Panorama and Dispatches expose the scandal of sick people being declared fit for work

Two TV programmes last night exposing the scandal of the DWP and ATOS perversely declaring people fit for work when they clearly aren't.  I am interviewed on Panorama.

Most disturbing of all are the evasive and contradictory comments on Panorama by DWP Minister Chris Grayling MP about whether or not there are targets to cut the numbers getting benefits.  In the context of a legally regulated system, targets would not only be unlawful but potentially actionable by anyone who has lost out as a result.

Just as well he was not appearing before a Tribunal or his evidence might be declared unreliable.  Also his awful comment which encourages judges to ignore the law when making decisions on appeals. 

Funny how many rulers seem to think that the rule of law only applies to laws which control the poor and not to laws which empower them and help them achieve justice.

BBC Panorama   Channel 4 Dispatches

More forced, unpaid labour

A report that compulsory unpaid work for Jobseekers Allowance claimants will be extended.  I did warn you.  All the evidence (examples given in this blog) shows that this won't reduce unemployment, so the government's response will be to extend it further: 9 months? 12 months? Forever?

Note the typically hopeless comment by the useless Liam Byrne MP.

Doctors' advice ignored by politicians

The doctors' professional association, British Medical Association, is the latest organisation to call for the Employment and Allowance Work Capability Assessment to be scrapped.  They rightly describe it harmful to vulnerable people and "accusatory".

You can read their comments here.

Shortly after, Citizens Advice reports a surge in people seeking advice about ESA appeals - at a time when funding for advice agencies is being cut back.

Like patients who are too obsessed and arrogant to have any insight into their health-damaging behaviour,  I doubt that any national politicians will be taking the doctors' advice.

The on-off video

The Ministry of Justice publishes several public information videos on YouTube - topics include how to be a witness, what happens at an Employment Tribunal and so on.  It's the sort of neutral and useful information you'd expect to see.  In March they uploaded a short video showing what happens at a Tribunal hearing Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) appeals. 

Obviously the DWP didn't like this - by demystifying the process, it was likely to encourage appellants to attend the Tribunal and thus increase their chances of success.  So on 19th March Chris Grayling MP, DWP Minister responsible for ESA sent an email to the Ministry of Justice objecting to the content.

I obtained the email using the Freedom of Information Act.  Here it is:

“From: Minister for Employment [mailto:MINISTER.EMPLOYMENT@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK]
Sent: 19 March 2012 14:32
To:
Cc: Minister for Employment
Subject: Youtube video about appeals

Afternoon, our attention has been drawn to a video on your official youtube channel that talks about making an appeal on Employment and Support Allowance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L8EPHDjeqU

Specific concerns are:

• The line that the claimant may not have had a chance to talk to someone since the decision was made - our new processes ensure that Jobcentre Plus will have spoken to the claimant to ensure they understand what the decision is, why it’s been made and what they can do next;

• It says the claimant will have received a medical examination - the Work Capability Assessment is not a medical examination, if the word medical must be used we’d be OK with medical assessment, but would prefer something like “an assessment of your capability for work”;

• It mentions bringing additional evidence to the tribunal - again, our new processes are trying to ensure that new medical evidence doesn’t just go to the tribunal but instead gets to JCP first so we can undertake a reconsideration;

• It notes that JCP doesn’t normally send anyone to a tribunal - while this is true both because of cost and because the evidence suggests it makes no difference to the tribunal decision, it does feel quite a negative comment. The appearance of a presenting officer or not doesn’t reflect how important we feel the tribunal is or the claimant’s case is; and

• A couple of times it’s noted that a claimant is twice as likely to win their appeal if they turn up in person - again this is broadly true, but doesn’t help to reduce the opinion that it isn’t the facts of the case that are important, but the turning up in front of a tribunal and pleading their case.

Can we discuss what we might be able to do? ”

So basically, Grayling objected to various comments which would encourage people to participate in the hearing.  His objection to "medical examination" is perverse - not only is the phrase used in the law, but it's also used by ATOS and DWP in their letters to people.

