain Duncan Smith radically launched welfare reform, actually he got off to a good start, but where this will go wrong is when you start to look at the detail...





IDS looks as though he's surrendering before he's even started!

By Nick D

I have to say that upon reading Lord Freud's 'introductory information pack' of the welfare reforms into the House of Lord's I was astounded at how attempts by the coalition government to simplify the system have been made so incredibly complex; - reading this introduction filled me with fear as to its consequences, what on earth will implementation of these reforms do to the lives of claimants?

Before you can get to Lord Freud's 'Vision' statement, you'll need to read through a full 102 pages; - it's so textual that you'll probably end up with a 'visionary' problem by the time you reach the end, I'd recommend you read it with a glass of wine or two, or three; - or perhaps a full bottle, you'll need it. How on earth can anyone maintain this is simplifying the system? - it does no such thing. Any simplification measures which may be effective are far outweighed by others which will add further complexity.

This is the most bizarre attempt at trying to convince the Lords (who will consider the bill at some stage - thankfully it's been delayed until September) that this is an effective simplification system. With no offence to the Lords, they are people that by and large won't have the first clue about claiming benefits, if you introduce a bill like this and make it sound like all of the complexities have been carefully sorted out, people will probably fall for it hook line and sinker. The Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) warned that the 'devil would be in the detail', there's no end of the devil in this bill - but the details leaves a lot to be desired; - it just hasn't been thought through in terms of it's practical application. This is not the way to fix a 'broken' benefits system.

Let's go through just some of the 'changes' - this will be long and tedious, so we'll take it step by step.

_______________________________

The 'Universal' Credit

Let's cut through the biggest myth, an appropriate starting point is the 'Universal Credit' -it is the government's flag ship 'one size fits all' - all singing, all dancing benefit that has been promoted to provide the public with a mis-conceived perception that this is one big benefit that rolls all others into one.

It most certainly does not!

Lord Freud tells us the Universal Credit will 'simplify' the system; - from there on, it all goes down hill.

In fact, the Universal Credit only partially supersedes six of the current income-related benefits:

(1) Income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA)

(2) Income-related Employment and Support Allowance (ESA),

(3) Income Support (IS),

(4) Working Tax Credit (WTC),

(5) Child Tax Credit (CTC)

(6) Housing Benefit (HB).

The Bill abolishes the above benefits and merges them into one.

What they are not so keen to promote is how the following will still stay within the benefit system, they are not part of the all encompassing Universal Credit, it will mean that they still need to be separately administered;- although government says the administration of contribution based ESA and JSA can be done within the Universal Credit - I fail to see how, it'll cause many problems. Here are the benefits which are not part of the new credit:

(1) Contribution based ESA

(2) Contribution based JSA

(3) Council Tax Benefit (means tested)

(4) Disability Living Allowance

(5) Attendance Allowance

(6) Pension Credit (means tested)

(7) Retirement Pension

Plus the many other benefits which stay within the system; - including claims which are subject to 'transitional protection'. The last government said back in 2003 that Income Support claimants who had children on their claim would have their dependency amounts transferred over to Child Tax Credit within a 'matter of years' - here we are in 2011 and the process is still not complete.

It is blindingly obvious that government knows how complicated this is, which is why this attempt at 'simplification' has become inordinately complicated; it's also why it's passage through parliament is slower than government would like - they are therefore already behind in their plans to achieve deficit reduction, it's another bungled bill and dubious attempt to slash the deficit.

It's hardly 'unification' is it?

How many utterly chaotic claims will be based on a misunderstanding as to who qualifies for a contributory benefit or income based variant I ask myself?

Claims will go through the wrong channels and overpayments will arise because some people will be incorrectly advised to claim the Universal Credit when their true entitlement will be via the external contributory based claim route, as in say the case of someone claiming contribution based JSA. [/i]

From what I gather from the long text, payments will still have to be individually assessed by the same departments that we have now, they'll need to carry on means- testing and an upper capital limit of £16,000 will still apply; - the credit just lumps the payments together and offsets them against a taper worked out according to the claimant's circumstances. It's unclear as to whether those claimant's who would currently qualify for tax credits regardless of their capital will become subject to the £16,000 upper capital limit. If they are not, it is far from clear as to how they will separate the tax credit element of their universal claim from the components which are means tested.

Can we really be guaranteed that local authorities, the DWP and HMRC will all be talking to each other and ready for joined up implementation?

Can we really believe we will have a fully functioning and compatible software system with suitably trained staff in place in time for implementation?

I really don't think so.

____________________________________

Personal Independence Payment (PIP)

And then we have the much heralded 'Personal Independence Payment'; apparently it will be 'easier to claim' and it will be simpler to sort out who qualifies; - no doubt all claimants will end up having a free of charge ATOS medical thrown in and we all know how well these work - with up to 50% of them currently being subject to inaccurate assessment - the process of appealing will cost the country millions. It makes a further and quite massive dent in government's plans to reduce the fiscal deficit, more of that later.

The rules on entitlement will mean that it is based on two components: – the daily living component and the mobility component. For each component there will be two rates – standard and enhanced. Entitlement to either component (and at which rate) will be determined by reference to a new objective assessment, the details of which will be set out in secondary legislation. (This will almost certainly mean more of the dreaded ATOS assessments)

It all sounds remarkably similar to the current entitlement conditions, although it rules out all those who currently receive a lower mobility or care award - they will no longer be able to claim, it doesn't make it clear whether their entitlement will need to be re-assessed by more inept assessments or whether they will retain transitional protection where there is an existing award.

There will be all the inherent complexities of linking the disability elements arising out of DLA entitlement to the Universal Credit; - more scope for miscommunication, no change there then.

So will this be the end of Disability Living Allowance? - well apparently not for children. For them, Disability Living Allowance will be retained - so 'no PIP for kids' then. Imagine the difficulties which will arise when mum and dad are on the Personal Independence Payment (and quite possibly linked to a Universal Credit claim too) and the kids are on DLA, it's a recipe for disaster in aligning awards with the right credits on the overall calculation of the amount a family will get.

___________________________________

But you'll have a right of appeal okay?

Well, I'm afraid you won't.

Only if you are on contributory based ESA or JSA for instance, but under the Universal Credit, your right of appeal will go. Some will have a right to appeal, others won't; - that seems remarkably unfair and will create all manner of problems when it comes to working out whether Tribunals have a jurisdiction or not.

All overpayments of Universal Credit will be recoverable, they are dispensing with any right to appeal against a section 71 Social Security Administration Act decision. If you're overpaid you pay it back; -simple as that. I'd call this distinctly unfair and an absolute charter for the commissioning of more official error mistakes because it removes any trace of the DWP being unable to recover where they get it wrong.

Whilst the claimant who makes a mistake will pay dearly, there will no penalty on the part of the authorities for getting it wrong; - polluter pays only applies to the claimant not the biggest polluter of them all - the departments who already concede to getting it wrong due to lack of staff training and complexity.

Instead they will implement a new discretionary code and we all remember how problematic that was when the Tax Credit Act introduced Working and Child Tax Credit don't we?

For those of you who do have a right of appeal, forget the idea of going straight to an independent Tribunal. You will no longer be able to do so, you'll have to go through a process of asking the DWP, LA or HMRC for a 'reconsideration' first, so factor in another few months before you even get to the appeal stage.

