In today’s scary news, it has emerged that the DWP are claiming the right to enter the home of people in receipt of a variety of benefits, demand to see their ID and financial documents, and interrogate them for an hour or more. All without prior warning.

While the DWP have always had teams that investigate fraud - including spying on people through their windows from parked cars - the idea that they can select you at random and turn up unannounced appears to be new. What happens if you turn the DWP officer away is not stated.  While the website says “You can reschedule your appointment if you need to” it also says  “You won’t always get a letter in advance telling you about the visit.” Of course this is very likely to be backed up with the usual “you do not have to comply but if you do not then your benefits may be affected.” When confronted with the idea of losing all their income most people will obey against their will.

As many people have pointed out to me, plenty of sick people cannot cope with this intrusion or unpredictability. (Including myself.) Others may not have the ability to find the documents or to think well enough to provide the answers demanded. Carers who know all the details may not be present.

I suspect that the random selection and the entry into the home without warning  may breach the human rights act. I’d appreciate if someone knowledgeable could check this for me.

It is notable that the text claims that the DWP will check you if you are on Housing Benefit. That benefit is implemented by the local authority and not the DWP. This leads me to believe that this update is mostly posturing for the tabloids on the part of the SPADs that churn out propaganda for the DWP Press Office.

A page on the gov.uk website carrying a date of 2 June 2014 sets out what the DWP are threatening. The current contents of that page in full:

Home visit to check your benefits payments

The Department for Work and Pensions has announced that they are looking for a new contractor to replace Atos to carry out Work Capability Assessments.

Today we are announcing we are seeking a new provider to replace Atos for the Work Capability Assessment

— DWP Press Office (@dwppressoffice) March 27, 2014

This isn’t unexpected given the recent announcement from Atos. However it is clear that the DWP have no interest in making the process any less traumatic. In fact the DWP press office has said that they intend there to be even more assessments but will not stop inflicting punishment by regularly reassessing people who are unlikely to recover.

Aim is to drive up the number of WCA assessments and cut waiting times #esa

— DWP Press Office (@dwppressoffice) March 27, 2014

The government is of course taking the opportunity to blame the previous government for the whole debacle while glossing over the fact that the coalition took a trial of Employment Support Allowance that was going badly, rolled it out across the country and ramped up assessments against the advice of their own experts. Labour may have hired Atos but the Conservatives and LibDems inflicted this travesty on far more people. In a written ministerial statement Mike Penning talked about “the process we inherited from the previous Government” and claimed that they had listened to experts when in fact they had repeatedly ignored experts.

The fact is that while Atos are complicit in inflicting suffering on sick and disabled people, they were following orders from the DWP. When Atos are replaced by another company the contract will still hold the replacement to “statistical norms” that allow only a tiny number of people to actually receive the help that we expect the government should provide. In reality the replacement of Atos by another brand name is unlikely to change even the staff carrying out the assessments or the buildings in which they take place. (Most of which are rented from the DWP anyway.) In his written statement Mike Penning said

“It is expected that the Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment regulations will apply and most of the Atos employees will transfer to the new provider.”

The replacement for Atos will include the same staff, the same buildings, the same descriptors, the same statistical norms. Nothing will change. Same shit different scapegoat.

It is important to note that Atos will carry on under a separate contract in Northern Ireland and that Atos will still carry out WCAs until a replacement is found, though most repeat assessments will not take place. Do not assume that your WCA is cancelled! 

Written Ministerial Statement: Early exit of Atos from WCA contract (PDF)

Doc Hackenbush sums it up well:

There are rumours circulating that Atos might be about to get the sack from their role assessing sick and disabled people to supposedly determine if they could work. The Guardian reports:

“A leaked Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) financial review says ministers across government are working together to build up competition to the multinational company by commissioning other private firms to add “further capacity” to the assessment system. The DWP will then enable “these providers to take over the whole contract” from Atos after the present agreement expires in 2015.”

Unfortunately the main candidates for the job are G4S, Serco, A4E and Capita. None of these inspire confidence and in fact these names will justifiably inspire anger and hatred in most people that I know. But the problem is not just with Atos. The problem is with the Department of Work and Pensions, politicians (both Conservative and Labour) and with the whole concept of testing sickness and disability and fitting people’s problems into boxes in order to say yes or no to supporting them. Atos have helpfully put the problem in their own words in a blog post pleading with protesters not to blame them. 

“However, Atos Healthcare has no control over welfare policy, the design of the Work Capability Assessment (WCA), or the specific eligibility criteria for Employment and Support Allowance (ESA).  These are set by government.  Our healthcare professionals use their clinical judgement in order to apply the government-designed criteria and they do not have the scope to make any assessment outside of these guidelines.”

