Ongoing DWP Deception & Misrepresentation with WCA (1)

Not a surprise to many that this takes place, but I will continue to highlight examples as best I can to help you avoid the pitfalls and add to the fast growing body of data that exposes the underlying political dogma that lends itself to legal challenge at some point.

This post relates to the March 2011 decision to remove the bending and kneeling test/descriptor from the WCA, the reason given being that these movements are no longer a significant feature of the modern workplace.  Who says?

DWP’s response was that disability equality legislation has been in place for a number of years and this was enough to indicate that the descriptor changes were justified.  They directed me to a couple of reports that would apparently explain the detail and provide the corresponding evidence.

They did nothing of the kind and one even pointed out that overall, there had been deterioration in compliance with the law since 2005!  More ironic was the fact that in the first few pages, DWP has printed is standard disclaimer saying that the view expressed in the report are not necessarily supported by DWP.
If this is the best “evidence” they have, God forbid, but they have been unable to provide anything better to justify the descriptor change.  All this proves of course is that the REAL motivation is coming from political dogma NOT sound scientific evidence – something many know or suspected already.

Sooner or later, this continual drip, drip, drip of undermining and disproving the propositions on which policies have supposedly been based will expose the sham for what it is and bring about the obvious and simple change of direction needed.

12m limit to contribution-based ESA - a response to FoI Request on impact

“If this proposal takes effect in April 2012 as planned, how many claims are expected to cease on implementation a)completely and b)but switch to another benefit payment? Best estimates please.”

It is estimated that approximately 100,000 claimants will lose entitlement to contributory ESA in April 2012 as a result of the Government’s proposals to limit receipt of contributory ESA to one year for those in the Work Related Activity Group.   Of those 100,000, who may be affected immediately, an anticipated 60% are expected to be fully or partially compensated by income-related ESA so will retain entitlement to ESA. The remaining 40% will no longer receive ESA benefit payments, but will be able to retain National Insurance credits by becoming an ESA credits-only claimant. They may also see increases in other benefits such as tax credits and Housing Benefit. 

The Department published an impact assessment for this proposal, available at the following link:

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/esa-time-limit-wr2011-ia-revised-apr2011.pdf

Evolution not revolution and not becoming too paranoid

The revolution needed to remove the vested interest that underpins the whole of society will not occur in my lifetime, so my approach is largely pragmatic and based on what buttons can be pressed and which nerves can be touched to at least edge things in the right direction.  The political regime in the UK may not be perfect, but I would prefer to be here rather than Syria. 

Whilst a huge conspiracy on a scale Dan Brown can only dream about has an intellectual and intuitive appeal, I have decided to set this aside, at least for the time being.  The purists amongst us will argue I am wasting my time as a fish decays from the head, but I am happy to climb the ladder one rung (or perhaps two) at a time.  I will try from this point on to avoid any more disgraceful metaphors.

My pragmatism is based on a belief in the “evidence-based” philosophy, so the potentially paranoid suggestion that the major charities et al have agendas that do not place the people they claim to represent at the very heart of what they do, needs some evidence to sustain it.  They clearly cannot do this every minute of every day, so we have to settle for something like “most of the time”.  We continually have to consider whether or not (despite their failings), we are better off with them than without them, or we will throw the proverbial baby out with . . . . . .(sorry, no more I promise).

Large conspiracies are very hard to arrange and require first class organisation and planning, which is usually absent from the very regimes we are accusing.  What looks like a concerted effort to do-down the needy is often therefore simply the result of well-meaning incompetence.

Of course the major charities need to consider self-preservation, which will force compromises from time to time, but at least for the time being, that’s the way the system works and to achieve any success in the short term we need to accept it and continue to exploit its weaknesses, which thankfully due to the poor organisation are not that hard to find.

The 12m time limit is something specific that needs to be challenged without doubt, but doing so does not imply anything other than a belief that it is wrong.  I don’t think for one minute that anyone wishing for its demise in any way regards people who have made no NI contributions any less worthy.

Contribution Based ESA - 12 month time limit impact assessment

The published IA is on the link http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/esa-time-limit-wr2011-ia-revised-apr2011.pdf

There are a few issues over its rigour:

Quote #1:

“It was never intended that ESA for those in the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG) should be paid for an unlimited period to people who, by definition, are expected to move towards the workplace with help and support.”

Who says so?  This needs to be supported by a clear policy statement elsewhere

Quote #2

“Government intervention is required to help ensure that ESA is paid for a temporary period for those placed in the WRAG, thereby encouraging a return to work and stopping people being trapped on benefits for a lifetime”.

The WCA determines who is and who isn’t fit for work and the frequency with which an individual attends allows their return to work in line with their recovery.  This does not cause them to be “trapped” (whatever that means) and there is therefore no justification to apply an arbitrary time limit other than simply to

a)      Save money

b)      Create a financial “back-stop” because the WCA is not working effectively.

Quote #3 – Policy Objectives

1.       “To ensure that ESA is paid for a temporary period thereby creating a culture that does not allow people to stay permanently in the WRAG, that they are expected to move towards work or into the Support Group if there is deterioration in their functional impairment.”

This can be automatically achieved through an effectively managed WCA programme – see above.

2.       “Simplification of the benefit system, better alignment of contributory ESA rules with contributory Jobseeker’s Allowance in the run up to the introduction of Universal Credit.”

There is no logic or sound basis for “aligning” ESA with JSA.  Being ill is NOT the same as being jobless.

[As an aside for ESA aficionados, UNUM quite openly declare they believe that sickness and disability are both hidden forms of unemployment.]

3.       “Reductions in social security spending to ensure that money is targeted on those most in need will help the UK's challenging fiscal position.”

Ah, so at last we have the real reason!

Quote #4 - What policy options have been considered? Please justify preferred option

1.      “Do nothing.

2.      Time limit contributory ESA for those in the WRAG to one year. “

Options around the coverage and length of the time limit were considered. One year was selected as the best balance between providing people claiming contributory ESA in the WRAG with enough support and reducing the cost of contributory ESA. It was decided to exclude customers in the ESA Support Group on the basis that they are the most severely disabled or terminally ill and therefore least likely to move into work.”

As you can see, there is no evidence-based information to support a 12 month limit, so it is completely arbitrary.

This section of the IA requires the preferred option to be justified.  The paragraph above does not constitute justification.  It does not, for example, explain why say 18 months is a poorer option.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/time_limit_contributory_esa_to_o