He also wanted people to not send in evidnce to the Tribunal - this would put people at a huge disadvantage and the rationale that DWP should see it is misleading because all evidence sent in advance is copied to all parties, including DWP and if they had the courtesy to actually attend Tribunal hearings, they'd get to see evidence handed in at the hearing.  And as we all know, even when they have seen compelling evidence, the DWP still ignore it.

Anyway, having had this information released, by coincidence (?) the video re-appeared on YouTube the same day I received the information.  This then led to over 9,000 views as word got out on the disability and advice networks - Grayling's attempt to censor the video just increased the level of interest in it.  Curiously, the Ministry of Justice denied that any information exists about the video!

Having had such a surge in interest, the video was again taken offline by the Ministry of Justice.  "Mystery of Justice" might be a better description.

I have fired off another Freedom of Information request, but this will take weeks.  In the meantime, various people made copies of the video and you can view it on Youtube by searching here.

So far over 5,000 people have since seen it.

Cameron's welfare reform speech

Cameron's much publicised speech on Monday about further cuts in benefits for people of working age is deeply worrying.  The issue of housing benefit for under 25s has caught the headlines, but there is a danger that this obscures the clutch of other very nasty ideas.

The model being promoted is a USA-style welfare system.  Now this is the country with the worst health outcomes in the wealthy world, the worst inequalities, the worst crime figures and any visitor to the US can tell you tales of the hordes of mentally ill, disabled and destitute people to be seen on the streets.  Over one million families in the USA are homeless and 10% of the US population have to resort to a food bank at some point each year.  It really is the last welfare system that any government with half a brain should want to copy.

Obama is so concerned about the injustice and negative economic effect of their welfare system that he has made efforts to increase the level of welfare payments in and some states have been reining in their workfare programmes and have prosecuted private welfare-to-work providers for mass fraud.  Of course, Cameron conveniently ignores these aspects.

That aside, I was deeply concerned about the wild inaccuracies about the benefits system in Cameron's speech.  Either he was misbriefed by civil servants or he chose to ignore briefings. 

I find it amazing how people in the UK are generally pretty cynical about politicians' truthfulness - lies about the Iraq War, expenses scandal, broken Manifesto promises, etc.  However, as soon as a politician slags off benefit claimants, everyone believes them!

Anyway, here are some examples of the fibs in Dave's speech:

"Tens of thousands of incapacity benefits reassessed and found ready for work".  Not true.  People are found not to meet the very high threshold for "limited capability for work", not "fit for work", let alone "ready for work".  As his Minister Chris Grayling conceded not long ago, very many coming off benefits for the sick have significant health issues.  And then we all know how flawed the re-assessment process is anyway.

"..instead of a complicated pension with endless top-ups there will be a straightforward, flat rate of £140 per week".  Not true.  Very many poorer pensioners will still have to claim the housing credit element of Universal Credit (so complex, the DWP still hasn't been able to announce details) and try their luck at claiming one of the many new local versions of council tax support.  So three bodies will have to be applied to, as opposed to the current two.

"Half of new [DLA] claimants never had to provide medical evidence".  That's because the DWP usually write direct to the claimant's doctor and/or seek evidence from an ATOS doctor - it's called efficiency.  Anyway, if this is so flawed, all you have to do Mr Cameron is to get people to supply such evidence without turning the disability benefits system upside down from April 2013 as you are doing.

"Someone can get £130 a week DLA by simply filling out a bit of paper".  Pray, what's the evidence that this is the case?  As the parent of a child who received DLA after a struggle (you said so at a reception you hosted at the House of Commons in 2007 - I know, I was there), you ought to know better.

Cameron then gives the example of a working couple without children taking home £24,000 a year with a couple down the road who have 4 children and get £27,000 a year in benefits for not working.  Of course they get more...because their needs are greater because they have children.  If the working couple had children, they'd get benefits and tax credits to help out, so it's a completely false and highly misleading comparison.  Apparently the workless couple also get £140 per week housing benefit - where does this figure come from?

