Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
Yes, it's tempting to place all the problem with ESA - and accept the explantion that is convenient for the Government - that is that all the faults lie with the under contract ATOS, when actually the fundamental problems are with the DWP over which the Government has direct control (though no doubt additional outsourcing there is under active consideration).What happens next is that that information is flatly contradicted by DWP with no reason or evidence given for that flat contradiction and I have to appeal their decisions. They often flat-out lie as the appeal goes up the chain. In their submission to my ESA appeal tribunal, DWP said that the health professional (a nurse) who assessed my claim said that I'd be fit for work within two years. The health professional actually said I wouldn't be fit for work for at least two years.
This sort of thing has happened to me over and over and over again over the decades, not just since Atos. I could give more examples but it would involve too much typing! But some of the things they've tried to pull have been breathtakingly wicked.
DLA was actually designed to be an annually awarded benfit, so that each 12 month award was treated as a seperate claim from what went before. This actually led to some 'interesting' interpretations of what 'consistency' meant in terms of administration, with utterly perverse reversals of award from one year to the next. I rather lost track of what the circumstances of the slippage of annual awards of DLA actually were but I'm fairly certain there were no provisions for 'indefinite' awards in the initial legislation. Invalidity Benefit and its successor Incapacity Benefit were one off awards that could be withdrawn on the basis of new information - i.e someone got better - but of course these were both recognised as long term benefits because an award of the short term Sickness Benefit would have to have run out before IB and ICB could be claimed. I can't recall what the review period for IB or ICB was, although my impression is that there was no standard period and that it was very much a function of Regional Departmental workload and particular condition, with Doctor's letters, particularly Consultant opinion, playing a large role in the judgement made about whether to bring someone in for a medical review.I think, further, that one issue has become the 'indefinite' awards for incapacity benefit (as was) and Disability Benefit for that matter: and the need (now) for all sickness/disabled benefits to be regularly reviewed. This might seem to us as an unnecessary additional cost but it does at face value seem reasonable...
Terminal illnesses are of course dealt with separately under ESA, although the DWP doesn't always seem able to recognise what constitutes - 'likely to be dead in six months'. But you are quite right - there are other circumstances where an annual cycle of reapplying and ATOS testing makes no sense for either the claimant or tax payer. Even with M.E/CFS perpetual annual reviews may make little sense, given that where disability is significant and has been present for a number of years, substantial and sustained improvement is rare, and the age profile of the patient population (lots of 45 plus) militates against re-achievement of employability.My point would be that 'indefinite' awards should be made but under specific circumstances (circumstances that previous changes to the system - and non-uniform application of the rules have been seen to render arbitrary perhaps). So, I would venture that an 'indefinite' award was made for terminal, progressive (where the claimant was assessed initially as warranted the benefit and could subsequently apply for increases as and when necessary; and for those disabilities whereby the claimant's functional state is unlikely to change and/or will decrease.
Couldn't face another appeal and I don't benefit in terms of cash - only NI contributions - as I have a private disability pension from my previous employer.
“We are, in effect, trying to put a sticking plaster on a gaping wound,” said Labour MP Ian Lavery (Wansbeck). “Atos and the WCA are not fit for purpose. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should bin them both, and start again with the idea of looking after disabled people, rather than the opposite?”
Mr Hoban did not. “Much has been said about employment and support allowance not working—that is untrue,” he said. “What we are seeing is people coming off ESA and getting into work. The number of working-age people on ESA and incapacity benefit in February 2012 was 2.56 million—the lowest level since the introduction of IB in 1995. Early estimates to September 2012 suggest that overall numbers for this benefit are falling and will for the first time be below 2.5 million.”
So his yardstick for success was the number of people who have been cut off from benefit. That’s very revealing.
