ID-S Deception - only telling half of the story

Ian Duncan-Smith regularly claims to have overwhelming public support for his welfare reforms, which might well be true, but if it is these opinions have not been based on the full story. So of course you will elicit support if you just ask the following questions: Q: Do you want to reduce the overall cost of benefit payments through improved efficiency? A: Damned right I do. Q: Do you want to focus on those with the greatest need? A: Yes, they deserve it Q: Do you want to stop benefit fraud? A: As quickly as possible. Q: Do you want to wheedle out those lazy so-and-sos who just don’t want to work? A: Yes, it’s high time they pulled their weight. Q: Do you want to see more efficient DWP administration? A: What do you think? Q: Well we have a plan that will do all of this, so do you want us to implement it? A: With all possible speed! But there will be consequences, which even if not thought through initially, are more than apparent now. So an open & honest supplement to the above would be: Well, unfortunately the plan is a bit rough and ready so, Q: Are you happy that we will make tens of thousands of decision errors and stop benefit payments whilst they are sorted out by HMCTS at huge cost to the taxpayer? This will create many months of financial hardship for those affected. A: Hang on a minute; I don’t like the sound of this. Q: Do you mind that in thousands of cases these errors will directly result in people’s health deteriorating and quite a few will die. A: In that case, no sorry the plan is not good enough – think again! I wonder how much of the support would fall away if he just told the whole story and made it clear what “price” he regards as acceptable – just how many deaths does would it take for him to change his approach? He really should be made to address this matter or state clearly that he thinks it is irrelevant. The end DOES NOT always justify the means.

Who Knows Best?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/8962647/Benefit-relief-for-cancer-patients.html

This article includes a couple of statements that appear frequently.  I have never really understood them, but they are important because they are used to justify much of what the Government is doing:

“The Government believes the system deters some patients from returning to work, even if they are physically able to do so and would find employment a helpful part of their recovery.

A report by Prof Malcolm Harrington, the government adviser on testing welfare claimants, said the “automatic entitlement” to the illness and disability benefit for cancer patients had been counterproductive, and led to patients becoming dependent on benefits, stigmatising cancer and causing employers to make poor decisions.“

·      Did the “old” system really deterred patients who can work and want to work from finding a job?

·      Have patients where working would be an important part of their recovery programme been denied the opportunity by “the system”?

·      Are there sick or disabled people who can work and want to work, but have allowed themselves unnecessarily to be sidelined and prevented from even trying to find a job?

·      Quite what “poor decisions” have employers been making and what would the “better decisions” have been?

To be honest, I don’t know, but I find it hard to believe. 

I’m sure by now that if there were droves of sick or disabled people wanting jobs but being denied the chance, it would have received far more publicity.  By the same token, it the current actions by the Government were striking a chord with these same people ( . . . . thank God they are at last doing something about it . . . ) we’d have heard much more support for the changes, when in fact I have seen nothing other than concern & criticism.

I have never trusted any unitary, highly prescriptive view of anything, as plausible as it may sound.  People are obviously not all the same and need individual consideration – one size does not fit all.    These sweeping generalisations are just a loosely veiled attempt by the Government to impose its will by convincing us it is in our best interests.  Thank you very much, but I’ll be the judge of that.

I have been through three WCAs and not once has anyone from Atos or DWP asked me what I would like to do.  Perhaps this would be a sensible first step in the right direction.

Articulate & Almost plausible, but based on nothing at all

http://www.channel4.com/news/new-benefit-system-dogged-by-endless-appeals

Probably the best TV report I have seen, as it at least gets a bit closer to the true issues.  However, Chris Grayling is still well off the mark,

His main argument was that the report was out of date and did not reflect the the changes implemented in May/June 2011.  I have had WCAs in Dec 2009, Feb 2011 & Sept 2009 and tha last one was the worst, not the best.

He also majored on the fact that Tribunals have more information than his Decision Makers, so it is not so surprising that they are often wrong.  The truth is that the DMs choose to ignore some of the information they do have available - this is certainly true in my case and has been confirmed through the TS's own reporting systems - DMs are simply not doing their jobs.

He clearly wants GPs out of the picture altogether - wrong on every level and a recipe for massive additional cost.  It does however place another task in the hands of the private sector, so is in line with the NHS privatisation policy.

But the real problem, in case it has escaped Mr Grayling's notice, is that THERE ARE NO JOBS, let alone "modified" jobs for those that cannot cope with the normal rigours of conventional employment.