As regards housing benefit, there really is a simple solution:  bring in rent controls like most other countries have and stop landlords being subsidised by and dependant on the benefits system.  Sadly government policy is going in the other direction by forcing up rents in the social sector to 80% of the private sector. 

"[19 year old young person] left college and went down to the jobcentre to sign on for Jobseekers Allowance, she found out that if she moved out of her parents' place she was automatically entitled to housing benefit".  Now which planet is this man on?  Life is not at all like this.  First, this mythical young person would have to find a landlord who accepted people on housing benefit.  They she'd have to somehow raise the money for a deposit and rent in advance (two months in practice, as HB is paid usually one month in arrear), then pay to equip the place.  And even if she could somehow do all that on her own, the DWP's own figures show that two thirds don't get all their rent paid by HB.  The evidence from DWP was published just last week and is here.  Then the young person has to feed. and clothe herself and pay her water, fuel and transport out of all of £56.25 a week (assuming they don't have a shortfall in their HB).  So Dave, please explain how your example can happen in real life?

"It pays not to work".  Again not true.  The problem is the means tested system which penalises people for trying to work combined with our high land costs in the UK, high costs of travel and high costs of childcare.  That's assuming the system actually works and doesn't screw up people's income or ask for money back because of some official cock-up.  Of course, that'll never happen under Universal Credit will it?

"[causes of poverty]...debt, family breakdown, educational failure or addiction".  What about our persistent problems of high unemployment since the 1980s and the extent of low pay?  And anyway only 4% of working age claimants have any addiction and you do get addicts in work - ask any musician.  But then putting it this way, Cameron gives out the message that poverty is all down to the financially incompetent, spouse-deserting, unintelligent boozers and druggies in our midst.

"If someone is signed off work with a bad back there's no requirement to take steps to get well to keep on receiving that benefit".  Well actually, they wouldn't have got benefit for the "bad back", even under the old system, unless it was a serious and chronic problem which could not be sorted out easily.  Anyway, what Cameron says is again not true.  People who get ESA and who are in the work related activity group can be required to identify rehabilitation they could do. 

And on it goes.  Half truth followed by distortion followed by innuendo.  Also outrageous that his "facts" have not been challenged by the useless Liam Byrne.

A powerful video - must watch

A really powerful 10 minute video from The Guardian about what is happening to benefit claimants.  It includes a reference to the leaked internal DWP email about people committing suicide after having their benefits cut.

DWP press officers, try to play down the impact of the service on people, but all advisers regularly encounter claimants at their wits end, and worse as a result of problems with the benefits system.

And still the Labour Front Bench don't stand up and challenge the government on welfare reform - obsessed with the small demographic of a few swing voters in marginal seats who are apparently concerned about "scroungers".  Shame on them.

As a very experienced, (and I hope knowledgeable), adviser, there are many times when I find dealing with the DWP on behalf of my clients absolutely maddening.  How must it feel for people caught up in the system and left with little or no money and being punished for their poverty?

Forced labour for benefit claimants - a scathing analysis

Jonathan Portes is the former Chief Economist at the DWP and the Cabinet Office and he now heads up the National Institute for Economic and Social Research.  His blog contains a devastating critique of the government's plans to force benefit claimants to work for their benefits.  Read it by clicking here.

Troubled Families and a Pickled Troubled Initiative

History shows that every so often there is moral panic about an alleged underclass who it is claimed subvert the nation's moral fibre.  It goes right back through the centuries.

The problem is that when the evidence for such claims is presented, it simply fails any half-decent scrutiny, consisting as it does of weakly correlated estimates and assumptions.

So shame on the civil servants who have allowed ministers to get away with the latest "Troubled Families" initiative.  By lumping a pile of health, social care and criminal justice costs together and then cross referencing it to some data on poverty (yes, poverty, not anti-social behaviour), we are told there are 120,000 "Troubled families" and we are told that this underclass costs us a small fortune. 