Now I am not siding with Atos here, they are definitely responsible for huge suffering inflicted on people at their most vulnerable and no amount of claiming that they don’t set the rules, or that they are only following orders, is going to change that. However they are correct to say that the eligibility criteria are set by government. More importantly, they are accurate in stating that Atos assessors do not have the scope to make any assessment outside of the guidelines.

This is actually a very important admission. You see, there have been consistent accusations that Atos staff work to targets when deciding whether to recommend that someone is able to work or should receive support because they are not. That is, that they are told how many people must go on to receive the social security that they are entitled to and how many must be denied that support. Both Atos and government have denied that there are targets but this is through twisting words rather than actually being true. The DWP may not have targets but they do have “Statistical norms” which say how many people they think should be placed in the Support Group, the Work-Related Activity Group (given some support but continuously pestered to find a job), or kicked off sickness benefits and on to Job Seeker’s Allowance. Pressure is put on Atos to conform to these statistical norms - the logic being that Atos must be doing something wrong if they do not meet them. In turn Atos place pressure on their staff to keep the numbers of people recommended to get support down to absurdly low levels. Dr Greg Wood, a former assessor for Atos, and Kaliya Franklin have both done a lot of work to investigate and expose how this works in practice and I have included the links at the end of this blog post.

So Atos absolutely are complicit in denying support to people in desperate need, and they know it and their staff know it, but at the same time replacing Atos with Capita will definitely not solve the problem since the replacement will be held to exactly the same requirements.

While many believe that this problem with the Work Capability Assessment can be fixed, I am not one of them and so although I will support those who are working towards making the WCA fit for purpose, I also firmly believe that the whole thing should be scrapped. It would be a step forward to believe the reports of the doctors and other medical practitioners that care for sick people and only rely on a specific test for those who do not have access to this for whatever reason, but even that is not enough. I believe that to achieve full support and equality as a society we must introduce a Universal Basic Income / Citizen’s Income that would be paid to everyone regardless of whether they work or not, and not conditional on ability to work or willingness to work. We would still perhaps need some form of checking for disability benefits (currently DLA or PIP) which are paid on top of wages or sickness benefits to those who need it, but even then we should believe people’s own doctors where possible.

Further Reading

Dr Greg Wood:

Work Test Whistleblower

Why I blew the whistle on Atos fitness-for-work test

Kaliya Franklin:

How Norms Become Targets - Investigating the real reason for the misery of ‘fit for work’ assessments

Leaked Evidence Shows DWP Set Quotas For ‘Fit For Work’ Assessments

Politics, Policy and Persecution - The People’s Review of the WCA - Further Evidence

The Department of Work and Pensions has a new scheme to make life harder for people who are too sick to work. The announcement appeared on their website today with the headline “People on sickness benefits will be required to have regular meetings with healthcare professionals to help them with their barriers to work.”

This is a trial starting with 3,000 people who are in the Work Related Activity Group for Employment Support Allowance to find out whether it is effective at getting people off benefits. Oh, the claim is that it’s to get people back into work, but getting them off benefits is all the government care about and quote figures for. People will be forced to meet with a “healthcare professional” from Ingeus UK by 2016 as part of this trial. Ingeus UK doesn’t have the best reputation either. Telegraph: Firm owned by Kevin Rudd’s wife faces tax questions in Britain.

From the DWP’s announcement:

People on sickness benefits will be required to have regular meetings with healthcare professionals to help them address their barriers to work – or face losing their benefits – in a two-year pilot scheme in central England which begins in November.

Around 3,000 people in the work-related activity group for Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) living in the Black Country, Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Rutland, Staffordshire and Shropshire will take part in the scheme.

There are many problems with this plan.

1. Most people already have a “healthcare professional” - their GP, or hospital specialist, or someone else - who is trying to ensure the best outcome for them. Of course what is best for the patient may not be getting them off benefits.

2. I’m pretty sure there’s some consent issues there. If people will be “required” to meet the DWP’s healthcare professional, how can there be consent? Benefits will be withdrawn if the patient refuses, so they may be coerced to have medical treatment against their will. This is definitely not ethical.

3. These healthcare professionals need not be specialists in a person’s particular illness or disability, or even doctors at all. People going through the Work Capability Assessment with Atos often see staff who know nothing about their issues and who make mistakes over easily spotted issues as a result. What happens if an Ingeus UK healthcare professional recommends a treatment that the patient’s own doctor has ruled out? Will the patient be sanctioned for refusing it? Will people die because they tried it anyway?