As Del-Boy would say, "What a plonker" 

WCA Philosophy - ID-S mantra

Thought I'd give this a go through FoI Act, but to no avail.  Perhaps I'll try through my MP . . .

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request on 15th November. You asked:

Germany is regarded as the only European nation that can solve the EU’s economic problems and its economic model is held in high regard. The German expression “Arbeit Macht Frei“means "work sets you free" or "work liberates”. Mr. Duncan-Smith in particular has been promoting an identical philosophy based on work being both

physically and mentally beneficial. Do you/does he feel that the sentiments contained in this expression could be applied to his current objectives and policies?

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 was introduced to bring about more openness and accountability within public authorities.

The Act gives two related rights which came into force from 1 January 2005

·         The right to be told whether information exists

·         The right to receive that information

As your request does not ask for any recorded information, we are unable to answer your request.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 was not introduced to give opinions or views.

If you would like more information on any specific Government matter, please contact your local MP.

If you have any queries about this letter please contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely,

DWP Central FoI Team

A few Pragmatic Thoughts about the WCA and Welfare Reform

From time to time, society is forced to shift its position and adapt to changing circumstances.  It is of course the job of Government to bring these changes about fairly, but more than anything else, it must be honest and declare its real agenda – how much of the current strategy would still be happening without such a large debt, purely out of political dogma?

I have just a few pragmatic perspectives on this:

1.         When the public sector has a function that is not performing the way it thinks it should, it creates another function to either monitor the first one of take on part of its workload.  If this doesn’t work, it will overlay another audit-type operation.  It then wonders why its costs run out of control.  In the private sector, the approach is more logical and efficient – if something is not working properly it gets mended.

2.         This attitude can only be due to the poor quality of management available and the false assumption that more mediocrity is a substitute for “good”.  Outsourcing piecemeal to the private sector is likewise not the answer, as the outsourced service will only ever perform to the same standard as its “customer”.  The task of managing an outsourced service is different, but no easier than an in-house operation.  One thing is for sure – responsibility & accountability for the quality of the service delivered can NEVER be outsourced.

3.         Occupational health is not a new branch of medicine; it is simply looking at an individual’s condition and abilities from a slightly different angle.  It does not therefore need an army of newly qualified specialists and an entire educational infrastructure; just perhaps some retraining around expertise that already exists.  Why are GPs so incapable and why must they remain that way forever?

4.         One of the main justifications for a change in approach is absenteeism rates of c 7% (allegedly).  This may be true in the public sector, but I have never worked anywhere where it has exceeded 3%, below 2% if you take out the individuals whose illness is indisputable – short or long term.  This can be achieved with fair, but diligent and consistent management.

5.         It has recently said that GPs have no incentive not to sign people off work – no incentive that is other than a responsibility to act in accordance with the Hippocratic Oath.  Why does everyone need an incentive to do their job correctly?  The Government’s starting assumption with the sick and disabled is that they are all fraudsters and it appears it has a similarly dim view of GPs.  They must stop judging others by their own duplicitous standards.

6.         There has to be a definition of “work” and the Government must describe clearly what it proposes to subsidise (through benefit payments of one kind or another) and where it will draw a line.  For example:

a.    To what extent will it help an individual return to their profession?  When and against what criteria will it abandon this in favour of finding any job?

b.    Within a) to what degree will it reflect the characteristics of particular job markets – some are very much tougher than others?

c.     How long a term view will it take?  E.g. would it bear with someone who could return high income tax payments if found the right employment longer or press them into any menial, low paid job?

7.         The Government has knowingly & dishonestly amended (i.e. toughened) WCA criteria on the basis that workplaces generally are now far more accommodating than they were and have been developed such that they are considerably less demanding (at least physically) than ever before.  The clearest example is the statement that the modern workplace no longer requires either bending & kneeling, which is why this test has been removed from the WCA.

This assertion is based on nothing other than an assumption that employers have responded to various layers of legislation in a particular way – it is based on no empirical evidence whatsoever.  The assumption does however suit its purpose very well.

8.         In behaving disingenuously, the Tories do not just damage their own party; they damage the reputation of Westminster as a whole.  Government must at all costs retain integrity and be constantly monitored against the Civil Service code of ethics and it is down to the other political parties to ensure this comes about.

A note to Jenny Willott MP

Dear Ms Willott,

I am not a constituent of your but have picked up your question to Chris Grayling below.

Given Atos Healthcare’s past performance, no one has faith in the ability of the current work capability assessment or Atos fairly to assess fluctuating conditions in particular. Will the Minister work with Atos to ensure that the new descriptors are implemented as soon as possible and that Atos staff receive additional training to improve their performance and restore the faith of claimants and the general public in the assessment process?