Using poverty data and then equating it with anti-social and criminal behaviour is an appalling slur on the thousands who live by society's standards and bring their children up to be good citizens despite their dreadful economic circumstances.  Yes, people who are poor are more likely to become offenders, addicts or unwell, but it does not follow that multiple deprivation makes you a nuisance neighbour any more than great wealth makes you a kind-hearted, generous person or a mean, old Scrooge.

Of course, originally, the government claimed there were 150,000 Troubled Families, but then even they couldn't get the figures to justify this number and the figure was quietly reduced by 20%.

So "troubleshooters" are going to go and cajole these people into becoming better citizens.  One of the indicators is that someone in the family moves into paid work.  Well, if these families really are that dysfunctional and their kids so feral, do we really want their parents working long hours and the kids not having a modicum of parental restraint as a result! 

How about cajoling a few employers to create jobs for them or cajoling a few credit companies into cleaning up their act?

No, this is a Troubled Initiative which will fail because it is based on blaming the poor rather than the socio-economic causes which either cause or exacerbate complex social and inter-personal problems.  It is also the height of naivety to think that troubleshooters, whoever they may be, can somehow outperform professionally trained and supervised social workers, teachers and youth workers.

The British Association of Social Workers has a very perceptive assessment of the Troubled Initiative which I reproduce below:

"Commenting on plans unveiled by the Westminster secretary of state for communities, Eric Pickles, for all 152 councils in England to be incentivised to send in “trouble-shooters” to deal with problem families, Nushra Mansuri, professional officer, British Association of Social Workers, has suggested the move is indiscriminately picking on families with low incomes.

Speaking after Mr Pickles outlined the plan to encourage councils to take steps to tackle problems said to emanate from 120,000 families, Ms Mansuri said: “Is the government saying that being poor is a crime? This figure of 120,000 ‘problem families’ being bandied about is cobbled together from research that was conducted 8 years ago, and was based on families having 5 out of 7 characteristics, including no parent in work, and having a low income.

“In today’s economic climate, that could apply to many, many families. A family having problems does not automatically equate to them being labelled a ‘problem family’ and causing a nuisance to anyone else. This is particularly unfair when the government’s austerity programme is driving so many more people into poverty.”

The Pickles plan is based on the government’s wish to “turn around” the lives of the so-called “problem families” by 2015. The government estimates that the 120,000 families are currently costing the state around £9bn each year in costs to the NHS, the police and social services.

Ministers have earmarked £448m from existing departmental budgets over four years to help pay for a network of people who will identify families in need of help, make sure they get access to the right services and ensure that action is taken. However, the fund will only cover 40% of the cost of the scheme and councils who want to use it will have to agree to fund the other 60% themselves.

To be defined as “troubled” the government says families need to meet five out of seven criteria, including having truanting children, parents with addiction and a history of anti-social behaviour.

However, research by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) has questioned the government’s calculation of the number of families that meet this criteria. An ERSC report says ministers are misrepresenting its background research on which the figure of 120,000 “troubled families” is based.

Focusing on the government’s definition, BASW’s Mansuri continued: “The government also needs to decide whether there is a link between deprivation and crime or not. At the time of last summer’s riots, David Cameron said: ‘These riots were not about poverty. That insults the millions of people who, whatever the hardship, would never dream of making others suffer like this.’

“Now we have the government stirring up hatred against poor families, stigmatising them and attempting to dismiss the entire social work profession as wishy washy do-gooders.

“If Mr Pickles was “fluent in social work”, he would realise that cutting back social work services to children and families and not deploying frontline social workers in the most effective way is not the answer. Early intervention ends up costing the state less both financially and socially.

“As for dispensing with the ‘it’s not my fault’ culture, perhaps the government could start by ending the blame culture. Going after a tiny minority and constantly pillorying them is not the most effective means of promoting social inclusion and community cohesion, it tends to up the ante and promote
self-fulfilling prophecies of failure for some families and sadly, poor outcomes for children.