Bear in mind how long it currently takes and how much worse it will be with up to 29 million claims being reviewed by next Parliament.

I'm beginning to feel like I may not want to be a welfare benefit specialist with the introduction of these highly problematic reforms , the idea of leaving it all to the DWP, the user friendly tribunal, the decimated voluntary sector or the candle stick maker is starting to appeal; - did I say appeal? - let’s relegate that word to the history books along with rapidly diminishing routes to 'access to justice'.

__________________________________________________

But it will be easier to report a change in circumstances won't it?

Well it seems they do this for you by using wage information from your employer (presumably via the HMRC) that's good; - but where it will go disastrously wrong is when it comes to the self-employed - a glaring oversight I'd say given that welfare to work providers will be pushing many in this particular direction; - they are not exactly busting the vacancy boards down at the Jobcentre are they now?

And of course we'll have all the problems of working out which wages are those of the claimant and which are those of their partner; - we all know where there's tremendous scope for error there. How many estranged couples will be wrongly assessed as being together I wonder? - assuming they can get released from the 'mediation chamber' that is.

___________________________________________________

Fraud, Error and sanctions

For those brave enough to pursue a claim (stamina will be imperative), the bill is full of 'eradication; measures, very much aimed at the claimant of course. Lord Freud is almost obsessed with claimant error, but when it comes to diminishing official error, his approach is much more straight forward; it goes like this...

Treat all claimants like second class citizens.

Take away their right to appeal.

Confuse the claimant to the point where their brain fries and they abandon all hope of claiming.

If they do and go on and make a mistake; which looks inherently more probable, they can expect to face the following prospects :

Having their awards taken away by draconian sanctions.

Being prosecuted with additional powers and an accent on increased penalties, sanctions and recovery through the civil courts with no prospect of being able to enter a defence.

There's a lot more to come on this thread. I have to say that when faced with having to sort these problems out, there will be a large number of benefit specialists who will simply say 'enough is enough' - government has shown no value in the work we do and in many ways we couldn't be blamed for wanting to see the see the whole thing flounder.

There is no way on earth that this attempt at simplification will be a smooth transition. The unfortunate aspect of all of this is how completely innocent claimants will suffer; - this is a complete charter for carnage on an un-precedented scale.

I'll dissect the rest of it in due course, bit by bit, but that's enough for now.

And they say welfare benefits isn't sufficiently complex to warrant the intervention of public funded specialists, how they'll eat their words when this calamity hits the headlines a few years down the line.

Not to mention how difficult it will to assess pass-porting to other benefits such as free - prescriptions and legal aid entitlement

[nickd]

(2) The next committe paper is due out soon.

It's worth watching out for the sixth committee paper which is due to published next Tuesday in the early hours, you'll see it on here as soon as it's been released for public use.

Forthcoming publication: The role of incapacity benefit reassessment in helping claimants into employment

18 July 2011 .The Work and Pensions Committee will publish its Sixth Report of Session 2010-12, The role of incapacity benefit reassessment in helping claimants into employment (HC 1015), on Tuesday 26 July 2011 at 00:01am.

www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/work-and-pensions-committee/news/ib-reassessment/

[nickd]

(3) One of the main reasons why governments is getting all this welfare reform so badly wrong is because of its apparent perception over how it construes all benefit claimants. They can't keep blaming it on the media, because they openly condone what the media says. In many ways it's this mis-placed distortion which will work against these reforms working, I'll tell you why in time.

Here's the media's perception of the life of your typical benefit claimant, isn't it sad that those that peddle this stuff have to stoop so low?....



Not all claimant's sit around in the park with 'lazy' tee shirts,smoking, drinking and waiting for their next automated payment to hit their bank account you know; - he's probably an out of work journalist waiting to hear if another tabloid will take him on!

Read our case studies and learn a bit more about the real plight of some of the genuine people we help.

Take this wildly inaccurate article which appeared in a recent version of the deplorable Daily Mail. We make it a matter of policy not to provide links to their website, we won't promote the utter trash they print; an example of which was the following article: (remember this is the stuff being peddled by the media, not by any one on these forums)

The £8.7bn benefits bill for piles, dizziness, headaches and 'malaise'

'Malaise and fatigue' cost the state £44m

Sufferers of 'dizziness and giddiness' were paid £24m

Article 22nd July 2011

"Taxpayers shelled out hundreds of millions of pounds to benefit claimants for conditions including piles, headaches, dizziness and 'malaise'."

"A total of £8.7billion was paid in just one year to those claiming Incapacity Benefit and the Employment and Support Allowance, which is meant to weed out the work-shy. The farcical system is laid bare in figures obtained from the Department for Work and Pensions after a Freedom of Information request.



It goes on to state...

"While many claimants were grappling with serious conditions such as cancer, £24.2million went to sufferers of 'dizziness and giddiness'. Some were signed off for 'coughs' at a cost of £600,000, and 'malaise and fatigue', which strikes most workers several times a day, cost the state £44.7million.

More than £139.1million was paid in 2010/11 to 29,000 claimants struggling with drink problems, while £79.4million went to nearly 17,000 drug addicts. Around £2million went to those nursing haemorrhoids and anal fissures, and people suffering from 'sleep disorders' - something that most parents of young children are forced to work through - received £3.8million. A further £17million was paid to claimants suffering from 'unspecified mood disorders', while unspecified pain cost taxpayers £245.3million.
Back pain was one of the most common illnesses, with claimants taking home nearly £720million.

More...Jobless numbers jump again - making it the 15th straight week above 400,000. A hefty £215million went to those who complained of a 'reaction to severe stress' - which was evidently not serious enough to be diagnosed as depression, or any other mental illness. Indigestion resulted in £2.8million of payments. Migraine complainants cost the state £9million in benefits, while a further £13.1million went to those with 'headaches'.

The figures come despite pledges by the Government to try to coax long-term sickness claimants into work - only the most seriously impaired of the 1.8million claimants will be allowed to be on permanent sickness benefit.

Since 2008, anyone claiming to be too sick to work faced more rigorous medical testing before being given benefits. Most will eventually be re-tested under a controversial programme rolled out this year.

Claimants who are found to be recovering will be given support to help them back into jobs, or transferred onto Jobseeker's Allowance. "

Employment Minister Chris Grayling said:

"These figures underline why we are right to be re-assessing everyone on Incapacity Benefit.

'We will no longer tolerate a situation where people can be left stranded on benefits for years without anyone challenging them to see if they could get back to work."

This is one of the most extreme and grossly exaggerated claims yet by a media which peddles this sort of utter rubbish. Where on earth they get the £8.7 billion per year figure from I'd love to know, the figure for Incapacity and ESA claims totals around £2.4 billion per year according to figures produced by the IFS in 2010.

I would dearly love to see precisely how they were able to gauge the true extent of how ill claimants are by way of a freedom of information request, who is dishing this out and why does Grayling back figures which shows he has no knowledge of the system he purports to be reforming? What Mr Grayling fails to answer is if all these claimant's are faking it, how is it that 50% of claimant's win their appeals before a proper judicial Tribunal - with a qualified doctor on the panel?