In pressing for the implementation of the new descriptors there are a few things you need to appreciate, as the devil is as usual in the detail.  I can only talk about the physical elements of a WCA as the debacle has not yet substantially affected my mental capabilities.

Significant changes have already been implemented:

1.       Bending and kneeling has evidently been eliminated from the modern workplace so no longer features in an assessment.  Please read more about this at http://tia-junior.blogspot.com/2011/10/wca-descriptors-no-need-to-bend-or.html

2.       Even though one has never been suggested by a medical expert or indeed an Atos HCP, there are certain muscular-skeletal conditions where one’s “mobilisation” improves when in a wheelchair and allows one to work when without the wheelchair work would not be possible.  This is dictated by DWP decision makers – see http://tia-junior.blogspot.com/2011/10/foi-act-request-interpretation-of-new.html

3.       There is a great deal more going on in the background than you could possibly imagine unless you are unfortunate enough to be disabled and have seen it for yourself – a potted summary is at http://tia-junior.blogspot.com/2011/10/wca-mess-view-in-1000-words.html

4.       A whole load of other outrageous stuff I have come across is at http://tia-junior.blogspot.com/ which now seems to be growing daily and http://twitter.com/Tiajunior

The Atos WCA manual is far from perfect but in many ways is not a bad reference document.  Their HCPs drift well away from it, but the worrying thing is that nobody cares – Atos or DWP – as by fair means or foul, it is producing the desired result.  The real evil here is in DWP as they have the power to straighten this out.  Atos will do whatever they are told, so you might like to reset your sights accordingly.

The damage that the Tories are slipping through now will take years to unravel and some will be irreparable, so they have to be stopped now. 

I will happily provide you with whatever I can to help this cause – in fact I would be overjoyed.

Regards

The Government really needs to think about where it is heading

Faced with the prospect of a WCA, just the worry of what might be ahead can have a devastating effect on some disabled people, let alone the experience itself and on top of this there is an increasing amount of pressure being (not too subtly) applied in the background as in the article below from the DT.

It is not in my nature to be dramatic, but it is hard to read the article below without comparing its philosophy with the  expression “Arbeit Macht Frei”, which I’m sure the Tories would not like drawn to their attention and would attempt to dismiss it as insulting and offensive.  The expression is accurate enough, it is just its awful association that resonates.

Indisputably the Government and sections of the media are deliberately or otherwise slowly turning public opinion into wrongly believing that the vast majority of the sick and disabled are perfectly capable of working and are little more than benefit scroungers.  If they successfully create this atmosphere of mistrust, it will slowly permeate through the whole of society and affect day to day attitudes and life.  This will make a difficult situation very much worse for people that are already highly vulnerable and as always there will be sections of society that go too far and we will inevitably see an increase in hate attacks on the disabled as the idiot perpetrators will think they have at least some popular support.

Whether we like it or not, society (at least for the time being) runs on the capitalist principle and work is the means through which value is added to create wealth (admittedly some more than others).  If the balance has shifted such that by the old “rules” it is no longer possible for the numbers able to “input” to support the numbers who can only draw “output”, something obviously has to change and it is the Government’s job to bring this about in the most palatable, sensitive way possible, at times setting an example and taking the moral high ground where we ourselves do not.  If one of the outcomes is that a few lines have to be redrawn, so be it, but the Government has to implement the changes in the right bloody sequence.

If some people on the fringes (and there are always some that are) who in the past have not needed to work now do and can, the first step is to make sure that there is something suitable available for them.   It is stupid to dump people who are already very aware of their limitations from one disadvantaged group to an even worse one – their limitations are no different, but now they have an even lower income and are tainted with being "unemployed", which still carries a stigma at least amongst the employed.  They are of course competing in a job market where they are also disadvantaged and run the risk of eventually loosing financial help altogether. 

The Government will obviously point to the raft of discrimination legislation to show there is no problem, but as always it cannot tell the difference between theory and practice.  To Quote Chris Grayling “For those that need additional help our new Work programme is up and running and will tailor support to people’s needs so that they can overcome whatever barriers they face." apart from the barrier of there being no jobs of any kind let alone those appropriately adapted.  In a job market that is patently and undeniably still rife with the less emotive issue of age discrimination (illegally of course), on what ground does he believe that disability discrimination legislation has been any more effective?

Anyway, this article represents a VERY worrying trend and should prompt a few moments thought about where it could lead..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8861475/GPs-to-tell-long-term-jobless-to-find-work.html