“The government seeks to punish and bully people for being disadvantaged. We fail to see how this will result in a fairer and more harmonious society for any of us.”

Mandatory work activity - more pain for more people

Yep. As predicted the government extends the scale of mandatory work activity for unemployed people, even though the DWP's own research shows it makes virtually no difference to long term benefit numbers.  Oh well, don't let statistics get in the way of a good bit of welfare bashing.

The only reported opposition from the utterly useless and disengaged Labour spokesman, Liam Byrne MP (please Birmingham, make him mayor), is that the scheme would not help that many people. Nothing about opposition to the principle of workfare or its destructive effects on job creation, wage levels (which then require public subsidy via benefits/tax credits) or how it actually prevents helping people moving into paid work.

Forced unpaid labour for the Jubilee

Media reports about unemployed people being made to do unpaid work as stewards on the Jubilee Pageant.  And also made to sleep rough as part of it. 

This is an inevitable result of all the main political parties' obsession with punishing unemployed people through forced labour.  Sign a petition against this by clicking here.

Gender? Name?

I just love some of the correspondence we get from the DWP.

Like the one I have had addressed to "Mr N Bateman".  (Yes "Mr".  It's significant.  Read on).  So they know my name and they know my gender and they managed to get them both right.  Well done guys!

Then we have the salutation in the letter:  "Dear Sir or Madam".

And they say benefit claimants are confused.

More scandalous ESA evidence

Two more cases in the press which will have a familiar ring for advice workers.  It's quite outrageous that the government and DWP officials can still assert that the Work Capability Assessment is reliable and that those who fail the test are fit for work. 

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2137377/Man-suffering-blood-clots-open-ulcers-loses-benefits-job-centre-labels-fit-work.html#ixzz1td5m6v00

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/29/benefits-system-fit-for-work

The effect of the National Minimum Wage on benefits expenditure

Anyone who knows anything about the benefits system, knows that means tested benefits and tax credits decrease when earnings increase.

Therefore, it follows that an increase in the National Minimum Wage of £x an hour would reduce benefits expenditure by £y million and tax credits expenditure by £z million.

Given the significance of this I asked both DWP and HMRC, using the Freedom of Information Act, to provide me with any information they have about this.  Replies have now come back and they both state they do not hold such information.

Of course research into this subject would not be straightforward and estimates which came out of it would be subject to uncertainty.  But am I missing something by expressing surprise that neither the DWP nor HMRC have done any research about this?

Unpaid labour. A free workforce for employers and funded by the taxpayer.

The government looks set to announce a significant move to extend compulsory unpaid labour for people on Jobseekers Allowance.  www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/26/work-free-programme-expanded-government?newsfeed=true

The arguments have all been made elsewhere against this, self-defeating, punitive and stigmatising provision of an unpaid workforce which does not create any jobs.  But then it's a great way to force people off benefit and into the shadowlands of "no work no welfare" while also shifting the blame for unemployment onto jobseekers.

This can only come about because the opposition from the mainstream has so far been pretty hopeless.  Voluntary bodies, local authorities, advice agencies, trade unions and the Labour Party, with a few notable exceptions, have failed to build an alliance of principled and organised opposition to this.

Mark my words, if the government gets away with this, they'll be back for more.

Tax fraud vs benefit fraud

Next time you hear someone banging on about benefit fraud (annual cost £1.5 billion), remind them of the latest estimate of the "tax gap" (annual cost £35 billion). www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/news/hmrc-compliance/

Even the Daily Mail was shocked - though some of the self-justifying comments by readers are in stark contrast to what we would see if it was an article about benefit fraud . www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2149038/Cheats-avoided-paying-taxes-year-created-35billion-hole-public-purse.html

There's also a further £25 billion owed by corporations: www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/news/hmrc-tax-disputes-report/

Yes, it's a class thing.