It points to massively inaccurate medical assessments by the DWP's authorised 'healthcare professionals.

[nickd]

(4) The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) also spoke of their concerns at conference earlier this year.

The nursing profession agrees that whilst welfare reform is necessary, they say those in need of benefits must be protected; - at least they see the value in the work we do.

“People on benefits are being denied the opportunity to apply for them in the first place because of cuts to services which support them.”



Here's what they said at conference

Proposed welfare reforms

Matter for discussion submitted by RCN London Board

That this meeting of RCN Congress discusses the potential impact of health and wellbeing resulting from the Government’s proposed welfare reforms

Debate report

Members said they understood the need to reform the welfare system, but felt the current reforms would only further disadvantage people at the bottom end of society.

In a matter for discussion submitted by the London board, proposer Christopher McDonnell said reforms should not cause the health and wellbeing of people to worsen if their benefits are removed.

Mike Smith, from the Outer South West London branch, said any deterioration in the health of people who have had their benefits cut would increase pressure on acute care services. Agenda Committee member Lisa Crooks said while many people become stuck in a ‘benefits trap’, it is important vulnerable patients still receive what they are entitled to.

Former Chair of Congress Jason Warriner, representing the Public Health Forum, talked about how cuts to public sector and voluntary organisations – such as councils and the Citizens Advice Bureau – are also having an impact. He said: “People on benefits are being denied the opportunity to apply for them in the first place because of cuts to services which support them.”

Andy McGovern, from the London board, said: “Welfare reform may well be necessary. It has to be for the right reasons and not ideologically driven, as they are at the moment.”

www.rcn.org.uk/newsevents/congress/congress_2011/congress_2011_agenda

[nickd]

(5) With such a question mark over the standard of decision-making within the various government departments, it's important to look at how members of staff feel about their work. The DWP conducted a survey of its staff and the findings are very revealing; - if not extremely alarming:

Government shouldn't underestimate the effect which a ridiculous workload will have upon DWP, HMRC and Local Authorities as it works through millions of decisions and claims needed to bring about implemenation of such massive welfare reform.

Stressed, overworked and unhappy department workers will be a huge stumbling block to smooth reform.



They'll take time off, they'll get fed up, they'll walk out and the job won't get done.

This is how they felt about their work the last time they were asked...

Only 39% said 'I am proud to work for DWP'

Meaning 61% are not proud to work for the DWP

Only 40% said 'I am proud to work for my part of DWP (e.g. JCP, PDCS, Shared Services, WWEG, Group HR etc)'

Meaning 60% not proud to work in their departments

Only 33% could say 'I would recommend DWP as a great place to work'

Meaning 67% wouldn't recommend the DWP as a great place to work.

This is hardly going to contribute to staff making the system work is it? Surely, they see the need to address such despondency before they can think about asking their demoralised staff to take on more work and expect better standards of decision-making from them?

Government likes its 'happy surveys', why aren't they looking at them?

See the link and see how happy they are..

www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/dwp-survey-results-2009.pdf

[nickd]

(6) The British Medical Journal website gives a very good account of a general practitioner's experience of her attendance at an ATOS recruitment session.

Surely it makes sense to listen to the doctor's who actually sign their patient's off in the first place?



After all government trusts the doctors to run their own surgeries, why not to write sick notes for their own patients?

Here's what Doctor McCartney says about the DWP and the ATOS healthcare assessments:

"In November last year Atos announced a three year extension to its contract with the department, worth £300m (€350m; $480m), to “support the UK government’s welfare reform agenda.”1 Atos is the sole contractor, and the medical reports it generates are used to make decisions about eligibility for employment and support allowance. This benefit, which has been replacing incapacity benefit and income support since 2008, is paid to people who are medically unfit to work because of illness or disability. The weekly allowance, once the claim has been verified with an assessment of capability, is worth up to £96.85. The government estimates that 2.5 million UK citizens receive sickness benefits at an annual cost of around £12.6bn to the taxpayer.

A quick glance at internet discussion forums suggests widespread dissatisfaction from people who have been assessed. The adverts for Atos, however, consist of smiling, badged professionals saying, “Getting home on time has become part of my daily routine.”1 The lack of on-call duties and the 9-5 office hours were also the major advantage plugged at the evening, where nurses and doctors working for Atos helped to promote joining the company.

Isolated view

But what are the ethical issues in performing disability assessments in this way, separate from the NHS and without access to patients’ full medical records? Atos was awarded the assessment contract in 2005 and claims that its reports are “evidence based, clearly presented, legible and fully justified.”

Are medical assessments accurate enough to make major decisions about people’s ability to work? And is Atos the best company to do them?

The message from the recruitment evening was quite clear. We were told: “You are not in a typical caring role. This isn’t about diagnosing.” And: “We don’t call them patients . . . We call them claimants.” Training is provided for each type of benefit examination. Its length, we were told, depends on experience but is generally up to five days of classroom training, followed by sessions accompanied by a trainer that are audited afterwards.

Full time doctors can earn £54 000 as basic salary plus various benefits including private healthcare. Sessional doctors work a minimum of four sessions a week and are paid “per item”— £35.16 for an incapacity benefit examination and £51.37 for non-domiciliary disability living allowance (DLA) examination, for example . The application forms for sessional doctors state that “10 DLA domiciliary visits cases per week would earn £40 211.60 per annum. Five LCWRA/ LCW [limited capacity for work related activity/limited capacity for work] cases per session, for six sessions per week, would earn £62 883.60 per annum.”

Throughput is a clear focus. The average morning or afternoon session should consist of five assessments, and it was made clear at the recruitment evening that clinicians who did not achieve this regularly would be picked up quickly on audit trails and speed of work addressed.

Nurses and physiotherapists do effectively the same job as doctors in the centres, but do not see people with neurological conditions such as stroke or multiple sclerosis. Otherwise people are seen on a first come, first served basis. One nurse in the audience asked about training in mental health, as she had had little training in this area and would not feel competent to assess it in a fitness for work setting. The reply was that health professionals were “very thoroughly assessed” at interview for their abilities; however, general nurses were often taken on and given training. Is a relatively short training course thereafter enough to ensure the assessments are medically accurate and fair?

Duty of care

Atos chose not to be interviewed by the BMJ , although the Department for Work and Pensions referred me to the organisation for questions about recruitment, training, and audit that it couldn’t answer.

However, from the recruitment evening it was clear that the medical examination consisted of a computerised form to be filled in by choosing drop down statements and justifying them. For example, you could say “able to walk with ease” if you witnessed this or the patient told you this.

The professional role of the doctor is very different from that in the typical NHS. Paul Nicholson, chair of the BMA Occupational Medicine Committee, says that working in this environment brings specific difficulties. “Notwithstanding a contractual obligation to provide a report to a government department, I still have a professional duty of care to the patient and to make the care of the patient my first concern.”

The Faculty of Occupational Medicine publication Good Occupational Medical Practice reinforces the General Medical Council’s position that, good medical care “must include adequately assessing the patient’s conditions, taking account of the history (including the symptoms, and psychological and social factors), the patient’s views, and where necessary examining the patient; providing or arranging advice, investigations or treatment where necessary; referring a patient to another practitioner, when this is in the patient’s best interests.”

