Tag Archives: DWP

Another Doctor Speaks Out Publicly Against Atos Work Capability Assessments

images (1) On 20th August this year Dr Greg Wood, the former naval doctor who resigned from his post as an Atos disability assessor and subsequently became a whistleblower by going to the press to expose the cruelty of the Work Capability Assessments, published the following article in the British Medical Journal (BMJ):-

PERSONAL VIEW
I blew the whistle on the government’s disability assessments

Greg Wood former naval doctor and Atos disability analyst.

Greg Wood went to the media with concerns about the ethics surrounding tests for fitness to work—and eligibility for benefits—that the UK government outsourced to Atos

Actually, two whistleblowers went public before me, and several other doctors have raised concerns anonymously. I am a former general practitioner in the Royal Navy, where work related
assessments are bread and butter stuff. The UK Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) devised the work capability assessment (WCA) to judge whether people who receive out of
work sickness benefits could, in fact, cope with most forms of work. A more stringent test came into use in 2011, and the government made no secret of the fact that it hoped this would boost the labour market, improve people’s self esteem and personal income, and, of course, reduce government debt.

For many years the information technology and “business process outsourcing” company Atos has had a contract, now worth £100m (€116m; $155.4m) a year, to carry out several
social security benefit assessments, including the WCA, for the Department for Work and Pensions. In my view this risks tension between doctors’ professional concerns on the one hand and business imperatives on the other.
The WCA had a troubled childhood. From early on, claimants and disability groups were reporting problems. They felt the assessment was a box ticking process, where medical assessors spent most of their time punching superfluous lifestyle data into the computer. And the likely outcome as they saw it? Computer says no. In fact, the test, on paper at least, isn’t too bad, though it isn’t going to win anyone a Nobel prize. But it cannot adequately
take into account health conditions that fluctuate unpredictably, and it tries to include too broad a range of jobs. Driving, call handling, shelf stacking, data entry, and cleaning, for example, are all theoretically covered. And although the test is nominally a pre-employment medical test of sorts, it is really still about measuring the person’s level of disability.
In early 2013 the WCA was still causing a rumpus in public, despite a series of external reviews.

One problem that dawned on me over time was the widespread use of five ill conceived so called rules of thumb that were promulgated during the training of new assessors. On one,
manual dexterity, the guidance was just plain wrong. The training said that this all boiled down to an inability to press a button, whereas the regulations allow points to be awarded when there are difficulties forming a pinch grip, holding a pen, or operating a computer. The other “rules of thumb” showed a combination of discrepancies and questionable interpretations of medical knowledge—for example, moving from one room to another at home was supposed to be equivalent to moving 200 metres. The effect was to reduce a claimant’s likelihood of entitlement to financial help. Another concern was the absence of documentary evidence, which, in my experience, occurred in about a fifth of assessments. This was a simple failure to move important pieces of paper from one building to another but the assessment was expected to go ahead regardless. And my third concern was that there was an implicit assumption that the most likely outcome of an individual face to face
assessment was that the person would be found fit for work. Ihave no reason to believe that this was deliberate; it was probably more a question of wishful thinking and a misunderstanding of basic statistical principles. You can’t expect the proportions of claimants who are fit to work who are seen by an individual doctor to correspond to national trends. The general culture was one where, at the point when their file was
being opened for the first time by the assessor, it was broadly assumed that an individual claimant was more likely than not to be found fit for work.

My fourth concern was that Atos auditors, for quality assurance purposes, were in the habit of demanding that healthcare professionals change their reports without seeing the patients themselves. This seemed fairly reasonable if the amendment  could be justified, but not so reasonable when the doctor who had seen the patient thought otherwise. For instance, auditors supposed that they could tell that a patient with a chronic and only part treated psychotic illness had adequate mental focus, despite not assessing the patient for themselves, and using solely a report.

The position of the General Medical Council is that doctors should not alter such reports if they think that it would make a report less accurate, or would render it misleading to the body commissioning it—that is, the DWP. I resigned from Atos primarily over this widespread interference with reports, which I felt encroached on my professional autonomy and crossed ethical boundaries. So I blew the whistle and found myself talking to
parliamentarians and journalists, and then making an appearance on BBC news. It was nerve wracking trying to choose my words carefully while keeping the message clear and simple. Obviously I worried about the repercussions, but what had tipped it for me was that the DWP had stonewalled on this for more than two years; medical knowledge was being twisted; misery was being heaped on people with real disabilities; and the cost to the
taxpayer of these flawed assessments and the subsequent successful tribunal appeals was going up and up. Three months after I blew the whistle, the DWP announced that all Atos assessors were to be retrained and that external auditors had been called in to improve the quality of the WCA. To others considering blowing the whistle, I would say this: if
it is important enough to you and you do not believe that the problem can be fixed by more conventional means; if you can back up your assertions with evidence; if you are prepared to risk alienating your colleagues; and if you are robust enough to deal with the slings and arrows that might come your way; then blow your whistle loud and blow it proud.
Competing interests: I have read and understood the BMJ Group policy on declaration of interests and have no relevant interests to declare. Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.
© BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2013

XIR287729  Yesterday, 24th August, the BMJ published another article by GP Dr Glyn Phillips, written in response to Dr Woods’ piece. Dr Phillips helps claimants who are going to a Tribunal to appeal against the outcomes of their WCA and fully supports Dr Woods. Here’s what he had to say:-

Re: I blew the whistle on the government’s disability assessments

Glyn Phillips, GP

Greenhills Medical Practice, Greenhills Health Centre, East Kilbride,

24 August 2013

Dr Wood deserves to be thanked for his publicising of what lies behind the seemingly dark and at times Kafkaesque outcomes of Atos WCAs. Over the past few years I (and many others) have seen a growing number of patients becoming victims of mind-boggingly cruel and unfair assessments which have led to stoppage of their ESA payments.

How can a patient with a quite profound depressive illness somehow manage to score zero points at an Atos WCA but 27 in a PHQ-9 assessment in the same week? In their defence they would cite that they do not actually make that final decision, it is made by an adjudication officer, a clerical worker, back at the DWP. Thus they can sanitise their tainted and increasingly cruel and unfair judgements. Atos and the DWP seem to deny the existence of a target driven culture. However, their methods and tactics cannot be explained by any other logical reason.

In 1996 I spent 6 months doing two sessions per week with the then Benefits Advisory Medical Service. The assessment tool was the All Work Test, not totally dissimilar to the WCA. Available to assessors were two exclusion clauses for those occasions where a ‘client’ clearly would not achieve the magic score of descriptor points to retain their benefit but equally clearly was not fit for work. This facility remains present in the WCA assessment. This option to apply exceptions, without restriction from management, was what allowed latitude for commonsense, experience, empathy and compassion.

The recent marked increase in grossly unfair decisions by Atos/DWP is, in my view, solely due into the fact that doctors and nurses performing the assessments have had those four safety valve qualities blocked in an over-bearing and bullying fashion by their employer Atos. The DWP, as the commissioning public body, carries equal responsibility for this.

Atos employed doctors and nurses (especially those in managerial roles) should be examining their consciences in these matters. They should be reminded that the decision will be based largely, if not entirely, on their assessment. They are answerable to their governing body. They are also answerable to their ‘client’ who is our patient and therefore answerable to us. When they see somebody who has not scored enough descriptor points, but who they must know is not fit, it is their duty to apply an exception clause. It is their duty not only to our patient but also to their governing body.

This past year I have been involved with supporting appeals for increasing numbers of patients who have had their ESA stopped. One example is a significantly unwell man with complex multiple medical conditions including SLE and ‘shrinking lung syndrome’. He walks very slowly with difficulty and is significantly short of breath after just a few metres. I am convinced that a child would have come up with a more appropriate decision regarding his fitness.

Working with a like-minded local lawyer our success rate is currently 100%. There are more to come. This is a frustrating waste of time for me as it is so unnecessary. What is more frustrating is the total lack of transparency following such a successful appeal. The appeal is successful, the ESA is restored but there appears to be no other outcome. No acknowledgement of accountability on the part of Atos or its employee. The misery and extra unwelcome stress put upon our patient seem not to matter. Apologies do not exist. The tremendous waste of public money expended in dealing with the dramatic increase in levels of appeals is a disgrace.

Making unwell patients more unwell is a disgrace too

Competing interests: None declared

BKFv92_CcAMmx0R  With the recent disturbing news that GPs are being urged by  professional bodies to refuse to provide benefit claimants with the medical evidence they desperately need for their WCAs whilst the DWP and Atos refuse to do the job themselves, leaving disabled people in an impossible position, its good to read stories like these by doctors who put their principles and humanity before anything else.

We desperately need more health professionals who are or who have previously worked for Atos to come forward and speak out and put the powerful weight of their professions behind the people being criminally treated by Atos with the approval of their own government. 

Advertisements

What The Hell Is Happening To Our Society?

la-oe-goldberg-disability-entitlements-2013040-001            Work-Makes-Free-Clear

 

With each passing day, as I read and see more and more injustice and cruelty from this feeble excuse of a government, I wonder just what the hell is going on here?

Here’s a selection of video interviews by the amazing Artist Taxi Driver to make my point for me. The last one made me so angry and frankly, ashamed to be British and it reminded me of a documentary I saw online recently exposing the truth about the British monarchy. Its called Royal Babylon and I’ve included that too. Prepare to be shocked if you’re the kind of person who thinks the Queen is just a sweet old lady and Winston Churchill etc were ‘great’ British leaders…this is definitely NOT the version of British history that Michael Gove wants to ram down our kid’s throats.