There are some statistics, but I can't find the data online now - the Guardian has a load of figures but they are almost as mangled as the Government's own. Private Eye drilled down on disability issue revealling that less than 0.5% of ESA claimants go work in a 14 month period. This statement from the PAC gives a flavour of what is going on: http://www.parliament.uk/business/c...c-chair-on-work-programme-outcome-statistics/And what about the number of reapplications? And how long do people struggle on JSA before reapplying? And what about the Support Group element of ESA. Are they 'safe'? What are the entry requirements - I never did discover? And if in the Work Related Activity Group - where are the figures showing what/how much job retraining is taking place?
13 December 2012
Statement from The Rt Hon Margaret Hodge MP, Chair of the Committee of Public Accounts
This first analysis of the Work Programme performance figures shows the extent to which the scheme is failing participants, and particularly the young and the harder-to-help. Against a contractual target of 5.5 per cent, the lowest performing provider did not manage to place a single person in the under 25 category into a job lasting six months. The Work Programme was specifically designed to incentivise providers to assist those furthest from the work place, but the appalling performance for ESA ex-incapacity claimants demonstrates how this experiment simply is not working. Between June 2011 and July 2012, of the some 9,500 ex-incapacity claimants referred to providers, I am astonished that only 20 people have been placed in a job that has lasted three months.
My committee will be taking evidence from the department next week when we shall expect a clear explanation for what action is underway to turn performance around and get the Work Programme working for participants and the taxpayer.
Between June 2011 and July 2012, of the some 9,500 ex-incapacity claimants referred to providers, I am astonished that only 20 people have been placed in a job that has lasted three months.
That's more or less correct - however the issue of 'retraining' overstates what is on offer. The UK used to have a rather good, if some what limited range of retraining following injury or acute health impact, this has been gradually diminished over the years and now barely exists. All that is really on offer to those put in the 'work group' are insultingly banal 'skills help' suchas 'how o write a cv', plus unpaid placements in the private sector so that people can 'get used to working again'. Punitive measures for non compliance can be applied although compliance may mean no more than attending a monthly meeting with an advisor. A much more serious problem exists for people who have a level of disability which doesn't qualify them for ESA - their disablement is treated as non existent by the benefits systm and withdrawl of benefit fr sustained periods can be imposed for no compliance.British benefits systems make my head spin ... am I correct in thinking that ESA is only for ill and disabled people who are unable to work, either due to disability alone (support group) or due to needing retraining resulting from disability (work related activity group)? And if in the work related activity group, benefits can be reduced if not "cooperating", whereas in the support group, you're not expected to be able to work and don't have to go to interviews, etc.
ATOS is only responsible for operating the capacity tests. All decisions on actual award of benefit lies with Civil Servants in the Department of Work and Pensions - they use the reports they get from ATOS too come to thir decisions.And it's ATOS employees that are deciding which group applicants go into, if any? The assessment guide seems to suggest that getting more than 15 points (guide page 17) on the questionnaire means the applicant gets on ESA. Based on careful (re)reading of the guide, the applicant has to show "limited capability for work-related activity" to be in the support group, which requires them to be is the most severe categories (guide page 24) - cannot repeatedly move 50 or more meters, can't move to another seat, can't raise arms, can't pick up half a liter, and/or can't press a button or turn a page are the physical requirements. The only activity that has "repeatedly" as a qualifier (and only in the guide, not the questionnaire) is moving 50, 100, or 200 meters.
There is some logic within the system though I doubt any of it is realy defencible. In the case of sitting versus lying - this would differentiate between someone whose only disability was in mobility, and someone whose disablement is more complex. For example not being able to walk may not amount to qualifying for the support group if the claimant could use a wheel chair.[/quote]So a few things seem weird. The only points awarded seem to be 6, 9, or 15 per disability. It seems a rather arbitrary amount. Why not 2, 3, and 5 points per disability? Or even 1, 1.5, and 3? Or something else entirely? Why is being unable to sit up for half an hour less disabling than being unable to walk 50 meters repeatedly - are there jobs available where we can lie down most of the day? And why bother adding points up at all - why does being unable to reach above your head + being unable to move a liter of liquid around make you disabled enough for ESA when either disability on its own is insuffucient?