In other words, it expects doctors to adhere to the same professional conduct as they would in any other role.

So there you have it; - the word of a doctor looking in on ATOS. It's so often the ATOS assessment which is the route cause of defective making because a DWP decision-maker will more often that not simply accept the word of the ATOS healthcare professional (HCP) by marking what should be a properly reasoned decision with a simple annotation on the decisions with the words 'agree with HCP' - it's very innadequate.

See link to the BMJ..

www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d599.full.html?ijkey=1MHG4NxT0uJX4Lq&keytype=ref

[nickd]

(7) One of the major, but by no means the most major, problems in reforming the welfare system is the sheer enormity of the task; - it's very closely linked with how well information technology works. The threading together of so many strands of cross - department communication channels is a massive task as is working out suitable software and writing systems for the whole process to work.

Software systems and suitable harware are going to be very expensive and they'll almost certainly be problems, problems and more problems....



There are already concerns from the software providers that the computer systems won't be ready.

The existence of problems finding suitable IT providers has already provided problematic in recent months as this article makes all too clear...

"DWP cancelled £300m Fujitsu deal over transition deadline failures"

17 March 2011 10:55

"The decision by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to cancel a £300m desktop support deal with Fujitsu before it even began will lead many in the public sector to question some IT suppliers' ability to deliver on their sales pitch.

The DWP ended the six-year contract, signed in February 2010, earlier this week. Fujitsu had been chosen over the incumbent HP but, since the deal was agreed the new supplier has failed to meet its transition targets, according to a source close to the deal. A phased transition from HP was originally expected to see Fujitsu assume responsibility for the service on 1 September 2010.

DWP and Fujitsu would not comment other than confirming that the deal had ended, but Computer Weekly has learned that Fujitsu's inability to take on services from HP led to the DWP losing confidence.

Our source says transition targets were missed. "Fujitsu never managed to give the DWP confidence that it could do the job," he said.

Confidence had been dwindling for months and Fujitsu received extensions to some deadlines.

Fujitsu's failure to meet transition targets should act as a message to government CIOs to ensure suppliers deliver what they promise, when they promise it. They need to make sure exit plans are clearly laid out for the incumbent. "

It's not just this contract, there have been other problems elsewhere...

"Public sector services IT suppliers must be realistic"

Robert Morgan, director at sourcing broker Burnt-Oak Partners, says sub-contracting means this type of scenario is not as surprising as it may appear.

"Suppliers often cannot do all the work, but sub-contract some of it. This is typical of what is happening in outsourcing and clients do not realise the suppliers that put the bids in cannot do the work themselves," he said.

The DWP desktop deal was an attractive one because of its size and transformational nature. The DWP has 140,000 desktop devices across more than 1,000 locations in the UK and the deal would have seen Fujitsu introduce thin-client technology to cut costs.

Two major public sector IT contracts have been terminated since the change of government in 2010: the £750m e-Borders deal and the £225m Firecontrol project.

In September 2010, the government also scrapped much of the remainder of NHS National Project for IT. The programme had been plagued by suppliers failing to meet targets, including Fujitsu, whose £896m NHS contract was cancelled in 2008.."

So on the IT front, it's not very confidence building is it now?

Read what the computer buffs say, there's more on this - as Government's committee know all too well

Link..

www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2011/03/17/245957/DWP-cancelled-163300m-Fujitsu-deal-over-transition-deadline.htm

[nickd]

(8) Whos cheating who?


A video on some of what's going on behind the scenes of
the whole sorry assessment process...




Have a listen for yourself, it gives a good insight into how a genuinely ill person went through the ESA medical assessment process; - it's quite appalling.

[nickd]

(9) The House of Commons sixth report is out, it wasn't on their website at one minute past midnght as promised and nor did they send it out in their Parliamentary alerts.

But it's here and I'm sure it'll make some very interesting reading...

Here's the 'conclusion'

8 Conclusion

"202. The Government's aim of helping people with disabilities and long-term health conditions into employment is laudable but the scale of the challenge should not be underestimated. We know that a very large proportion of people who will be in the Work Programme will have previously claimed incapacity benefits or Employment and Support Allowance. For the Government to succeed in its objectives for the reassessment and the Work Programme it is therefore critical that it effectively links up the findings of the Work Capability Assessment with the support available under the Work Programme.

203. It is important for claimants, Work Programme providers and the overall efficiency of the system that the decision on whether an individual is fit for and capable of work is accurate the first time it is made. Our central conclusion is that the assessment process, as it is designed at the moment, does not accurately assess claimants' employability and needs in the workplace.

204. The current approach of using the benefit claimed as a proxy for the needs of a client is not sufficient in determining appropriate employment support. It is also the cause of much of the confusion and anxiety amongst claimants who do not understand whether the WCA is for the purpose of determining eligibility for a benefit or capability for work. At the moment, by trying to do a bit of both, it is not achieving either effectively.

205. The Government and Work Programme providers will need to communicate effectively and regularly about whether the WCA is accurately assessing employability. This information can then be used to inform the levels of support for future Work Programme contracts and will support the introduction of the Universal Credit in due course."

The big emphasis is on

"Our central conclusion is that the assessment process, as it is designed at the moment, does not accurately assess claimants' employability and needs in the workplace."

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmworpen/1015/101502.htm

[sharnden]

(10) CASE STUDY - A classic ESA assessment injustice

I saw a client yesterday, he was brought to our office by his MHP (Mental Health practitioner, the new name for a Comunity Psychiatric Nurse). He suffers with paranoid schizophrenia, which was diagnosed many years ago. He was asked to attend a medical examination at the beginning of March this year. The appointment at the medical centre was made on a Sunday. When he got there it was shut, no lights on and no sign of life, a support worker from his mental health team was with this and can confirm that this was the case.

Surprise surprise, a week later his benefits were stopped. The client has been living off his DLA payments. His MHP only noticed when he checked his bank account this week.

Yesterday, we phoned the DWP and we were told his benefit was stopped because he failed to attend a medical examination. (we have faxed a "late" appeal, with relevant evidence from his consultant psychiatrist)

This client should be exempt from the WCA, he has a severe and enduring mental illness, he is on clozaril medication, which is only prescribed to people who are intolerant to all other types of antipsychotic medication. It is highly toxic and requires regular blood tests. There is a serious risk to his mental health if he were found not to have limited capability for work related activity. (Reg 35(2)(b) ESA regs 2008)

'It is an absolute disgrace that this man should be put through this' says Sharnden. A view expressed by many advisors who see these clients on the frontline.

[nickd]

(11) An excellent example Sharnden and many thanks for posting it. If you have any others, please do post them on here and I'll link them to the Mylegal case studies; - we could do with more examples like this to help our case and refute the gross tabloid distortion which I've reported on Ilegal.

Case Studies: mylegal.org.uk/index.cgi?board=advice&action=display&thread=311&page=3

Media distortion (Daily Mail & Daily Express Headlines) : ilegal.org.uk/index.cgi?board=you&action=display&thread=3576

[nickd]

(12) And now we take a look at the Coalition Government's new 'Work Programme' launched in June 2011.

It's not even got off the ground and there's already serious doubts; have a listen to some of them..