 

 

“FROM THE BRITISH WELFARE STATE TO ANOTHER AMERICAN STATE”: The Shape Of Things To Come?

images (8) images (5)

Earlier today I posted a summary of research into Unum and ATOS by Mo Stewart. Here are two further summaries she has sent me with permission to post on this blog.

Mo Stewart is a former healthcare professional, a disabled female veteran and, for the last 3 years, has researched the links between the DWP, Atos Healthcare & Unum Insurance. To date, the research evidence has been quoted during welfare debates in the House of Lords, the House of Commons and in Westminster Hall. Mo routinely shares all research evidence with academics, medical and healthcare professionals, frontline national charities, selected
politicians and service users.

Her most recent report has just been published by the Centre for Disability Studies at Leeds University.

Mo’s website, well worth a visit, is here

FROM THE BRITISH WELFARE STATE TO ANOTHER AMERICAN STATE

From The British Welfare State to Another American State © Mo Stewart 17th May 2013

From The British Welfare State to Another American State © Mo Stewart 17th May 2013
The ongoing welfare reforms have created an atmosphere of fear and despair within the British disabled community, that includes sufferers of chronic ill health and those with mental health difficulties. Claimants in receipt of the former Incapacity Benefit are being transferred to the Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) but, to retain this disability benefit, claimants are required to make themselves available for an ‘occupational assessment’, known as the Work Capability Assessment (WCA), as exclusively conducted by the private contractor Atos Origin IT Ltd Medical Services; better known as Atos Healthcare.

Since 2008 successive British governments have adopted the WCA with the intention of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) removing as many claimants as possible from disability benefit, to permit the long ago planned move from the welfare state to welfare funded by private insurance. During three years of detailed independent research, I exposed the links between the British government and the American healthcare insurance giant Unum (Provident) Insurance as first identified in the 2010 report: Atos Healthcare or Disability Denial Factories.(1) This report exposed the links between the DWP and the healthcare insurance giant, and also identified the fact that the WCA had been designed in consultation with Unum Insurance and was the realisation of the long ago planned ‘Thatcher Legacy’, which was the total destruction of the welfare state.(2) This foreign influence on British welfare reforms was to become the focus for the second year of my
research that culminated in the report: Welfare Reform – Redress for the Disabled(3) as first
quoted during the welfare reform debates in the House of Lords during September 2011.

Over time, this often disturbing research evidence was published across the Internet and was welcomed by various academics, a growing number of frontline national charities, medical and healthcare professionals and service-users. The interest was growing as the research exposed the fact that the DWP’s American corporate ‘adviser’ was identified as one of the most discredited health insurance giants in the world.(1)(3) By 2005, following copious numbers of successful legal cases throughout the USA, the California Department of Insurance Commissioner, John Garamendi, stated: “Unum Provident is an outlaw company. It is a company that has operated in an illegal fashion for years…”(4) By 2006, New York Attorney General Spitzer ordered Unum (Provident) Insurance to reconsider 200,000 previous claims, in a settlement benefitting 48 States, and also levied another $15 million dollar fine against the company in addition to the multimillion dollar fines already imposed over several years via successful litigation.(1)(3)(5) In 2007, the American Association for Justice identified Unum (Provident) Insurance as “..the second worst insurance company in the US.”(6)(7) To date, the company have not carried out the 200,000 reconsiderations, ordered in the 2006 multi-state settlement, as Unum Insurance does appear to
continue to be a law unto themselves. A name change to, simply, Unum Insurance has not altered this company’s long history of resisting payment to genuine health insurance claimants(8) as confirmed in a compelling CBS News interview.(9)

Yet this is the company chosen to ‘advise’ successive British governments since 1994 and this
American influenced system of disability denial was adopted by the DWP, using Atos Healthcare to conduct the WCA as a guaranteed method of reducing the welfare budget, regardless of the large amount of detailed evidence against it.(1)(3)(7)(10) Indeed, in America, Professor John Langbein of the Yale School of Law produced a paper identified as ‘The Unum Provident Scandal’ that exposed Unum’s policy of disability denial that continues to be referenced to this day.(10)

Not only was the Atos examination exposed as being ‘unfit for purpose’ by the President of the Appeal Tribunals,(11) but also most recently by the representatives of Britain’s doctors and nurses as the WCA was identified by both the British Medical Association (BMA)(12) and the Royal College of Nurses (RCN)(13) as being totally detrimental to the welfare of patients. DWP Ministers continue to disregard all reported evidence against the Atos assessment.
For six years from 2003 Unum (Provident) Insurance funded the former DWP Chief Medical
Officer, Professor Sir Mansel Aylward, who retired from his role at the DWP to become the
Director of the ‘UnumProvident Centre for Psychosocial and Disability Research’ at Cardiff
University. During that time, Professor Aylward co-authored arguably the most damaging report in the history of British welfare as The Scientific & Conceptual Basis of Incapacity Benefits, TSO 2005(14) was, effectively, a blueprint for the introduction of the WCA.
The Green Paper: A New Deal for Welfare: Empowering people to work – 2006(15) was
subsequently exposed by the academic Professor Alison Ravetz, whose detailed independent
assessment identified the content of the Green Paper as leaving much to be desired.(16) It remains cause for concern that Professor Ravetz’s critical assessment of the Green Paper was provided as a contribution to the public consultation process; so the DWP accessed this disturbing evidence and then totally disregarded the significance of it,

“On closer examination, it appears that this entire body of work is largely self-referential – that is, it appeals for validation to itself and is framed within the same political and policy agenda. In practical terms, it means opting out by the state of responsibility for a large section – estimated two thirds – of those affected by illness or disability. In future, it will be harder to qualify for the benefit, while those already receiving it, in many cases over long periods will, despite assurances, have justifiable anxieties about their future benefit status UnumProvident, an American company, is involved in a number of lawsuits for ‘bad faith’ in refusing to honour disability insurance claims. This reinforces the caution against taking this apparently impressive body of work at face value. It is not research undertaken in the spirit of open enquiry. It is commissioned research and, as such, pre-disposed towardsideologically determined outcomes.”(16)(My emphasis. MS)

This statement was written by Professor Ravetz in 2006 and it has now come to pass, with the nation’s chronically sick and disabled benefit claimants living in fear of the arrival of their appointment for the WCA, as conducted by Atos Healthcare, and the endless incorrect decisions regarding future benefit entitlement by DWP ‘Decision Makers.’(17)
The main influence of the Green Paper content was The Scientific & Conceptual Basis of Incapacity Benefits, TSO 2005(14), as authored by Professors Mansel Aylward and Gordon Waddell and published by the UnumProvident Centre for Psychosocial and Disability Research, Cardiff University. Research evidence has confirmed the profound influence of a discredited American corporate insurance giant with the DWP since 1994 and the most damaging reports, used to influence and inform government policy on welfare, have been produced via a research centre who have adopted the Unum philosophy and cannot possibly be considered to be ‘independent’ research evidence.

On 17th April 2013 the United Kingdom honoured Baroness Thatcher with a ceremonial funeral at an admitted cost of £3.6million, to acknowledge the nation’s first female Prime Minister, whilst her lasting legacy to the British people will be the successful destruction of the welfare state.
Mo Stewart

From The British Welfare State to Another American State © Mo Stewart 17th May 2013
http://disability-studies.leeds.ac.uk/files/library/FROM-BRITISH-WELFARE-STATE-TO-ANOTHER-AMERICAN-STATE-2013-3rd-edit-FINAL.pdf

REFERENCES:

(1) Atos Healthcare or Disability Denial Factories: http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosveteranssummary.html
(2) Margaret Thatcher’s role in plan to dismantle welfare state revealed:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/dec/28/margaret-thatcher-role-plan-to-dismantle-welfare-staterevealed
(3) Welfare Reform – Redress for the Disabled: http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosveterans.html#WRES
(4) Online Lawyer Source: http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/unum/complaints/
(5) State Insurance commissioners reach settlement with Unum Provident:
http://www.insure.com/articles/healthinsurance/unum-settlement.html
(6) Unum Claims Denial – Legal Help: http://unumclaimsdenial.com/2011/07/unum-ranked-2nd-worst-insurance-company-in-america/
(7) The Ten Worst Insurance Companies in America – The American Association of Justice
http://www.justice.org/docs/tenworstinsurancecompanies.pdf
(8) Unum Lawsuit Plaintiff Wins Re-instatement of Unum Disability Benefits, MARCH 2013:
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/first_unum/unum-lawsuit-insurance-disability-claims-12-18506.html?utm_expid=3607522 0&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lawyersandsettlements.com%2Flegalnewsarticles%
2Fcase%2Ffirst_unum%2F#.UZOb0Vxwbcs
(9) Did Insurer Cheat Disabled Clients: CBS News interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gknSNvGoX-c
(10) John H Langbein – The Unum Provident Scandal & Judicial Review of Benefit Denials, Yale University School of Law: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=917610
(11) HH Judge Robert Martin: President of Appeal Tribunals, Report 2007-08:
http://appeals-service.gov.uk/Documents/SSCSA_PresRep07_08FINAL.pdf
(12) Scrap work capability assessment, doctors demand
http://bma.org.uk/news-views-analysis/news/2012/june/scrap-work-capability-assessment-doctors-demand
(13) RCN Congress: http://www.rcn.org.uk/newsevents/congress/2013/agenda/1-disability-assessments
(14) The Scientific & Conceptual Basis of Incapacity Benefits, TSO 2005
http://www.tsoshop.co.uk/bookstore.asp?FO=1279028&DI=607598
(15) A New Deal for Welfare: Empowering people to work: 2006
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm67/6730/6730.pdf
(16) Green Paper: A New Deal for Welfare: empowering people to work. 2006
– an independent assessment of the arguments for proposed Incapacity Benefit reform http://disability-studies.leeds.ac.uk/files/library/ravetz-Green-Paper-IB-critique.pdf