Yes, those are all fair observations. ESA was sold (under the previous Government and pre economic crash) as an empowering move - "no one to be excluded from society/work" and the theory could have worked to a degree if the training, inwork support and jobs were there. What we have now is just another 'cut Government spending' process and to hell with the social costs.The amount of disability required to qualify for the support group versus the work related activity group seems ridiculously high. I can see why people at death's door are told to go to job interviews, based on those criteria. Aside from having literal paralysis, I'm not sure what other physiological disease or illness would generally be sufficient, even in severe cases.
What is the rationale behind having a group that is disabled enough to get assistance, but healthy and capable enough to go to training and go to work? It almost seems like they are combining two very different concepts, disability and job training, into one, and suggesting that job training can usually overcome disability. It gets even more bizarre when you factor in ongoing illness (which it explicitly covers in addition to disability), and seems to suggest that job training can overcome illness-induced limitations.
The lack of a "repeatable" qualification for all activities except for moving however many meters, means that the only physical limitation they're really respecting (but not enough to put it on the actual questionnaire) is mobility. They'd might as well get rid of most of the questions and replace it with "Can you eventually get to work without much assistance if work is located on the same block that you live on? If so, get to work you lazy git!"
The whole thing is insane. It might be amusing to see how the points would add up for variously absurd groups - for example, a toddler, a trained monkey, someone with a bad case of pneumonia, and someone severely injured in a recent car accident.
That's more or less correct - however the issue of 'retraining' overstates what is on offer. The UK used to have a rather good, if some what limited range of retraining following injury or acute health impact, this has been gradually diminished over the years and now barely exists. All that is really on offer to those put in the 'work group' are insultingly banal 'skills help' suchas 'how o write a cv', plus unpaid placements in the private sector so that people can 'get used to working again'.
The entire system seems like an excuse to reduce benefits without cause.
The great disability scam?
Only half of all people with a disability are in work. Panorama investigates if one of the government's most ambitious welfare reforms, costing billions of pounds, can solve the problem of disability unemployment. Reporter Sam Poling reveals the private companies who are getting rich from the new reforms despite only being able to get a small fraction of disabled people back to work, and speaks to the charities who feel the most vulnerable in our society are being failed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qgk9h
Next Monday Panorama at 20.30:
Friday January 18 2013 Cornish Guardian: Dan Rogerson:
"On Thursday, I called a debate on work capability assessments carried out by the company ATOS. The system was introduced under the previous Government in order to assess whether someone is fit to work, or whether they are entitled to receive Employment Support Allowance if they cannot work due to medical conditions.
It is right that, if people with disabilities or serious health conditions are able to, then they are supported back to work. But I still have some concerns that people aren't being assessed properly and are being recommended for work when they shouldn't be, so I was urging the Government to try to improve the system."
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD): I join hon. Members in congratulating the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), the Backbench Business Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) on securing this timely debate.
As the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) said, we need to separate two things. The first is the principle of assessing those on out-of-work benefits to establish whether they can rejoin the workplace. As everyone in the House accepts, that must happen if we are to be responsible guardians of the public purse and if we are to help people who can work to get back into work. The second is the need to look in detail at the practice of how the assessments are being conducted.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so quickly. A number of people who have been assessed reasonably recently had their incapacity benefits stopped but then reintroduced on appeal are now being reassessed and found fit for work once again. Surely people who have recently been assessed and won on appeal should not be being recalled by Atos.
Stephen Gilbert: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and what he says goes to the nub of the points I wish to make. This debate should focus on the practice of how these assessments are being conducted. He, like me and probably every Member, will have had scores, if not hundreds, of constituents experience a similar problem as they go through the system.
There is a consensus in the House on the principle of making assessments. The last Administration set up the WCA and the Atos contract in 2008, and it was right that in 2007 Liberal Democrat Members pressed for and secured the annual review of how the WCA was being implemented.
Over the last few years, as every hon. Member will know, these reviews have revealed a catalogue of errors, and, to their credit, the coalition Government have taken action: there has been increased flexibility for assessors to take additional evidence, not least from consultants; there has been better communication with people undergoing assessment; and new standards have been implemented for descriptors.