There are fears it could all lead to a 'downward spiral of dispair'

looking at the DWP prospectus, there's an inherent vagueness about how much it will all cost. Estimates vary from £0.3 to £3 Billion a year; - there's a mighty gulf between the lower and upper figure.

The Work Programme Framework

The Work Programme Framework is the commercial vehicle through which the Work Programme will be delivered.

The Work Programme Framework will be an umbrella commercial arrangement which sets out some terms of agreement on future contracts. The framework is not in itself a contract; contracts will only be formed when services are arranged through the framework either directly or, more typically, through competition, thereby driving better value.

The indicative value of contracts to be awarded through this new Framework could be between £0.3 - 3 billion per year, with average individual contract values estimated to be approximately £10 - 50 million per year.

Don't these figures need a bit more scrutiny?

www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/work-programme-prospectus.pdf

Here's what Mr Grayling said about the launch...

Chris Grayling says...





"‘I am relaxed about people making profits if they
are getting large numbers of the long-term unemployed
into work and keeping them there."

10 June 2011 – Grayling launches a revolution in back to work support as the Work Programme rolls out nationwide

"Around two and half million people are expected to be supported through the new Work Programme over the next five years, Employment Minister Chris Grayling said today, as the programme rolls out across the country.

The Work Programme is the latest big milestone in the delivery of the Government’s radical welfare reforms. It is the biggest single payment by results employment programme ever introduced and replaces much of the existing back to work support on offer with a programme that is built around the needs of individual jobseekers.

Ministers are clear that the Work Programme will tackle the human consequences of endemic worklessness. Welfare to work providers around the country will now address the needs of the long-term unemployed claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance and those on long-term sickness benefits who may need more intensive support to help them into sustained employment.

Under the new programme providers are free to innovate and design support based on the needs of jobseekers and local labour markets. The Government’s priority is to get people into employment that lasts.

In what is a boost to the Big Society, 508 voluntary sector groups including Mencap, the Citizen’s Advice Bureau, youth charity The Prince’s Trust and Action for Blind People will all be involved in delivering the Work Programme."

Really? - when they're axing our funding, how is it exactly we'll be 'involved'?

www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-releases/2011/jun-2011/dwp062-11.shtml

[nickd]

(13) Listen to the huge concerns expressed before a select committee





There is far too much uncertainty about this scheme, they don't know how it will work; - listen carefully for the accent on 'getting people off benefits and into work'

What work is the question everyone should be asking?

[nickd]

(14) The Conservative Party continually say to the Labour party 'what would you have done?' - It's one of Dave's favourite sayings.





It therefore makes some sense to analyse what they were advocating in 2008 when in opposition. Back then David Cameron launched his green reponsibility agenda paper; it makes compelling reading (you'll need to download the PDF file)...

www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CB0QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fm.conservatives.com%2F~%2Fmedia%2FFiles%2FGreen%2520Papers%2FWelfare_Policy_Paper.ashx%3Fdl%3Dtrue&rct=j&q=how%20much%20will%20welfare%20to%20work%20providers%20get%20paid&ei=HP8xTvKBAoup8QOAmKGhDg&usg=AFQjCNE-lYdny5FHsV2GP0RTuTMMccAb8g

Interestingly Mr Cameron downplayed the effect Employment & Support Alllowance would have back in 2008, yet at a recent speech in Wales he inferred it was his government which intoduced it!

Here's what his 2008 agenda says...

"A new Work Capability Assessment (WCA) is forecast to reduce by ten per cent the number of people accessing Incapacity Benefit from a new claim. But, again, this will have no impact on those who are already claiming Incapacity Benefit.

As a result, even assuming that it is successful in its own terms, it will only reduce IB rolls by just 20,000 a year, less than one per cent of the total number of claimants."

Clearly he wasn't following the 2007 Welfare Reforms which dealt with incapacity transfers over to ESA - it's all in schedule 4 Dave! Most people in welfare would agree that ESA has been pretty effective in reducing the number claiming on the grounds of incapacity - way more than 1%!

[nickd]

(15) Little is said of how much the welfare to work providers will actually be paid to get people back to work. The government promote the new 'Work Programme' as being their biggest experiment and believe its success will come about because its based on payment by results.

So how much are these payments and who will they be paid to?





Well A4E are old hands at this, they say they 'Improve people's lives' - with payments of between £2,000 and £14,000 PER PERSON, I dare say they'll also improve the lives of those who profit out of getting people back to work!

That's the amount these providers can look forward to getting paid providing they can get people back to work, we've been here before with these schemes; - but this takes it to a whole new level.

There is concern that the 'by results' method of payment will have its problems and cash strapped providers will be asking for money before they've delivered. It seems wise to look at firms like A4E and their history; - to see if they are really up to the job.

I'll be back later with a calculator!

[nickd]

(16) Well as promised, I'm back with the dreaded calculator!



The sums of money which could potentially be paid to welfare to work providers is truly staggering!

If we take the existing Incapacity Benefit caseload which is currently said to be around 1,900,000.00 claimants and work through these, we start to get some idea of the true cost of these 'welfare to work' payments being paid to providers; - it was the Institute of Fiscal Studies who said the devil would be in the detail and so it is.

From what I can gather they are 'graded'; the welfare to work provider is paid according to how 'difficult' a person might be to get back to work.

Let's assume - just for the purpose of this 'maths' lesson, that all of these claimants are 'incapacitated' and they remain entititled to Employment & Support Allowance as they are transferred from the old benefit to the new.

Of course we know they won't be;- that's why these figures are very important.

Now, if we assumed that 25% of all claimants were regarded as the 'least' difficult, there would be 475,000.00 cases payable at say £2,000 per case. The total cost to the state would be £950,000,000.00 in fees payable to welfare to work providers.

Now let's assume 10% of all cases are the most 'difficult', there would be 190,000.00 cases at the higher provider payment of £14,000 and this would cost cost us all a huge figure of £2,660,000,000.00; - that's a lot of cash!

So now we can look at the remaining 65% of all these claimants and assume they are 'moderately average' and attract a provider fee of let's say £5,000 per case. Now the claimant count would be 1,235,000.00 cases and the total amount in provider fees would amount to a massive £6,175,000,000.00, now that really is a massive sum of money.

The total sum could be an absolutely enormous figure of £9,785,000,000.00.

You need to get your head around just how enormous these sums are. When you've got your head around this, you'll see why it'll be very important that Government ensures all of this existing Incapacity Benefit claimant group is NOT transferred over to Employment & Support Allowance.

This is why government is hoping and praying that the Daily Express headlines that '75% of all claimants are faking their claims' is right; they need only 25% of all claimants to be genuinely incapacitated; - it's nothing to do with whether claimants are genuine or not, it's because government could never in a month of Sundays afford to pay welfare to work providers such huge sums on all of this claimant group!

I hope you're starting to get where I'm coming from. Those of you who arn't up to following these figures are going to have to bear with me; - don't worry though, I'll be posting other information on why these reforms are flawed; - but this is important.

You'll start to see why the whole question of appeals and the process of kicking people off Incapacity Benefit and onto Jobseeker's Allowance is all important and very relevant to what we need to be looking at here.

Bear in mind Government is banking on paying £0.3 to £3 billion pounds to welfare to work providers, it's all too clear why they need their figures to be within range.