(17) Unfit for Purpose: Citizens Advice Scotland: http://www.cas.org.uk/publications/unfit-purpose

GOVERNMENT USE MIGHT OF AMERICAN INSURANCE GIANT TO DESTROY UK SAFETY NET – UPDATE
Whilst the Prime Minister employs talented script writers, and waxes lyrically about the nation’s concerns for our most vulnerable people, the reality is that the medical tyranny used to assess anyone claiming sickness or disability benefits has, by the Department for Work and Pension’s(DWP) own admission, resulted in 1100 deaths between January – August 2011.** Significantly, more recent death totals are not yet available from the DWP…
These genuine benefit claimants were removed from Incapacity Benefit and placed into the ‘work related activity group’ following a ‘medical assessment’ as exclusively conducted by Atos Healthcare – a subsidiary of the IT giant Atos Origin, who were awarded the very lucrative IT contract for the recent Olympic Games. The ongoing human tragedy is that, regardless of diagnosis, prognosis or treatments, these victims were removed from the safety net of the welfare state by under-qualified DWP staff, following a totally inadequate medical assessment by Atos Healthcare, forced to prepare for work and then died trying.**

This ongoing, relentless sinister attack on the welfare state was planned by the Thatcher
government in 1994(1), with successive governments contributing to the fear now faced by over three million chronically sick and disabled people. The Prime Minister announced last year that disability benefits should only be available to those whose reduced health was due to ‘no fault of their own.’* Playing ‘the blame game’ whilst demonstrating his very dangerous lack of comprehension of the sinister implications of all serious addiction was thought at the time to be extreme comments by the Prime Minister, but it was only ever the tip of the iceberg. The reality is that every chronically sick and disabled person in the UK, in receipt of disability benefits, has learned to live in fear of their own government that is shared by the claimed ‘moderate’ political party; namely the Liberal Democrats.

Most civil servants and MPs are able bodied, with very few having any detailed personal knowledge about the vast subject of chronic illness or disability, so sweeping generalisations feed the national press whilst one particular man, with a past history in finance, was given unlimited authority. He was ennobled to permit his appointed to government, and he was never elected, but his opinions are never challenged by government so Lord Freud, as the Minister for Welfare Reform, enjoys unprecedented authority about a subject that he demonstrably knows nothing about. With a past history in the world of finance Lord Freud only knows about budgets, and he engaged with the insurance industry to reduce the burden of government funded welfare.(2) In his own words(3), Lord Freud admitted that he knew nothing about welfare or disability. Yet, three weeks following his
appointment, he produced a report that was adopted by government and now the weakest in society live in fear of frequent obligatory government medical assessments, as conducted by Atos Healthcare, that have been demonstrated to be totally ‘unfit for purpose’ by the President of the Appeal Tribunals, national front-line charities, welfare agencies and concerned high calibre professionals. The government ignores them all.(1)(4)(5)

Atos Healthcare (AH) are engaged to undertake all medical assessments on behalf of the DWP for anyone in receipt of Incapacity Benefit – now changed to the new Employment Support Allowance(ESA) – but the AH assessments remain totally free from all public accountability according to the General Medical Council and the Care Quality Commission.(1) Undeterred by public concern, the £multi million contract between the DWP and AH was recently extended(6), whilst countless numbers of our most vulnerable citizens testify to this bogus medical assessment, that remains as far away from genuine medical evaluation as it’s possible to be.(1) In reality, the Atos assessment is a limited non-medical assessment, that discounts all input from the patients’ GP and Consultants, and remains very high risk as it is based on the totally discredited Bio-Psychosocial Model(BPS) of disability(7) that totally disregards the diagnosis and prognosis of the benefit claimant.

However, behind the might of Atos Healthcare(AH) are government advisers Unum Insurance, introduced to the UK government in 1994 by Professor Mansel Aylward when Chief Medical Officer at the DWP, and who was to leave the DWP to become the first Director of the Unum Centre for Psychosocial Disability Assessment. Some years later, mounting public criticism forced the removal of Unum from the title of the Centre, but the Professor remains unrepentant. When known as Unum Provident Insurance, the company were identified as one of the most discredited corporate insurance giants in the United States(US)(8), and the ‘medical assessments’ undertaken by AH are alarmingly similar to those used by Unum for the assessments and denial of income protection insurance claims, as the Atos assessments also use the totally unacceptable and highly discredited BPS model of disability assessment.(8)

The US courts discredited Unum Provident’s “non-medical” model for assessing medical
conditions(8) yet successive UK governments adopted it to reduce the welfare budget, regardless of the human cost of this imported US medical tyranny. Now known as Unum Insurance, the company have rebranded periodically over the years, depending on the numbers of $multi-million fines imposed due to unacceptable medical assessment practice(9), and they offer income protection (disability) insurance but, as a company, have a disturbing past history of resisting paying out when an insured person hits hard times with illness, or the onset of a disability, and needs to make a claim.(8)(9)(10)(11)

Previously known as Unum Provident or First Unum, the company have been advising successive British governments since Thatcher was Prime Minister and this corporate giant, described as operating ‘disability denial factories’ inspired the research report: Atos Healthcare or Disability Denial Factories(1), as now accessed by welfare professionals throughout the UK. Indeed, Unum Insurance were identified in 2009, by the American Association for Justice, as being ‘one of the top two worst insurance companies in America’(8) yet have been involved, behind the scenes, with the DWP for almost 20 years.(9)(12)(14)(15)

Disturbing evidence of the eventual planned move from the British welfare state to the US style of welfare, to be funded by private insurance, was first exposed in the House of Lords during the welfare reform debates last year. Members of the noble House quoted from the detailed research report: Welfare Reform – Redress for the Disabled(9) as written at the request of noble members. Unsurprisingly, the government decided that all suggested amendments to the Welfare Reform Bill, hard won in the House of Lords, were to be disregarded due to the use of Financial Privilege(16) – an ancient authority of the House of Commons. Hence, this coalition government’s contempt for any challenge was complete, unstoppable, and demonstrably dangerous for the nation’s chronically sick and disabled population.(8)(9)

One of the reasons for Professor Aylward inviting the involvement of Unum Insurance was the DWP’s ultimate plan to follow the American lead in welfare, to identify such conditions as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome as a ‘psychological condition’ by using the BPS model of disability assessment and thus to, eventually, justify not funding welfare benefits for sufferers, as in the US.(17)(18)(19) Considering that, at the time of the introduction of Unum (Provident) Insurance to the British government by Professor Aylward, in 1994, Unum already had an atrocious reputation in the US for failing to fund payouts from the insurance policies they sold, one must wonder as to why their advice was so willingly accepted and adopted by all successive UK governments ever since… (1)(9)(17)(19)(20)

Within three months of leaving the DWP Professor Aylward, recently rewarded with a Knighthood for services to disability assessment, was appointed as the Director of the then named Unum Centre for Psychosocial Disability Research at Cardiff University and his appointment as the Centre’s Director led to the Professor’s appointment as the first ever Chair of Public Health in Wales.

Professor Sir Mansel Aylward is also a Director of the Health Claims Bureau(13), a private company involving Unum Insurance with the ‘medical assessment’ for claimants of income protection or disability insurance for industry. Yet, this assessment is virtually identical to the tyranny used by Unum (Provident) Insurance, as exposed by the Yale School of Law(21) when identified as the Unum Provident Scandal, and now copied by the UK government to remove helpless victims from State financial support.

To guarantee that Atos Healthcare remained confident about their purpose, Unum’s former Chief Medical Officer Mike O’Donnell crossed the Atlantic Ocean and was appointed as the new Chief Medical Officer for Atos Healthcare but, of course, both companies deny that there is any professional relationship between them.

None of this news will disturb a UK government that has now been warned against more benefit cuts by the United Nations(22) and who appear to be trying very hard to be removed from all responsibility under the European Court for Human Rights(23). Meanwhile, the Professor recently denied any knowledge of this medical tyranny when confronted by disability activists outside a lecture hall where he had been advising representatives from the insurance industry…..(24)

When previously known as Unum Provident Insurance, this US corporate insurance giant were actually banned from 15 States in America and 6 countries, worldwide, until 2008(1), when they again changed their name to become known simply as Unum Insurance. Someone, somewhere surely now needs to be asking the question as to why was this highly discredited corporate insurance giant ever invited to advise the British government about welfare reforms….?? Someone, other than investigative TV journalists(25), needs to be asking what was the ultimate goal, and who were to be the undoubted beneficiaries of this government funded medical tyranny, imported from America, against the most vulnerable people in our society?

Unum’s unacceptable influence with successive UK governments was recently exposed at the
Liberal Democrat Conference by the courageous young Mr George Potter.(26) If only the political leaders of the Liberal Democrats enjoyed some of the courage displayed by George Potter, millions of chronically sick and disabled people would no longer need to live in fear of this coalition government, that has totally failed to protect them, despite claims by Liberal Democrat leaders.