4. People are often wrongly placed in the Work Related Activity Group, which is for people who are expected to return to work within a couple of years. Many people appeal and move to the Support Group. Many more don’t appeal because they can’t face it, but on seeing staff at the Job Centre are told to go home because they are obviously not well enough to prepare for work. If this scheme is rolled out nationwide then thousands of people will be made to take part when they are not well enough.

5. “Regular discussions with healthcare professionals” are an unacceptable extra burden on people who are already overwhelmed with trying to juggle medical appointments and DWP requirements. Managing an illness or a disability is a full time job which people must get through despite massive barriers, and now the DWP wants to pile a whole load of extra meetings and travel time on them. Like lots of extra meetings won’t make physical and mental health ten times worse.

If you’re one of the people selected for this trial then it is probably worth contacting a lawyer and finding out if you can fight it.

Update: A recruitment ad by Ingeus reveals the use of the fraudulent bio-psychosocial model.

Today the DWP have published their response to the recent consultation over the distance that someone must be unable to walk to qualify for help with moving around under Personal Independence Payments. That consultation itself came about after legal action was launched against the DWP by myself and others because the first consultation took place under false pretences.

The result: they’re keeping the threshold for enhanced support at twenty metres.

Unfortunately, despite Mike Penning - the new Minister of State for Disabled People - assuring us in the foreward that the DWP “have listened carefully to the feedback received from disabled people and their organisations” the bulk of the response sets out why the DWP are going to ignore the feedback that has been given to them.

The most telling part is paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 which read:

“Out of 1142 respondents, 914 indicated a clear preference for changing the Moving around criteria. [From 20m to something else.] […] Five individual respondents were supportive of retaining the current criteria.“

Just in case that isn’t clear, 914 people told the DWP that the twenty metre threshold for high rate support with moving around was no good, while just 5 people told them to keep it at twenty metres.

The executive summary is three pages long and doesn’t actually state the outcome directly. However, this is the DWP summary of what the public responses said to them: (Emphasis mine)

• Respondents felt that there was no evidence to support the use of 20 metres as the distance for determining entitlement to the enhanced rate of the Mobility component. Many respondents felt that there was little evidence to show that an individual who could walk a little over 20 metres would face lower costs than an individual who could walk less than 20 metres. Respondents pointed out that other Government policies use 50 metres as a measure for mobility.
• Respondents were concerned that the current 20 metres distance used in the criteria would have negative consequences for individuals. Many respondents were concerned about the impact on people moving from the higher rate of DLA to the standard rate of PIP who would lose access to a Motability scheme car. They felt this could increase isolation and reduce independence, have significant financial impact, and cause deterioration in their physical and mental health.
• Respondents felt the criteria would increase individuals’ need for support from other public services and that this would have an increased cost for the Government.
• Respondents welcomed the inclusion in Regulations of the reliability criteria, which are used to measure a person’s ability to complete an activity safely, to an acceptable standard, repeatedly and within reasonable time period. However, they wanted to ensure that these were delivered appropriately and consistently in the PIP assessment

The most common suggestion made by respondents was to extend the qualifying distance for the enhanced rate from 20 metres to a longer distance. Other people suggested revising the assessment to make it more in line with the social model of disability.

And the DWP response:

1.14 Having considered all these factors, the Government believes that the use of 20 metres is the best way of identifying those whose physical mobility is most limited. We think it is justified to focus support in this way given the policy intent to target support on those with the greatest need and create a more financially sustainable benefit.

I see a small glimmer of hope here though. One thing that disabled people said to government repeatedly that anyone deemed able to perform an action must be able to do so safely, reliably and repeatedly.

1.15 The reliability criteria are a key protection for claimants and, recognising the concerns voiced by some respondents to the consultation, we will look to introduce a requirement for Health Professionals involved in the assessment to confirm that they have referred to the criteria when formulating their advice.

It seems clear that the responses to the consultation were never going to matter; the DWP has ridden roughshod over the whole lot to push ahead with what they want. They explain that the overwhelming majority of responses were against them, they acknowledge all the objections, and then they carry on as before. It’s quite telling that their document has an almost petulant tone to it, like some teenager at being told they can’t have their own way. For example: “Government is entitled to use different criteria for different purposes”.

I am not able to talk about my next step with regard to legal action however my solicitors and I will be going over the consultation response very carefully in the next few days.

Please sign WOW Petition against the War On Welfare.

DWP website: Consultation on the PIP assessment ‘moving around’ activity

Jane Young: The PIP 20 metre rule remains intact

Victory! DWP to launch PIP mobility consultation

Why I am suing the government