I'll be back later!

[nickd]

(17) The big bosses put their heads together at a Reed partnership conference;
- some of them will be thinking only of £££££££££££££'s





Here's a list of those who were lined up for contracts in the 'Work' programme back in April 2011:

It's to be found under the heading

' Bandits of Welfare to Work Program'

As posted by a group representing the out of work - it's they who stand to be most affected

01 Apr 2011 20:56

As the Coalition welfare reforms gear up for the new “welfare to work” program these are the bandits, broken down into the area you live which will deliver you shackles and all to business eager for your free labour.

'Work Programme' contractors - Preferred Bidders – April 2011

Scotland Ingeus UK Limited Working Links
Wales Rehab JobFit * Working Links Wales
North East Avanta Enterprise Limited (TNG) Ingeus UK Limited
North East Yorkshire & Humber G4S Newcastle College Group**
West Yorkshire Business Employment Services Training (BEST) Ltd Ingeus UK Ltd
South Yorkshire A4E Ltd Serco Ltd
North West(Merseyside, Halton, Cumbria and Lancashire) A4E Ltd Ingeus UK Ltd
North West(Greater Manchester, Cheshire and Warrington) Avanta Enterprise Limited (TNG) G4S Seetec
East Midlands A4E Ltd Ingeus UK Ltd
West Midlands (Birmingham, Solihull and Black Country) FourstaR Employment & Skills Ltd Newcastle College Group** Pertemps
West Midlands (Coventry, Warwickshire, Staffordshire and the Marches) ESG Serco Ltd
East of England Ingeus UK Ltd Seetec
West London Ingeus UK Ltd Maximus Employment UK LTD Reed in Partnership
East London A4E Ltd Careers Development Group (CDG) * Seetec
South East (Thames Valley, Hampshire and IOW) A4E Ltd Maximus Employment UK LTD
South East (Surrey, Sussex and Kent) Avanta Enterprise Limited (TNG) G4S (Private Sector)
South West (Gloucester, Wiltshire and West of England) JHP Group Limited Rehab JobFit *
South West (Devon, Cornwall, Dorset and Somerset) Prospects Services Ltd Working Links

* Voluntary sector organisation
** Public sector organisation

The Subcontractors include such as;

Groundwork
RBLI
Tomorrow's People
Agoriad Cyf
Papworth Trust
5 E Ltd
Disability Works
Salvation Army
Sunderland North Community Business Centre
(SNCBC)
Cornwall Neighbourhoods for Change (CN4C)
Pathways Community Interest Company
Tomorrows People
Steps to Work (Walsall) Limited
WISE Ability Limited (Wise Ability)
BTCV
Scout Enterprises
Shaw Trust
Westward Pathfinder Trust
Royal British Legion Industries (RBLI)*
CAB
Gingerbread
Action for The Blind
Princes Trust
Mencap
MIND
Newham Council
Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council
Remploy
Skills for Work
East Riding County Council
Stoke-on-Trent City Council
Bournemouth and Poole College
Inspire to Independence (i2i)
Triage Central Limited
Kennedy Scott
Prospects Services Ltd

A look at one of these bidders will give you some idea of the worth of the contracts and their attitude. In particular G4S who also has eyes on the “Privatisation of Jobcentre Plus”, where they 'will decide if you get paid your dole or not'.

G4S and Serco among welfare-to-work winners

Security services firm G4S and outsourcing group Serco were on Friday named preferred bidders for contracts under the government's welfare-to-work programme.

G4S won three contracts worth nearly 250 million pounds, while Serco got two, as the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) handed out deals worth 3 to 5 billion pounds to private and voluntary sector organisations.

The news comes a day after G4S, which provides services ranging from cash transportation and facilities management to security and protection was named manager of two UK prisons, a decision that sparked anger among unions.

Friday's decision sparked similar protests.

The Public and Commercial Services union said Friday's contracts would add "hundreds more" to unemployment figures.

"At least one provider has already issued redundancy notices ... The union fears similar redundancies from other providers as they prepare for running the work programme from June 2011."

Source; Reuters

So now we get some idea as to the collective worth of all these contracts and the unrest of the Unions as more people get put out of work as a result. I would hasten to add that the 'bandits' are not going to be the not for profit providers. It will be interesting to see just how much subcontract work is pushed in the direction of the NFP sub-contractors by the prime movers and shakers?

unemploymentmovement.com/forum/welfare-to-work/278-bandits-of-welfare-to-work-program.html

[nickd]

Remember, I've not finished with the calculator yet; - oh no!

There's many many numbers which need to be added up yet, stay with it folks

[nickd]

(18) And here's what the unions say..

The Trade Unions are condeming these reforms; - they represent their public service workers, including those within the DWP and have a great deal to say...



The PCS maintain "The current government is attacking the welfare system by cutting £18 billion from welfare, while giving away more than £25 billion in corporate tax breaks over the same period. It is emphasising the cost of fraud when £1.5 billion is lost in this way, but turning a blind eye to £120 billion of tax lost through evasion, avoidance and non-collection."

The Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) which has thousands of members in the Department for Work and Pensions says the tests for claimants fail to address many serious health issues. A House of Commons select committee report into incapacity benefit re-assessment – published on 13 July – said: “Our central conclusion is that the assessment process, as it is designed at the moment, does not accurately assess claimants' employability and needs in the workplace.”

PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka said: “This exercise is just about saving money by bullying people who are sick or disabled onto lower levels of benefit.

“It is not about finding people work – because there are is no work available. The government is failing to create jobs, while cutting thousands of posts in the public sector.

“The government has given £100 million to a private health care company to do these flawed assessments – instead of using the health service which is already there and trusted by the public.

“The government have set up a system that demonises disabled people and will encourage bullying and hate crimes.

“Disabled people need more support – not less – to lead independent lives, including working lives.”

PCS has produced a booklet: 'Welfare - an alternative vision' which has a chapter on disability benefit.

Link to booklet...

www.pcs.org.uk/en/campaigns/welfare-reform/index.cfm


Read more: ilegal.org.uk/index.cgi?board=you&action=display&thread=3563#ixzz1TcYaqiUw

[nickd]

(19) Well I did say there would be more sums and this would be a long and drawn out process. Not least, because when you look up claim data there are a multitude of different sets of statistics from various 'reliable' sources; - so let's see what we can make of them..



Pay attention now!

Now, I'm going to try very hard and resist any temptation to get involved with the politics of all of this, both sides of the house appear to accept welfare spending has spiralled in an upwards direction, but I'm not so sure that can all be blamed on the last Labour administration. I'm mindful that both Disability Living Allowance and Incapacity Benefit were introduced in the Tories in 1992 and 1995 respectively.

But let's focus on Incapacity Benefit and Jobseeker's Allowance, the figures go back to 1999. These are the recorded claim figures as they were at August for each year from 1999 to 2009.