Copyright: Mo Stewart 27th October 2012

REFERENCES
(**) 32 die a week after failing test for new incapacity benefit:
http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2012/04/32-die-a-week-after-failing-in.html
(*) PM vows to get addicts into work: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13152349
(1) Atos Healthcare of Disability Denial Factories: http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosveterans.html#docs
(2)IPI:http://www.barlowrobbins.com/site/news/barlownews/income_protection_insurance_instead_of_statutory_sick_pay
(3) Welfare is a mess, says adviser David Freud: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/1577313/welfare-in-a-mess-says-adviser-David-
Freud.html
(4) CAB evidence on ESA work capability assessment: NOT WORKING: http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/not_working
(5) Disability test a ‘complete mess’ says expert: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/22/new-disability-test-is-a-complete-mess
(6) Atos wins £400m deals to carry out disability benefit tests: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/aug/02/atos-disability-benefit-tests
(7) A Tale of Two Models: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/jolly/A%20Tale%20of%20two%20Models%20Leeds1.pdf
(8) The Ten Worst Insurance Companies: The American Association for Justice (UNUM is listed as 2nd WORST insurance company in America) http://www.Denied-disability-claim.com/media/2009/02/tenworstinsurancecompanies.pdf
(9) Welfare Reform – Redress for the disabled: http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosveterans.html#docs
(10) Memorandum submitted to Prof Harrington: http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosmemowcayear3.html
(11) Unum and Business: http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosbusinessunum.html
(12) Mutual Benefits: Private Eye Issue 1301: http://www.private-eye.co.uk
(13) Health Claims Bureau Directors: http://www.hcbgroup.co.uk/pages/aboutus
(14) UNUM advises gvt: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmworpen/401/3021203/htm (Dec ’02)
(15) UNUM advises gvt: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmworpen/616/616we37.htm (Mar ’06)
(16)http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201212/cmhansrd/cm120201/debtext/120201-0001.htm#12020160000002
(17) Unum influence in the UK continues to wreck havoc: http://lindanee.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/unum-influence-in-the-uk-continues-towreck-
havoc/
(18) Downgrading disability: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/17021
(19) Welfare reform tyranny direct from the USA: http://lindanee.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/welfare-reform-tyranny-direct-from-the-usa-bymo-stewart/
(20) New evidence of corporate giant’s influence on welfare reform:
http://www.thefedonline.org.uk/federation-news/item/1451-new-evidence-of-corporate-giant%E2%80%99s-influence-on-welfarereform.
html
(21) The Yale School of Law: The Unum Provident Scandal & Judicial Review of benefit denials under ERISA:
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1483&context=fss_papers
(22) Budget cuts could downgrade UK rights watchdog’s UN status:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/oct/26/budget-cuts-rights-watchdog-un-status?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038
(23) The Equality and Human Rights Commission is being destroyed
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/coalition-destroy-equality-human-rights-commission
(24) An academic responds with disbelief to Aylward’s denial of responsibility:
http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2012/09/18/dwpatosunum-scandal-an-academic-responds-with-disbelief-to-professor-aylwardsstatement-
to-black-triangle-and-dpac-outside-the-ifdm2012-conference-on-11th-september-2012/
(25) Disabled or faking it? http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01lldrc/Panorama_Disabled_or_Faking_It/
(26) Liberal Democrat Conference: Party votes to review impact of welfare reform:
http://www.thefedonline.org.uk/component/k2/item/1820-liberal-democrat-conference-party-votes-for-review-of-impact-of-welfarereform.

And here’s George Potter speaking out at the LibDem Conference last year. I’m not a supporter of the LibDems but I take my hat off to him for having the bravery to criticise his own party at their own conference.

“The Hidden Agenda”: The Planned Destruction Of The Welfare State?

bs_Greetings_from_the_Welfare_State The report reproduced (with kind permission) below is a short summary of the vitally important research into the origin of the current government’s campaign against disability and incapacity benefits and the involvement of Unum (formerly UnumProvident) and ATOS.  This remarkably detailed  work was carried out over the last three years by former healthcare professional and disabled veteran, Mo Stewart*. Mo has worked relentlessly and determinedly, despite her own pain and fatigue, to bring together a vast amount of damning evidence against this cruel system which has and continues to bring misery and even death to people whose only ‘crime’ is to be chronically sick or disabled. What you are about to read below is but a tiny example of far, far more material some of which can be found on her website here or by following the links she provides in her reference list at the end of the articles.

*(Mo Stewart is a former healthcare professional, a disabled female veteran and, for the last 3 years, has researched the links between the DWP, Atos Healthcare & Unum Insurance. To date, the research evidence has been quoted during welfare debates in the House of Lords, the House of Commons and in Westminster Hall. Mo routinely shares all research evidence with academics, medical and healthcare professionals, frontline national charities, selected
politicians and service users.)

THE HIDDEN AGENDA: a research summary by Mo Stewart

(The Hidden Agenda © Mo Stewart – March 2013)

The Work Capability Assessment (WCA) is exclusively conducted on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) by the corporate giant Atos Origin IT Ltd Medical Services, better known as Atos Healthcare. This ‘non-medical assessment’ was introduced in 2008 by the Labour government, and was identified as a ‘medical examination’ to be used to identify genuine claimants for long term sickness and disability benefit. However, what was unknown at the time was the fact that the WCA was a continuation of the planned agenda of the previous Thatcher government, whose ultimate goal was the destruction of the Welfare State.(1) The WCA was promoted as a ‘fitness for work’ assessment for claimants of what was once known as Incapacity Benefit, now re-named as the Employment and Support Allowance.(ESA) In reality, in order to reduce the welfare budget, the WCA was designed to resist as many sickness benefit claims as possible regardless of confirmed and identified permanent illness or disability. By 2010 the planned DWP welfare budget reduction was deemed to be
too slow. The new Coalition Government enhanced the WCA and, following the previous Labour Government’s lead, it became much more difficult to qualify for the ESA(2) as the WCA totally disregarded diagnosis, prognosis or limited life expectancy.

Aided and abetted by the national press, using insidious press headlines to manipulate public opinion(3)(3b), the Coalition Government successfully introduced tyranny, fear and despair to the nation’s most vulnerable people, using a disability assessment model as designed in consultation with Unum [Provident] Insurance; one of the most discredited corporate insurance giants in the world.(4)(4b) At the same time, reported disability hate crimes in the United Kingdom(UK) were rising to record levels.(5) The first two years of independent research into the WCA concluded at the end of November 2011 with the
exposure of two government memorandums provided by Unum Provident Insurance.(6) Initially, the link between the UK welfare reforms and the likely move to an insurance based benefits system was identified by Baroness Tanni Gray-Thompson during the welfare reform debates in the House of Lords.(7) Nine months later, the link between Atos Healthcare and Unum Insurance was exposed by Kevin Brennan MP during debate in Westminster Hall(8) and, more recently, during an emergency Backbench Business debate in the House of Commons(HOC), Michael Meacher MP identified the possible influence of Unum Insurance with the UK Government.(9)

Of course, this destruction of the welfare state could never have been so readily achieved without the unelected former Labour adviser, David Freud. He was ennobled to permit appointment initially to the Shadow Cabinet but, following the 2010 General Election, he was appointed as the Minister for Welfare Reform for the Coalition where he has excelled. Indeed, one of Lord Freud’s most recent claims was that: “Poor people should be prepared to take more risks because they have the least to lose…”(11) Clearly, this man is yet another millionaire Minister who demonstrates no concern, and no comprehension, of human need.
The ongoing DWP medical tyranny, masquerading as welfare reform, has permitted Atos Healthcare to conduct the WCA by employing the totally discredited Bio-Psychosocial(BPS) model of disability assessment that remains free from all public accountability according to the General Medical Council and the Care Quality Commission. The BPS is the assessment model as used by Unum Insurance when assessing healthcare insurance claims, and it is also the assessment model enthusiastically promoted by Professor Sir Mansel Aylward. The Professor is the Director of the Centre for Psychosocial and Disability Research at Cardiff University, initially sponsored by Unum Insurance from its inception in 2003 to 2009.

However, prior to his move to the Centre, the Professor was the DWP’s Chief Medical Officer who, in 1994, was in post when Unum Insurance was invited to become corporate ‘advisers’ to the UK government.(12) Whilst the BPS model is an interesting theory, the selective use of the BPS model of disability assessment, as used by both Unum Insurance and Atos Healthcare, was exposed long ago as an invention of the insurance industry.(13)(14) By concentrating on the psychological model of disability, to the detriment of the social model, the WCA was always destined to promote unacceptable results for many thousands of ESA claimants. In one six month period alone 37,100 people had waited up to a year to have their ESA benefit reinstated following appeal, yet no-one is asking what would have happened to these genuinely sick and disabled people if they had not had the strength to pursue their claim to appeal?(10)

Indeed, a recent Panorama documentary: ‘Disabled or Faking It’,(15) demonstrated quite categorically the dangers of the WCA with seriously ill patients, diagnosed with life threatening conditions such as heart failure and end stage emphysema, being found fit for work.(15) However, with the national press still refusing to expose the identified influence of Unum Insurance with the DWP welfare reforms, the British public remain in ignorance as the government covertly convert the UK welfare state into the American healthcare system, ultimately to be funded by private insurance.(12)(13)(14) Meanwhile, Unum Insurance is happy to continue to offer new careers to former government ‘advisers’. (16) The WCA is an American imported ‘disability assessment model’ and has no medical credibility whatsoever, as confirmed by the British Medical Association(17), yet it is enthusiastically employed by the DWP and causes devastation to those least able to protest. This ‘medical assessment’ is working very well as the thousands of genuine claimants that have either died, committed suicide, been forced into poverty due to mounting debt, or who have developed a mental health problem due to anxiety are now the disregarded victims.(10)

Many had been in receipt of Incapacity Benefit before being re-assessed by Atos Healthcare, using the fatally flawed WCA, only to fail to qualify for benefit following ‘assessment’. The Internet provides evidence to this government imposed suffering at a cost to the tax-payer of £110million per annum for the confidential Atos contract and an estimated £60 million pounds per annum, and rising, for the costs of the appeal tribunals. Yet, still, Members of Parliament (MP) continue with their very courteous and diplomatic debates(8)(9) as the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and, especially, their corporate partners all celebrate the ongoing planned destruction of the welfare state that appears to be unstoppable.