All that is having results. The numbers going into the ESA support group have risen to 26%—from 11% under the last Administration —so fewer people are now being found fit for work.
None of us can underestimate or undervalue the human effect that some of these assessments are having. I would like to read into the record an e-mail I received from a constituent. It is probably similar to e-mails that all hon. Members have received. It reads:
“They never asked about the amount of pain I have to contend with or how tired I get from coping with it. After the interview I was told I was to be disallowed ESA benefit. I could probably go down the route of appeal but I really don’t feel like fighting for a benefit that I have already been made to feel that I do not deserve, neither do I have the energy to appeal”.
If we in this House cannot give voice to these people, who are some of the most vulnerable in our society, I really do not know what we are for.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab): To illustrate one of those cases, I shall cite a letter I received from a constituent, Janine, in Liverpool. Her dad was thrown off sickness benefit in November after an Atos work capability assessment and was declared fit for work despite suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Six weeks later, on Christmas day, Janine’s father died. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this example clearly highlights the fact that the work capability assessment, run by the DWP, is fundamental flawed?
Stephen Gilbert: As I have said, and as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge, the point is not the principle of conducting assessments but the practice—how they are rolled out and how millions of our constituents experience them.
Constituents have told me that they find the process dehumanising and degrading and that they are often seen by people who are unqualified to make an assessment of their condition. We have to get the assessment process right. That is right for the individuals concerned, but it is also the decent, moral and humane thing to do.
I am particularly concerned about those with fluctuating conditions such as ME—myalgic encephalomyelitis, or chronic fatigue syndrome—and those with lifelong degenerative conditions, who will never recover from the illness from which they are suffering but who continue to be called in for repeated assessments.
The principle is the right one; the practice, however, is failing many millions of the most vulnerable people across the country. Although the coalition has made welcome efforts to get right a system that it inherited from the last Government, much more still needs to be done to ensure that we are doing things in a humane way.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD): Does my hon. Friend agree that most people were extremely pleased that Professor Harrington convened his working group to look at the descriptors for fluctuating conditions? However, whatever has happened has not solved the problem for people with ME, multiple sclerosis or mental health conditions. It is therefore imperative that the DWP get on with this and make the system work for those people.
Stephen Gilbert: I could not have put it better. This is not about the principle of assessments; it is about how they are conducted in practice. We owe it to some of the most vulnerable people across our country to ensure that we get this right.
1.1 pm
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) for leading the effort to secure this debate. I was happy to accompany him and the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) when they appeared before the Backbench Business Committee, and I am grateful to the Committee for having found time, in what is a busy schedule, for a debate on this issue.
It is of great concern to many Members and, more importantly, to those who have been assessed under the WCA system and those who work to support them and are inundating us with case studies.
We have heard a lot about the history of this issue, so I will not rehearse what has been said on that. I am pleased that an annual review of the system is in place and that it is highlighting the concerns, which we are then able to address in this House. The coalition Government have moved to tackle some of the concerns, but they need to do more, such as by addressing the issues raised by Professor Harrington.
I remember a case that arose during the last Parliament—when this system was introduced—involving a constituent of mine from one of the north-coast villages. He was told he had to attend an assessment, and printed information on how to travel to the assessment venue by public transport was sent to him. The suggested journey involved an overnight stay on a railway platform. It was hardly helpful to send such a suggestion to someone who was travelling to attend a WCA.
We have moved on a little since then. As we have heard, however, people attending WCAs are often nervous and fail to get across all the points they want to make, and they frequently feel that, as a result of the process, they are railroaded into responding in a certain way. As we heard from the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), the people who accompany them are sometimes shut out of the process, too, even though they can perform the valuable role of giving their companion the confidence to represent themselves thoroughly.