Historic Data

JSA(Left column) IB/ESA(Right column)

Aug-99 1,181.86 - 2,655.38
Aug-00 1,015.83 - 2,714.85
Aug-01 907.68 - 2,763.62
Aug-02 890.54 - 2,769.36
Aug-03 851.37 - 2,777.06
Aug-04 769.25 - 2,774.93
Aug-05 825.11 - 2,725.47
Aug-06 900.92 - 2,683.00
Aug-07 788.45 - 2,641.11
Aug-08 868.73 - 2,590.61
Aug-09 1,485.32 - 2,632.74

They are from sets of statistics released on the 17th February 2010 by the National Audit Office under data set ID170210SSFEB10

No data is held for DLA claims in this set.

From this you will see there is a sharp rise in the unemployment stats from 868.73 in 2008 to 1,485.32 in 2009.

The IB/ESA stats include all new claims for ESA which was introduced in October/November 2008, from then on you could not claim IB and would need to make an ESA claim.

The JSA stats also include unemployment benefit which was paid up until 1995.

Although the DLA stats are not in this report, they are stated to be 3.10 million as of August 2009.

It is reasonable to conclude that on the whole the number of incapacity claimants (be it IB or ESA) has remained relatively constant at around 2.6 million claims for both. The substantial rise is in JSA from 2008 onwards.

In the next post we'll be looking at the figures from 2009 on with an accent on appeals.

[nickd]

(20) Now let's look at these figures in a little more detail, we need to look particularly at what's happening from when ESA was introduced in 2008.

Let's not forget how ESA appeals have shot up by 167% since 2008 to 2010

The Tribunals Service received the following number of appeals:

2009/2010 126,800 ESA
2010/2011 197,400 ESA

2009/2010 52,200 IB
2010/2011 33,300 IB

Don't be misled by the falling number of IB appeals, these are just the overspill of older IB cases, it's the ones where IB becomes ESA which we need to look out for; - they are yet to come!

Now let's look at how many claims for ESA have been made in the period from Oct 2008 to August 2010; it's a staggering
1,175,700 new claims, or 32,658 every month. And they've not even started on the IB to ESA cases in appeal land yet, only a handful will have arisen as it's only just been rolled out in February of this year.

It's not possible to distinguish between the IB to ESA cases from the ESA 'only' cases but we know the above batch won't have included any as they are before the roll out.

We'll use these new ESA and 'pre - transfer' cases to highlight what happened after people appealed.

The relevant report is here...

research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/workingage/esa_wca/esa_wca_27042011.pdf

The crucial set of figures in the report is the 'effect after appeal' table and here's what it says..

Out of the 1,175,700 total

77,100 (7%) were placed in the support group

235,800 (20%) were placed in the 'WRAG' group

407,300 (35%) were deemed fit for work

428,800 (36%) Closed their claims before assessment.

Now from this we can conclude that this new claim group successfully appeals at a rate of about 27% (adding the support and WRAG groups together)

From the same report we know the appeal success rate is 39% from Oct 2008 to February 2010.

Right, it's late - but those who are hot on sums will see where this going.

Remember those IB cases who haven't been transferred and those who end their claim as 'closed' or get turned down - well they don't disappear and it's only an optimist who thinks they'll all have found work, so where will they have gone?

[nickd]

(21) Before we go back to the sums, let's have a reminder about the stuff which all too regularly appears in our media, these are the headlines which people read as they down their cornflakes, there has been many, many more...

"Just 1 in 14 incapacity claimants is unfit to work"





The Daily Express coverage is even more extreme; their outrageous headlines..

" SICK BENEFITS: 75% ARE FAKING - 1.9 million claimants could work but skive instead"



Now. just imagine how that would make you feel and what it would compel you to do if labellled a 'faker' or skiver'? You also need to imagine how fired up umpteen disability charities and charities who help claimants will be, they'll want to fight their corner;- and we all know what that means!

[johnnybegood]

(22) Just a heads up - please tell your colleagues on Welfare Rights -

www.disabilityalliance.org/dbcharrington.htm

[nickd]

Here's your chance to have your say!

Many thanks for posting details of this survey by the Disability Benefits Consortium Johnnybegood;- and welcome to Mylegal.

All welfare benefits advisers and caseworkers should feedback their views on the Work Capability Assessment on the short survey (see link in Johnybegood's post above) - it's vital that the views of those who actually help people with ESA claims are expressed; - here's your chance!

The impact of Harrington's year one recommendations

21 July 2011

"In November of last year, Professor Harrington's Independent Review of the Work Capability Assessment made a number of recommendations on how the process could be improved. The Government accepted these recommendations and started implementing them.

The Disability Benefits Consortium (DBC) wants to gauge what the impact of these recommendations has been by collecting the views of welfare advisers and caseworkers. This survey will be used to feed into the second year of Professor Harrington's review of the Work Capability Assessment and will help to ensure that any further improvements that are needed to the process are made.

The survey should only take around 10 minutes to complete. Thank you for sharing your views and supporting this work. All responses are anonymous and data will only be used by DBC and will be held in accordance with DBC member organisation's Data Protection policies. If you have any questions about the survey please contact [e-mail]."

Please use link in previous post.

[nickd]

(23) The Disability Benefits Consortium have stongly condemned the recent spate of media distortion. Here's their views as posted by Paul Treloar - Head of Policy, LASA on 'Rightsnet' - a leading forum for welfare benefit advisors and staff. These are views which no one should be ignoring

"Government statistics have fuelled claims this week that high numbers of benefits claimants are ‘faking’. But a coalition of over 50 charities suggest this is dangerously misleading and contributing to hatred and violence towards disabled people by portraying them as cheats and scroungers. Hayley Jordan, from the Disability Benefits Consortium (DBC) and MS Society, says:

“Hours after an important committee of cross-party MPs condemned irresponsible and inaccurate portrayal of benefits claimants, DWP statistics led to more reports wrongly labelling people as ‘faking’. Disabled people are very disappointed that the Government is refusing to ensure accurate reporting and may be contributing to stigmatisation, victimisation and exclusion.”

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) released figures on Tuesday which suggest that only 7% of claimants for Employment Support Allowance (ESA), the new benefit that replacing Incapacity Benefits, were unable to do any sort of work. This led to claims that 75% of sickness benefits claimants are “faking”.

But the figures were released just as a report from a committee of MPs decried misleading media coverage, and the false assumption that the tests are designed to ‘weed out’ benefits cheats:

“Media coverage of the reassessment is often irresponsible and inaccurate and we deprecate the pejorative language which some sections of the press use when referring to benefit claimants. Portraying the reassessment of incapacity benefit claimants as some sort of scheme to “weed out benefit cheats” shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the Government’s objectives.”

The committee report also highlights that the number of appeals is rapidly increasing, with people going to the Tribunals Service set to double over three years. 436,000 people will appeal in 2011/12 and this costs the taxpayer a staggering £50 million per year.

Independent reviews, charities, and the Work and Pensions Committee have all now told the Government that the figures for new ESA benefit claims mask the true level of capacity to work and that the assessment system used is ineffective, over-expensive and is denying many disabled people the support they need to get and keep work. But the facts are lost in ‘fakers’ claims which reappeared the same day the committee report was launched due to DWP publishing further statistics on the same day. This led committee chair, Dame Anne Begg MP, to write to the Minister stating:

“By what I assume was a coincidence…The coverage of the statistics in some newspapers, notably the Daily Mail and the Daily Express, was a particularly egregious example of the way they can be misused.”