What is still disregarded is the fact that Professor Sir Mansel Aylward’s research activities were funded for six years by Unum Insurance.(12) Indeed, due to his significant contribution to the future reduction of the DWP welfare budget by promoting the use of a ‘non-medical’ assessment, the Professor was rewarded with a Knighthood for “services to disability assessment.” Therefore, his support for the BPS disability assessment model was presumed to be guaranteed. Yet, when confronted six months ago, the Professor actually confirmed that he now considered the BPS model to be “unsatisfactory” and that he believed it “no longer addresses the real needs of disabled people and the exclusion of disabled people from society”.(18) Of course, the question remains as to why there was no official DWP announcement following this amazing change of ‘expert’ professional opinion, as the entire national press totally disregarded the press release that was distributed last September following Sir Mansel’s unexpected statement. Perhaps the Professor was safe in the
knowledge that the press release would be ignored, and perhaps this is why he continues to travel widely, still lecturing about the virtues of the totally discredited BPS model of disability assessment? The most recent lecture was at the Health and Wellbeing at Work Conference in Birmingham, from 5th-6th March 2013,(19) where Professor Sir Mansel Aylward was listed as a keynote speaker on the subject of: The New Public Health Agenda: Its Impact on Health and Wellbeing at Work. Given the title of his speech, one can only presume that the Professor has yet to advise other professionals of his reported change of expert opinion.(18)

This is how the UK welfare state will be destroyed. There is a BPS ‘expert’ in place, and an American corporate insurance giant has influenced the UK Government to totally disregard human suffering, in favour of a reduced welfare budget, using an identified bogus ‘medical assessment’. Unum Insurance have begun their mass marketing to encourage able bodied members of the British public to invest in their ‘Income Protection Insurance’ or their ‘Back-up Plan,’ that’s only available via the workplace, and these are the healthcare insurance policies that the company has historically tried very hard to resist funding when a claim is made.(20)(21) Given that the unacceptable practice of Unum Insurance was previously exposed by MPs during a House of Commons debate in 1999(22), the question remains as to why was this highly discredited American corporate insurance giant ever permitted to influence UK welfare reforms and why the national press, en masse, refuse to expose this insurance company’s confirmed influence despite it being identified by a BBC News report in 2007?(23)

The recent exposure of a 2005 internal Unum report, that actively boasted that the company was ‘driving government thinking’ regarding the reform of Incapacity Benefit (24) leads to the much more sinister possibility that the DWP are simply administrators of these brutal welfare reforms, and that the perpetrators of the devastation caused to the victims of this UK government funded medical tyranny are, in fact, Unum Insurance. Michael O’Donnell was the author of the 2005 internal Unum report that was written when he was the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) for Unum Insurance. Michael O’Donnell is now the CMO for Atos Healthcare…..

The difficulty remains that no-one is asking the relevant questions. Perhaps MPs should be asking the Prime Minister why he’s been funded by ‘healthcare companies’ to the value of £750,000(27) since he became Prime Minister (25) or why every report produced by the President of the Appeal Tribunals, all of which identified the Atos Healthcare WCA assessments as “failing to coincide with reality”, was totally disregarded by the DWP? (12)
Until and unless more significant questions are asked in the House of Commons, victims of this government funded medical nightmare will be forced to turn to the law for help, just as in America.(26)

Until and unless the national press demonstrate that the UK really does benefit from a free press, and not a government controlled press, the most vulnerable of all British people will continue to suffer and the British public will continue to be deceived.(12)

References:
1) Margaret Thatcher’s role in plan to dismantle welfare state revealed:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/dec/28/margaret-thatcher-role-plan-to-dismantle-welfare-state-revealed
(2) Cuts to UK benefits: http://www.centreforwelfarereform.org/library/type/text/cuts-to-uk-benefits.html
(3) ‘Ello, John, got a new Motability motor? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2047593/Motability-schemes-starting-resemble- worst-excesses-Arthur-Daley-.html
(3b) Half a million incapacity benefit claimants are fit for work, Government’s own figures show: Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2115476/A-incapacity-benefit-claimants-fit-work-Government-s-OWN-figures show. html#axzz2JqkmNFAR
(4) New York Attorney General Spitzer’s ruling: http://www.insure.com/articles/healthinsurance/unum-settlement.html
(4b) The Ten Worst Insurance Companies in America – The American Association of Justice
http://www.justice.org/docs/tenworstinsurancecompanies.pdf
(5) Hate crimes against disabled people soar to a record high:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/hate-crimes-against-disabled-people-soar-to-a-record-level-7858841.html
(6) The truth behind welfare reforms: http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosveteransreport20111120.html
(7) BnsTanni Gray-Thompson: House of Lords, welfare reforms
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/110913-0002.htm
(8) Private Members’ Debate: Atos Healthcare: 4th Sept 2012
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm120904/halltext/120904h0001.htm
(9) Backbench Business: Atos Work Capability Assessment debate: 17th Jan 2013
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130117/debtext/130117-0002.htm
(10) British people are committing suicide to escape poverty. Is this what the State wants?
http://poultonblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/03/people-are-choosing-suicide-to-escape-poverty-is-this-the-states- final-solution.html
(11) Lord Freud’s welfare ‘lifestyle’ comments show ‘nasty party is back’, say Labour:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9698985/Lord-Freuds-welfare-lifestyle-comments-show-nasty-party-is-back-say-Labour.html
(12) Government use might of American insurance giant to destroy UK welfare safety net – update 27th Oct : http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosveteransreport20121027.html
(13) An academic responds to statement by Prof Aylward:
http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2012/09/18/dwpatosunum-scandal-an-academic-responds-with-disbelief-to-professor-aylwardsstatement- to-black-triangle-and-dpac-outside-the-ifdm2012-conference-on-11th-september-2012/
(14) A Tale of Two Models: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/jolly/A%20Tale%20of%20two%20Models%20Leeds1.pdf
(15) Panorama: Disabled or Faking It?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01lldrc/Panorama_Disabled_or_Faking_It/
(16) Peter Dewis: Steppin’ Sideways from Government to Unum:
http://downwithallthat.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/peter-dewis-steppin-sideways-from-government-to-unum/
(17) GPs call for work capability assessment to be scrapped:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/23/gps-work-capability-assessment-scrapped
(18) Former DWP medical boss makes WCA pledge to protesters:
http://disabilitynewsservice.com/2012/09/former-dwp-medical-boss-makes-wca-pledge-to-protesters/
(19) Health and Wellbeing at Work Conference, NEC Birmingham: http://www.healthatwork2013.co.uk/
(20) “The denial on the part of Unum in the Mondolo case appears to mirror denials of other Unum disability claims historically, going back several years. To that end, the Court noted Unum’s history of biased claims administration.” (MARCH 2013)
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/first_unum/unum-lawsuit-insurance-disability-claims-12-18506.html?utm_expid=3607522-
0&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lawyersandsettlements.com%2Flegal-news-articles%2Fcase%2Ffirst_unum%2F
(21) CBS News 60 minutes: DID INSURER CHEAT DISABLED CLIENTS:
(see below)
(22) Permanent Health Insurance debate, Westminster Hall, 21st December 2009
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/vo991221/halltext/91221h01.htm#91221h01_head0
(23) BBC Ten ‘o Clock News report: 6th Nov 2007 http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/UNUM_on_BBC_News_061107.wmv (BBC NEWS report – video)
(24) Unum bragged about ‘driving government thinking’ on incapacity benefit reform:
http://disabilitynewsservice.com/2013/02/unum-bragged-about-driving-government-thinking-on-incapacity-benefit-reform/
(25) MPs’ links are so unhealthy: http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/378233/MPs-links-are-so- unhealthy
(26) High Court rules Work Capability Assessment arguably unlawful:
http://disabilitynewsservice.com/2012/07/victory-in-first-stage-of-fitness-for-work-court-case/
(27) NHS reform leaves Tory backers with links to private healthcare firms set for bonanza:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nhs-reform-leaves-tory-backers-105302

images (1) Now watch the US video below (referenced above) and compare what is being described with what people are experiencing here in Britain at the hands of the DWP and its sidekick ATOS…chilling?

Pride Comes Before A Fall: Problems With Universal Credit Could Leave IDS With Egg On His Face.

Fee-for-use-Iain-Duncan-Smith-1797134 In yesterday’s Observer Iain Duncan Smith once again boasted about how proud he was of his precious welfare reforms. Instead of addressing the very real and totally legitimate criticisms of his performance so far he pointed to the fact that the DWP had delivered their programme of torture on time:-

… we already have a proud record of achievement… We promised a benefit cap and it began, on time, in April in four London areas. It will be completely rolled out by September. We introduced the new personal independence payment as planned and on time. Automatic enrolment started last year, and now 1 million people have been registered into a workplace pension. People are using our Universal Jobmatch website for more than 5m job searches a day. Our Work Programme has launched and the industry tells us that so far 321,000 people have found a job through it.I am proud of this record.

sick  How any decent, sane human being can ignore the thousands of lives that have been devastated by his policies or refuse to acknowledge the deaths and suicides that can be directly linked to his actions is totally beyond my comprehension. Why a newspaper like the Observer gave him the space to make those comments is also a  mystery to me. And his refusal to undertake an impact assessment of the effect he’s had on the lives of disabled people simply shows that he doesn’t want to know. The only conclusion you can draw from this is that he’s irresponsible, unprofessional and should never be allowed to ‘serve’ as a politician again.

shoes But as usual the odious Mr Smith is not giving us the true picture about the DWP’s performance when it comes to the progress of Universal Credit. There are huge problems with it. Two aspects stand out here. The first is to do with their badly thought through devotion to ‘digital by default’. This report from Public Net published today shows that the DWP have overestimated the number of people who will be able to claim the benefit online. The potential for chaos is tremendous.