The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) raised the important point that the process is recorded. As we all know, telephone calls to many organisations are routinely recorded and people, including those undergoing WCAs, should realise that the recording of proceedings is for their benefit as well as that of the organisation concerned. Those undergoing WCAs can get a copy of that recording, too. That point was raised with me by a woman whose son had to wait for seven months to get his assessment, which serves to highlight that we must also speed up the process. Work needs to be done to help Atos understand the problems that might be leading to those delays.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that we must make Atos understand that in remote rural constituencies such as those we both represent some people have to travel long distances? That problem is leading to a lot of no-shows at the Truro Atos centre, which in turn is leading to lots of delays in assessments, thereby causing a great deal of anxiety.
Dan Rogerson: That is also a common problem in respect of visiting district general hospitals. I have repeatedly asked hospitals to make sure that people travelling long distances are seen in the middle of the day, rather than early in the morning. Sensible decisions like that would help.
A constituent who would rather I did not reveal her name also raised the issues of delays and recordings, and others have mentioned the lack of expertise. If Atos has practitioners with different areas of expertise—some in physical disability, others in mental health issues, for instance—it should arrange assessments in such a way as to utilise that.
The language that is used and how people are treated are also important issues—some Members of this House could probably moderate the language they use in discussing this subject.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab): We are, in effect, trying to put a sticking plaster on a gaping wound. Atos and the WCA are not fit for purpose. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should bin them both, and start again with the idea of looking after disabled people, rather than the opposite?
Dan Rogerson: The problem with that suggestion is that all the people who have been through the process and have won appeals will have to go back to square one. I am therefore in favour of improving the current system. Every time we renew a system, we go back to square one. Those who have been through an assessment and an appeal and have finally got the right result should not be sent back to square one. The hon. Gentleman articulates the anger that is felt, and there are clearly problems with the process, but I do not think scrapping it and going back to square one is the best way to proceed. Professor Harrington has not suggested that course of action, either. What he has said is that there are problems that need to be resolved.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dan Rogerson: No, I want to conclude so that others can have a chance to speak.
There are certainly questions to be asked about the company operating this process. The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) said it was drinking in the last-chance saloon. We have heard in other contexts that people can remain in that saloon for a long time, however, and this debate serves to show the Government that we are taking this issue very seriously.
There is another issue, too. Those who are found capable of work even after an appeal should be supported into work. We must do that properly. I hope we will address that issue on another day, as it is the second part of this process and there are problems to be solved.
1.33 pm
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):
...
Finally, I want to say a quick word about the situation facing people with serious mental health problems and long-term fluctuating conditions. There is a world of difference between being potentially fit for work, given the right support, and being an attractive prospect to a potential employer.
The elephant in the Chamber today is the fact that many employers will think very long and hard before taking on a member of staff with a serious long-term or fluctuating health condition. Anyone with a chequered work history knows that they are perceived as a risk to prospective employers.
Many employers will admit this in private but will not come out and say it publicly. I do not think the Government are being realistic enough about the stigma attached, for example, to degenerative conditions or mental illness. These hurdles are not insurmountable, but we must admit that they exist if we are to challenge them.
I hope that today’s debate will inject a dose of realism into the Government and that they will stop hounding and persecuting disabled and sick people for their disabilities.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Hoban): We do ask GPs and consultants to provide medical evidence; we send a form to them. Only 37% of those are returned in time.
I find it 'odd' that he considers people with "serious health conditions" to be fine if found fit for work. And this this notion of support back to work has become something of a meme. If I didn't think it would cause me hassle I'd go back to him and alert him to the fact that in 4 years of WRAG I have had no contact from the Job Centre - so no support.
This situation even with support is starkly underlined by the link that IVI provided above. I think it is about time - beyond time - that the WRAG was exposed. Let's see what actually happens in WRAG and what support is afforded. Let's see them blow the belief I have that WRAG is merely an excuse to pay claimants less money, out of the water.
I don't believe the DWP asks for evidence directly from medical professionals. I certainly couldn't afford to rely on his assumption.
To reiterate what someone else said - they should be making their decisions based on whether anyone would actually be interested in employing these ill and/or disabled people, rather than on whether these ill and/or disabled people could theoretically perform an uncommonly accomodative job under ideal conditions.