Charities are also concerned that welfare reform is supposed to deliver help to disabled people to get/keep work but support appears to be rescinding. Government misleading statistics on claimants was also published the same day as it was revealed the number of disabled people using ‘Access to Work’ had sadly fallen. Neil Coyle, of the DBC and Disability Alliance, says:

“The Government must ensure appropriate support is available to disabled people to get and keep work. It is very worrying that some support has dropped in the last year. Sadly, the language to describe disabled people needing support has become more offensive and this also contributes to barriers to work as employers suspect genuinely disabled people of faking or being ‘work-shy’.”

Notes:

See: www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-releases/2011/jul-2011/dwp086-11.shtml

For examples please see:

• Only 7% deemed ‘too ill to work’ - Express
• 76% of those who say they’re sick ‘can work’: Tests weed out most seeking incapacity benefit – Mail
• 4 out of 5 ‘sick’ are fit to work – Sun

The Disability Benefits Consortium (DBC) is a national coalition of over 50 different charities and other organisations committed to working towards a fair benefits system For more information go to: www.disabilityalliance.org/dbc.htm

Department of Work and Pensions Commons Select Committee letter to Employment Minister on release of benefit claimant statistics:

www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/work-and-pensions-committee/news/letter-to-chris-grayling-benefit-payment-statistics/

For a copy of the full letter visit:

www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/work-and-pensions-committee/news/letter-to-chris-grayling-benefit-payment-statistics/

Access to Work helps employers and disabled people with the costs of adapting work premises or providing accessible software for example and is a net contributor to the Treasury. For more information go to:

www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/Employmentsupport/WorkSchemesAndProgrammes/DG_4000347

This is just further evidence from informed people that the appeals rate is set to rocket even further. It's also a condemnation of the wildly distorted media reporting by the charities who work most closely with the disabled.

I'll be returning to the sums later, there's more to come folks!

[johnnybegood]

(24) Now let's take a look at how government is assessing the impact upon those affected...

Access to Work - Impact Assessments

Government says there will be no impact upon the well being, the health or rights of individuals to get access to justice!

See...

www.disabledgo.com/blog/2011/08/access-to-work-ukdpc-bosss-anger-after-government-denies-vital-support/


The DWP has just released a raft of Impact Assessments, it's shocking to see how they don't consider it necessary to take into account the impact of any Social impacts in the time-limiting of ESA -

Health and well-being - No impact

Human rights - No impact

Justice system - No impact

Whe considering Personal Independence Alllowance; - the same trend continues....

Health and well-being - No impact

Human rights - No impact

Justice system - No impact

Rural proofing - No impact

The same applies to the impact assessments regarding a policy change to introduce a power so that claimants can be required to apply for a disputed decision to be revised before being able to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. The application for a revision triggers a process known in DWP as "reconsideration".

The power would be capable of being exercised in relation to all major social security benefits (working and pension age and benefits recovery); Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit; child support; and other payments administered by DWP, e.g., for mesothelioma and vaccine damage. The regulations could apply to some or all of these, or to some at first and others later.

It's astonishing that these reforms fail to acknowledge that there will be any impact upon groups who clearly will be affected. It will be one almighty expensive tick boxing mistake!

Link..

www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/welfare-reform/legislation-and-key-documents/welfare-reform-bill-2011/impact-assessments-and-equality/

[nickd]

We'll take a look at plans to erradicate 'fraud & error next, then it's back to the maths and practicalities; - stay tuned as we tell you more about why these reforms just won't work!

[sharnden]

(25) The Government proposes to cut benefits for disabled children when they introduce universal credit.

Please sign the petition against these cutsepetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/915

[nickd]

(26) The media has shown complete disregard for the real facts; shamefully politicians are no better. George Osborne tells us that benefit cheats are like people who rob you in the streets.




Osborne promises a crackdown on welfare benefit cheats

Welfare fraud and incorrectly calculated tax credits cost £5.2bn a year - a figure the Government wants to cut by a quarter.

Under new, self-styled "radical" proposals, the coalition predicts in five years time it will have reduced that annual cost to £3.8bn.

The new drive could see repeat offenders lose their benefits for up to three years. Mr Osborne has said that bringing down the welfare bill will play a crucial role in easing the impact of state spending cuts. The Chancellor will this week announce how the Government intends to cut £83bn over four years to help get Britain back on the road to prosperity and growth.

"We are reforming the system and stepping up our efforts to catch the benefit and tax cheats who are stealing money."

Mr Osborne told the News of the World: "This is a fight. We are really going to go after the welfare cheats. "Frankly, a welfare cheat is no different from someone who comes up and robs you in the street. It's your money. "You're leaving the house at seven in the morning or whatever to go to work and paying your taxes - and then the person down the street is defrauding the welfare system."

"This money is paid through our taxes which is meant to be going to the most vulnerable in our society, not into the pockets of criminals."

As part of putting the squeeze on benefit cheats, the Government will set up a new team of investigators to target areas where the problem is rife. The move is part of plans that will be published today by Welfare Minister Lord David Freud.

Minor offenders will be issued with instant fines of £50 or more, while repeat fraudsters face a three-year benefit ban under a "three-strikes-and-you're-out" rule.

But when you look at the facts, it's all somewhat different. There'll be more in the next post about the real figures on fraud. We'll also be taking a closer look at Lord Freud's report on Fraud.

news.sky.com/home/article/15759713

[nickd]

(27) With all this media distortion over the 'faker's', 'scroungers' and 'benefit cheats' who rob you in the streets, it's important - if not essential - to have a look at what the government won't say about benefit fraud

Here's an article on the Liberal Conspiracy website. It's quite descriptive, but really you need to look at the real evidence behind it; - because that's where the truth lies. We'll analyse the facts rather than the fiction, but this is a good stating point.

By Richard Exell

June 17, 2011

New statistics show that less than one per cent of benefit spending is lost to fraud.

"This is a terrific achievement – so why doesn’t the Department for Work and Pensions let everyone know how well its doing?

Yesterday the DWP published a new edition of Fraud and Error in the Benefit System, taking the statistics up to September last year.

Just like earlier reports, today’s shows just how successful the Department is at countering benefit fraud: just 0.8 per cent of benefit spending is taken by fraud, with another 1.4 per cent being lost to errors.

Benefits account for a large fraction of government spending, so 0.8 per cent is a lot of cash: £1.2 billion. This means its certainly worth investing in anti-fraud measures, but equally, the fact that 99.2 per cent of spending is not on fraud is something that we should celebrate.

This is especially true when money is tight and many people are worried that their taxes are being wasted on people getting benefits they aren’t entitled to.

But that is the last thing the government does. Today’s figures were hardly publicised at all – a stark contrast with any reports that suggest social security is in trouble.

Of course, if the government wants to use stereotypes about fraudulent benefit claimants to justify massive welfare cuts they might find this success a bit of an embarrassment.

Perish the thought."

So why doesn't government say it's not fo much fraud, but departmental error which is to blame?

Could it be that it's just easier to blame it all on the claimant?

Could it be that if you give benefit claimants enough of a bad press, you'll put off all those thousands of claimants who could claim but don't?

Link...

liberalconspiracy.org/2011/06/17/what-the-government-wont-say-about-benefit-fraud/