UNIVERSAL CREDIT PILOTS REVEAL CHALLENGES FACING BENEFIT CLAIMANTS

Headlines: July 29th, 2013

Many benefit claimants will struggle to meet the requirement of the new welfare arrangements which are due to be introduced from October 2013 with the launch of universal credit. Pilot schemes started last year by councils have revealed the scale of the difficulty many claimants will experience.

Universal credit will require all claimants to submit claims on line. Although 86 per cent of the UK population have access to the internet, the pilots have found that in the case of benefit claimants it is closer to 60 percent. Theoretically claimants can use facilities in libraries to submit claims, but they don’t visit libraries and they need support to cope with the technology and with the benefit processes. Some pilots are experimenting with providing access points in council premises and with staff on hand to support the claimants. Other pilots are exploring various approaches to improving access but have found it difficult to encourage take up.

Universal credit will roll up all benefits into a single payment which will be made directly to the claimant. This will meant that currently where some housing benefit is paid to landlords, in future it will be paid directly to the claimant. The pilots have revealed that many social housing tenants have problems with debt and rent arrears which might compound possible problems with personal budgeting.

Some councils have found a reluctance from customers to take part in budgeting and financial training in group sessions. It is thought the reluctance is due to the stigma of engaging in sessions which may highlight personal debt and rent arrears issues. The uptake of group financial education sessions in some authorities has been so low that sessions have been cancelled. This evidence is mirrored in the Direct Payment Demonstration Pilot areas.

Different approaches are being used to support personal budget management. They include sessions in smaller community groups and collaborating with partner organisations. Changing the welfare culture, which universal credit seeks to achieve, is a mammoth undertaking and it raises issues which must be addressed to bring success. While solutions to the problems are available, they will need time and funding on a scale which has probably not been foreseen in the implementation plan.

global race  The second report is potentially more damaging since it concerns the IT system that’s being developed to allow Universal Credit to be calculated. Because it combines all previous benefits into one package claimant information has to be gathered from HMRC systems and the system used by local authorities to calculate Housing Benefit. It seems they’ve messed up and now need to start from scratch. With the next roll out due in only two month’s time (October) its looking increasingly unlikely that even the six centres that are earmarked for the next stage will be able to cope. These computing problems were highlighted earlier in the year but in typical IDS fashion our SoS shrugged them off and refused to acknowledge that his ‘baby’ wouldn’t be born on time. Again Public Net have the story:-

UNIVERSAL CREDIT AMBER RED-RATING VINDICATED

Headlines: July 15th, 2013

Last year’s Government review conclusion that the Universal Credit project should be rated as amber/red because its successful delivery was in doubt and urgent action was needed, has been proved to be correct. Current trialling of the system with simple claims has revealed failings and there is to be a new design for dealing with the more complex claims.

Universal Credit will simplify the benefits system, improve work incentives and reduce fraud and error. It will replace income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance; income-related Employment and Support Allowance; Income Support; Child Tax Credits; Working Tax Credits and Housing Benefit.

The Universal Credit project is being tested in 2 areas of the north-west, with another 2 starting later this month. The pathfinder trial is restricted to new claimants who are specially selected. Despite this narrowing of usage, it is understood that significant manual input by officials is required to verify accuracy and deal with other problems.

This assessment of the pathfinder is supported by the announcement that the next stage of development in October will be restricted to 6 additional job centres. The original project plan was for all new claims for out-of-work support to be treated as claims to universal credit from October 2013.

A potentially more serious aspect of the project is how the system interacts with Real Time Data System which includes information about earnings of claimants from HMRC. It appears that this element of the system design has been scrapped and it is now ‘back to the drawing board’. The official line about this re-think is that there is a need to explore enhancing the IT for Universal Credit working with the Government Digital Service.

The need for a re-think is unsurprising, because the universal credit system design was completed prior to the emergence of the Real Time Data System. Pressing on with the system design without knowing what the final integration requirements would be, involved many assumptions. This was a high risk strategy which proved unsustainable.

Re-writing this element of the system will take time and the trialing of in work claims cannot start until it is possible to use information from the Real Time Data System. Getting the IT system to perform effectively is only one of the major risks to the success of the project. The cultural transformation involving claimants moving to a digital service will be difficult to achieve. In a move to promote this transformation 20,000 Job centre Plus advisers will be involved in a training scheme and ten pilots will test how to best encourage claimants to progress in work.

6a00d8341d417153ef0133f5d6b4ef970b-550wi   Mr Smith’s plans to get everyone including the terminally ill and profoundly disabled working to make Cameron’s pipe dream of winning the ‘global race’ come true seem to be nothing more than pie in the sky. The tragedy is by pursuing their hopeless policies this government are causing misery and death.

Tower Hamlets’ Council Speaks for All LA’s About DWP Failings

_52802919_52802918 Back in February this year the London Borough of Tower Hamlets submitted evidence to the Communities and Local Government Select Committee outlining the difficulties it was having in supporting vulnerable families who were suffering the impact of welfare reforms. Their evidence is reproduced below, It speaks for all Local Authorities struggling to cope with the fallout of Iain Duncan Smith’s precious baby, welfare reform.

Housing-Crisis-Continues-001 Tower Hamlets was dubbed an ‘Islamic Republic’ by the Telegraph back in 2010 after it elected  Lutfur Rahman as mayor. In a 2012 local election the Tories expressed concern that that there had been vote rigging and electoral fraud.

1315088493-edl-fail-to-demonstrate-in-tower-hamlets--london_815479 Perhaps because Tower Hamlets has a big Muslim community it has been a magnet for extreme right wing groups such as the English Defence League whose recent attempt to hold a rally in the borough was thankfully successfully blocked by concerned residents of all creeds. Its a close knit community and a community that is suffering badly thanks to benefit caps and bedroom tax. In this sense it has a lot in common with many more Local Authority areas in the UK so the evidence its councillors presented to the Select Committee could have come from anywhere in the country. Here’s what Tower Hamlets said,

HC 833 Implementation of Welfare Reform by Local Authorities

Written submission from the London Borough of Tower Hamlets (IWR 49)

The London Borough of Tower Hamlets welcomes the Communities and Local Government Committee inquiry on the implementation of welfare reform by local authorities, and the opportunity to respond.

As Service Head for Corporate Strategy and Equality I oversee the Tower Hamlets Welfare Reform Task Group. This Task Group brings together officers from across Council departments, including Housing Options and Benefits, as well as health partners, advice agencies, housing providers and Job Centre Plus.

The close working of this group allows us to stay abreast of all critical developments around welfare reform and ensures we are able to work across the partnership. It also allows us to draw on a wide range of expertise and experience, from how we inform our residents to monitoring the impact of the changes.

Our submission reflects the expertise across the Welfare Reform Task Group and although I am its primary author, I credit the work of my colleagues in enabling us to submit this comprehensive response.

1. Executive Summary

1.1 Inner London, and Tower Hamlets in particular, are particularly impacted by welfare reform due to high housing costs, low wages relative to the cost of living and barriers to employment.

1.2 The Council and its partners have real concerns that for some families the impact will be increased hardship which is likely to increase pressure on already stretched public and voluntary services locally.

1.3 In particular, we are not sure that the potential impact of a policy such as the national cap, unrelated to local rent levels, on high rent areas such as inner London has been fully considered.

1.4 The somewhat arbitrary nature of the cap, impacting those on sickness benefits, or those caring for them, and those exempt from seeking work due to responsibilities for young children as well as those fit for and seeking work, is a particular concern.

1.5 Our evidence is that it does have a differential impact on black and minority ethnic and female-headed households and that its equality impact should be further reviewed with this in mind.

1.6 We also have concerns about how the impact of the benefit cap on council finances, both directly through our duty to those who are found homeless, and indirectly through the pressure that increased hardship or forced moves amongst families, will put on services such as schools, social care, health and mental health provision, amongst others. Whilst difficult to quantify at this time, it will be important to explore further whether these new pressures and the impact it will have on the 1600 households and nearly 5000 children, will outweigh any savings achieved by the cap.

1.7 Other changes such as the localisation of Council Tax Support and localisation of the Social Fund will bring additional administrative burdens to the Council. It is difficult to see how devolving these very similar processes and having them run separately within separate authorities, potentially requiring a myriad of new IT systems and processes, can be cost effective overall.

1.8 More generally, we have been disappointed in the quality of information and guidance that has been forthcoming from the DWP in enabling us to deal effectively with these changes. Greater sharing of information about those to be affected or, in the case of the Social Fund about current caseloads and recipients, would have helped us prepare better for these new burdens.

1.9 Within these difficult circumstances, we have found real commitment within our authority and amongst our partners in registered housing providers, third sector advice agencies, health and Job Centre Plus, in working with us to ensure the implementation of these changes is as smooth as possible and that those affected are informed and supported to prepare. The extent of work we have done in this field has been identified as amongst the most comprehensive in London and we would like to take this opportunity to share with the Committee this material which is all available on our local Council website atwww.towerhamlets.gov.uk/welfarereform

Finance

2. Are local authorities being allocated sufficient resources to deliver services such as localised Council Tax Support and advice to claimants on Universal Credit?

2.1 We have significant concerns that sufficient resources are not being allocated to support this major change to the welfare system. Indeed resources are being cut back.

2.2 Reductions in funding include:

· 10% plus cut in award funding for Council Tax Support (CTS)

· DWP has recently informed the council that Housing Benefit (HB) / Council Tax Benefit (CTB) admin funding will be cut by almost £500,000 for 2013/2014. (Circular HB/CTB A5/20012)

2.3 In addition, there are significant other resource pressures:

· We believe there is a risk of significant further reduction in Government admin subsidy funding to local authorities.

· The rationale for this would be that local authority admin requirements would reduce in line with the number of HB claims lost to Universal Credit. However, our analysis in Tower Hamlets shows that there will not be a significant reduction in caseload and assessments when HB migrates to UC.

· We also currently operate a joint HB/CTB processing system and the complexity of CTS assessments will remain on par with CTB assessment (and possibly more complicated).

· We therefore doubt that significant savings in respect of admin will be realised.

2.4 Lack of clarity about future funding: Considering the new burdens being faced by local authorities through the implementation of the various welfare reforms, it is yet unclear whether:

· The CLG / DWP have undertaken an analysis of the resource pressures and new burdens local authorities are facing and will continue to face.

· Funds will be made available to reflect this additional resource requirement, what the rationale for the apportionment would be and how much local authorities will be allocated.

3. Are there financial risks to local authorities from Welfare Reform changes? Are such risks being adequately addressed?

3.1 Benefits Cap: The most significant resource challenge for local authorities, primarily those in London, will not be the implementation of localised council tax support or advice on Universal Credit, but mitigating, as much as possible, the severe impact of the Benefits Cap.

3.2 Based on DWP scan data around 1600 households in Tower Hamlets will have a shortfall in benefit payments following the introduction of the cap. The average loss will be £103 per week (£6,706 per annum). The households affected include nearly 5000 children who will be impacted, at threat of losing their homes.

3.3 Tower Hamlets has implemented a number of actions to mitigate the impact of the cap including:

· Borough wide awareness campaigns of the changes

· Personalised joint housing options / employment advice visits to every household who is at ‘high’ and ‘medium’ risk

· A series of high profile drop in roadshow events (“Money Matters Month”) providing advice to over 600 residents in one month

· A short welfare reform video, booklet and practitioners guide

· Ongoing training for council, housing provider and partnership staff

· A rich number of resources for residents and practitioners on our website: www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/welfarereform

3.4 Despite these activities, we still envisage a large impact on a significant number of households across the borough.

3.5 In Tower Hamlets some of the biggest losers are black and minority ethnic families and single parent households, usually headed by women. We have concerns about the extent to which the equalities impact of this policy was fully assessed and considered before implementation.

3.6 Our biggest concern is about the human impact of this change on some of our most vulnerable residents. There will also be consequent financial risks to the local authority which include:

· Cost to the local economy: Based on DWP scan data the estimated total loss to Tower Hamlets residents in lost benefit payments due to the cap will be approximately £8.5m per annum which will have a serious impact on the affected households. As spending patterns are not entirely clear, it is difficult to calculate what percentage of this loss will be felt in the local economy, but the overall loss is likely to be significant, potentially exacerbating depressed demand, increasing debt and reducing local economic growth.

· Temporary accommodation costs: There are currently 450 households living temporary accommodation due to homelessness who will be affected by the cap. The Housing Benefit lost to these claimants has been calculated to be £3.27m per annum. The Council has a duty to house these residents. Tower Hamlets Council will be forced to meet these costs unless able to find alternative and less costly housing options for these families.

· Lack of affordable housing options: There are no private rented options within the borough or within most of the neighbouring boroughs which will be affordable to families affected by the benefits cap. The average rent for a two bedroom property in the Tower Hamlets is £350 per week, and a four bedroom is £524 per week as of March 2012, in itself over the £500 per week cap. The Council will therefore have little choice but to consider rehousing homeless families outside of the borough, and potentially some distance from families, disrupting communities, schools and support networks.

· Increase in homelessness: On top of those families already homeless and in temporary accommodation, there are a further 460 households currently in the private sector who will be affected by the cap. The average shortfall for these families is £104 per week (very slightly above the £103 average for all types of dwelling. The loss for those in the private sector is above a £79 average weekly shortfall for those renting in Housing Association dwellings and below the £143 shortfall for families in homeless accommodation). They are unlikely to be able to negotiate lower rent levels with their landlords or find alternative local housing solutions. Many will find themselves in rent arrears and subject to eviction, leading to further homelessness applications to the Council.

· The cost of rehousing: There is a massive human cost in re-housing families out of the borough – with the loss of support networks and community ties. There are also potential hidden financial costs to the public purse which may outweigh benefits savings. For example, many provide or rely on informal care from families and these costs may in future fall to the state. Allocating new schools, new GPs, new addresses, new practitioner contacts and of course new housing are all additional costs relating to rehousing some of the most vulnerable residents in society.

· Increased demand for emergency support: Those affected by the cap will face the sharp dilemma of paying their rent or feeding their families and heating their homes. Local authorities who will from April be delivering the Social Fund face a potential significant increase in demand for these, and for other payments including child care costs and discretionary housing payments. Our whole Localised Social Fund budget is currently £1.4m compared to an estimated benefit shortfall of £8.5 million. There are also additional administrative costs related to the localised Social Fund which each individual council is having to bear, calling into question the efficiency and rationale of devolving the Social Fund.

3.7 Planning for these risks is hampered by:

· Lack of information and funds from CLG / DWP making it difficult for Tower Hamlets to plan accordingly for the forthcoming changes, and to enable us to attempt to maintain the current level of service provision

· The timetable for implementation is too tight to ensure enough support is given to residents to cope with changes – both rehousing and finding employment solutions for vulnerable residents take time.

· There has been little or no information about the historic demand for Social Fund payments (i.e. who is demanding what and why) making planning and effective delivery of the new Localised Social Fund more challenging and less efficient.

Housing

4. How will the separation of the administration of Council Tax Benefit and Housing Benefit affect claimants?

4.1 LBTH, like most Local Authorities are committed to maintaining a seamless service in respect of both Housing Benefit and Council Tax Support, whist the Council retains responsibility for the administration of HB.

4.2 This is being achieved in the following ways:

· Initially involving the retention of a single application form and joint HB/CTB processing via integrated ICT processing systems which issue separate award notifications.

· In addition to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit the application form also incorporates an application for education and welfare benefits.

· Currently recipients of ESA(IR), IS, and JSA(IB) are passported to full HB/CTB without LA’s having to enquire further regarding any other income they may have. However, the inclusion of Housing Benefit within Universal Credit and the fact that it is impossible to separate and disregard the Housing Cost element of the final Universal Credit award, means that “passporting” will not be possible and this is likely to complicate the Council Tax Support assessment process.

4.3 Local Authorities will have significant difficulty replicating the passported provision inherent in the current HB and CTB schemes. This means that a relatively streamlined, joined-up process currently faced by claimants is likely to be significantly complicated in the future.

4.4 It is also likely to increase the assessment requirement for Council Tax Support – meaning claimants will have to complete separate forms and provide information to both the DWP and to the Council.

4.5 Universal Credit is being designed to be One Benefit and One Payment and CTB local schemes are likely to closely resemble the benefits incorporated within UC. The rationale for operating a local CTS scheme independent of Universal Credit has therefore not been made clear.

5. How significant an issue is housing benefit fraud under the proposed new system and what measures are being taken to address it?

5.1 Tower Hamlets has a number of mechanisms in place to prevent fraud. The investigations team works closely with other agencies including other departments within our council, other councils, the Department for Work and Pensions, the police and members of the public to ensure incidents of fraud are continuously addressed.

5.2 The committee may want to consider how media coverage remains overwhelmingly negative with regards to those receiving benefit payments. A report by Turn2us, part of the poverty charity Elizabeth Finn, illustrates the level of disinformation here [1] . This amount of disinformation can have a negative impact on the quality of the debate on welfare reform, and the subsequent solutions to challenges around welfare.

6. Are there sufficient safeguards to protect social landlords from financial harm resulting from the payment of housing benefit direct to claimants?

6.1 Social landlords have considerable concerns about the payment of benefit direct to claimants.  Residents as well as their landlords will face considerable pressures as a result. The full scale of the impact has not yet been clarified – the pilots have not reported in sufficient detail to be able to take a view on the risk to rental income and that in itself is a worry. However, there are some key areas where social landlords do have concerns:

6.2 Impact on Landlords

· The increase in transaction costs decreases provider income which is used to invest in homes and services.  That income will instead be paid to the companies such as AllPay or the Post Office or the banks who facilitate the transactions.

· Feedback from partner landlords suggests that all are increasing the resources we spend on supporting residents and chasing arrears – at the expense of improving homes and services to residents – this is on top of the pressure on income should arrears start to increase

· We still don’t know how the courts will view arrears cases which are as a result of these changes – guidance to the courts from the Government would be useful.

· We would suggest that the level of arrears necessary to trigger a direct payment needs to be low enough such that there is a realistic prospect of the arrears being paid in a reasonable timescale and servicing the arrear is not significantly onerous on the tenant.

6.3 Impact on claimants

· Many of our residents are vulnerable to financial abuse, from legal and illegal lenders – we will need to provide additional services to identify and support these residents as otherwise this cash will be diverted to their abusers and we will end up pursuing arrears. Locally, we have a financial inclusion network which is seeking a range of ways to increase local people’s skills in managing money and avoiding debt, but the level of change associated with welfare reform is likely to significantly increase demand on these resources.

· Once direct payments are introduced, many residents may also be more open to abuse from family members and acquaintances. With the payment going to the notional head of household it will put many already vulnerable residents – particularly but not exclusively women – more dependent on their abusers and so more trapped in abusive relationships with the associated risks. Residents are also considering moving back in with abusive family members as a consequence of falling incomes because of the cap.

· We would suggest that the Committee seriously consider recommending a change to this aspect of the policy, specifically where a tenant wants to have their rent paid direct to their landlord they should be able to request this at the outset.  If it is an informed choice then we do not see how this would undermine the Government’s publicised intent that people should take responsibility for their finances.

Employment

7. What impact have Welfare to Work schemes had, or are likely to have, on the numbers of benefit claimants?

7.1 Our contact with our affected families in temporary accommodation, coupled with discussions with Job Centre Plus, local employment support agencies and housing providers have stated that the overwhelming majority of those affected by the cap and not in work are unlikely to be able to move easily into work.

7.2 This is often because of childcare responsibilities and/or childcare costs make it financially unviable for lower earners. Nearly half (46%) of those affected by the cap in Tower Hamlets are single parents. Many of these have children under 5 and thus are not expected, even within new stricter job seeking rules, to be available for work.

7.3 Other residents have poor health and are receiving Incapacity Benefit or Employment Support Allowance in reflection of this.

7.4 In the move from IB to ESA the Government has itself recognised that assisting long term claimants of sickness benefits is a long term approach which needs to be accompanied by training and support. There is no quick fix which will enable employment options to be realistic for those affected by the cap on implementation in April next year.

7.5 Often part time work is a useful option for those moving back into work following ill-health – but part time options below 24 hours will not exempt people from the benefits cap.

7.6 Even where those affected are available and looking for work, the lack of job opportunities, particularly in a job market hit by recession means finding employment is not a simple solution. In addition, many residents lack relevant competencies, which require significant additional investment in training and skills.

Other

8. Is the guidance available to local authorities from central government on implementing welfare reform adequate? Are there areas where more or better guidance is required?

8.1 In general, we have been disappointed about the level of information and guidance available to local authorities to implement these reforms. This includes:

8.2 A lack of information on the progress being made on Universal Credit implementation and likely timescales

8.3 A lack of information on the level of contingency funding available to help offset the impact of the reforms.

8.4 A lack of accurate information about numbers affected – the DWP scan produced to identify residents likely to be affected by the cap, appears to be flawed as it is not based on current data. We have received three different scans each with different numbers and names of those affected. We have worked with the DWP on these issue, but to help us identify errors with the scan it would be helpful if DWP were to publish their assessment formulae.

8.5 A lack of information with regard to local Social Fund administration – in particular DWP were extremely slow to publish statistics regarding current administration of the Social Fund and although figures have now been published on the DWP website, we feel it would be beneficial to visit the local DWP centre which processes Social Fund applications from LBTH residents. However, our requests have been refused, which is a pity as we feel this would be of more practical use than the regional and generalised Social Fund seminars being conducted by DWP.

8.6 DWP HB/CTB Circulars are less frequent and HB Direct does not provide the level of guidance we are seeking.

Methodology:

9. Is the Government’s timetable for implementing Welfare Reform achievable?

9.1 We believe it will be exceptionally difficult. The DWP have only recently set up specialist teams to deliver the benefits cap which will involve merging benefit streams to calculate the total. Effective UC delivery is likely to require the integration with HMRC’s RTI system, but developments on this have not been forthcoming

10. What evidence is there that local authorities are able to use effectively existing services or contracts for the delivery of new local Social Fund schemes

10.1 The new work to operate the Social Fund for Tower Hamlets will require additional claim handling and assessment staff and new systems. Workload planning is hampered by the lack of recent detailed information from DWP on the volume of applications and on the number, values and purposes of grants or loans.

10.2 We are evaluating potential suppliers of systems to administer the Social Fund, including some with whom we have an existing contract. However, it is very unlikely that we can make variations to a contract to encompass the Social Fund, given the potential value of the contract and the need to ensure best-value, fair and transparent procurement. This gives some concern in terms of the timescales to evaluate options and procure a system.

10.3 All of the potential suppliers are still developing their systems, so there is a risk that we may move to procure a system which is not ready for testing, training and adapting for local criteria in time for 1st April 2013.

10.4 Some council services, especially in the social work fields, already help people with their applications for Social Fund payments from the Job Centre, and we are working to ensure that this support will still be provided. However, it seems likely that there will be an increase in applications to the Social Fund, and there would be no additional resource in social work or in local advice agencies to provide support for higher numbers of applicants.


[1] Benefits Stigma: how newspapers report on welfare; Guardian Data Blog http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/nov/20/benefits-stigma-newspapers-report-welfare Accessed 11/12/2012

©Parliamentary copyright

Prepared 5th February 2013

250px-Canary.wharf.from.thames.arp As you can see Tower Hamlets council is pretty critical of the DWP. It seems that the DWP are not only reluctant to give us, the public, any clear and unambiguous information about their plans, but they also keep Local Authorities in the dark making it harder for them to plan ahead to help those in the most need – which they have a duty to do.

Personally, when people are vague and downright obstructive with me I tend to think they’re up to no good…so what is the DWP really up to?

The tangled web of DWP deception: Now They’re Spinning Lies with WCA Appeals Statistics.

45863_3952412343589_2005032144_n1

We’ve all heard about the enormous number of appeals made against the outcome of  Work Capability Assessments resulting from Atos’ completely unfit for purpose methodology.We’re all aware of the immense cost this has resulted in and the huge number of successful appeals which have overturned DWP decisions and caused embarrassment for the government. And I’m sure , like me, no-one has been too surprised by the attempts by DWP ministers to put a positive spin on the statistics in order to minimise this embarrassment by emphasising the numbers of unsuccessful appeals and playing down the successes.

What we have a right to expect, though, from a government department, is that they at least stick to the truth. Sadly, we’ve seen that this particular batch of DWP overlords seem to have big problems when it comes down to telling it like it really is. They have a truth deficit bigger than that of Osborne’s budget and it seems their version of what the appeals statistics mean  is no exception.

magnifying-glass  According to an excellent website called ilegal the DWP ‘s presentation of statistics on all aspects of WCAs is full of omissions and obfuscations leading to a completely false picture of the performance of this crucial part of their attack on the welfare state. The article presented on ilegal’s website is far too long to reproduce in full here so I want to simply focus on the section on appeals. If you want to read a very detailed account of all the DWP statistics on this subject which explains the figures in a way that even a mathematically challenged dunce like me could understand then you need to go here:-

http://ilegal.org.uk/thread/7816/esa-fit-work

Griffin+Cartoon       According to nickd who wrote the article on ilegal the DWP are claiming that 85%  of ESA decisions are correct, but this is based on incomplete information. The figures he quotes are as follows:-

Overall number of appeals/ reconsiderations against ESA decisions:        793,700

Of which there are –

Appeals/ reconsiderations with a known outcome:                  312,100

Appeals/ reconsiderations where outcome not yet known:     481,700

Of those 312,100 where the outcome is known –

Appeals (Tribunal) where DWP decision overturned:                  116,700

Reconsiderations where claimant moved back to WRAG:            73,300

TOTAL successes for claimants:                                                     190,000

TOTAL successes for DWP:                                                              122,100

piechart     These figures couldn’t be clearer and nickd extrapolated them from the DWP’s own fact sheets after close examination.  The key figure we need to concentrate on is the one relating to cases the DWP can claim as successes in terms of making an ESA decision that wasn’t challenged by the claimant. This figure, as we can see is 122,100.

So when the DWP claims it has got things right in 85% of decisions then we can reasonably expect them to be referring to this figure. But its pretty obvious that 122,100 is not 85% of either the overall number of appeals/ reconsiderations applied for i.e 793,700 of which it is a mere 15% or of the number of appeals/reconsiderations for which the out come is known, 312,100 of which it is a somewhat better 39%. It is, though, a long way short of the claimed 85%.

download  So where have the DWP’s devious spinners of tangled webs  of deception got this amazing statistic from? As far as I can see the following calculation is the only way they can have done it.

First of all its important to note that they are saying that 85% of ESA decisions appealed against are correct. They don’t mention reconsiderations by the DWP specifically.

So if you take the figure for successful Tribunal appeals – 116,700 – and express it as a percentage of the overall number of appeals i.e. both those whose outcome is known and those whose outcome is not yet known, 793,700, you get 15%. 

So, if 15% are successful using this overall figure you can then claim, by a simple subtraction, that  85%  of appeals at Tribunal must be unsuccessful for claimants.

ian-duncan-smith-teddy-bear

By conveniently failing to include the other 73,300 positive outcomes for claimants – the successful reconsiderations – and then expressing the smaller number of successful outcomes as a percentage of a much bigger overall total of appeals over half of which have not yet produced a known outcome and could well contain many more successes the wily DWP has managed to totally rearrange reality to make itself look good. That’s pretty dishonest in my book when they have to hand further entirely relevant data that they could and should have included in their analysis if they were sincere in wanting to provide the public with a true and transparent picture of how their policies are working. The only conclusion to be taken from this can be that they don’t want to be that transparent government that Francis Maude is supposedly devoting his time to achieve.

images (8)   This kind of dishonesty in government has now become the norm, it seems, with DWP ministers. When you think that someone working for this thoroughly corrupt department is being paid a wage with taxpayers’ money to produce this kind of propaganda in order to make ministers look good…and when you also think that the single underlying purpose of doing this is to give those ministers the means to justify being re-electing – basically for party political gain – when you consider this, you have to despair and wonder if we can ever rescue any kind of democratic process for our children and grandchildren.

So given this sorry state of affairs, I’d like to introduce a new term into our vocabulary to describe what  is now happening ….. the Toryfying of statistics.