KUWG on Twitter

Showing posts with label WCA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WCA. Show all posts

Wednesday, 13 July 2016

Benefits and Work Publishing News Update, 13 July 2016

13 July update — omnibus edition(1)
Independent PIP reviewer wants to hear from you (2)
Claimants forced onto work programme were among 49 peer review deaths (3)
Sale of NHS records scrapped – for now (4)
Misuse of jobcentre funds to cut claimant numbers (5)
Consultation on abolition of attendance allowance begins (6)
Benefits prepaid cards move a step closer (7)
New WCA handbook published (8)

Link addresses


  1. http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/3536-13-july-update
  2. http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/3537-independent-pip-reviewer-wants-to-hear-from-you
  3. http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/3535-claimants-forced-onto-work-programme-were-among-49-peer-review-deaths
  4. http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/3534-sale-of-nhs-records-scrapped-for-now
  5. http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/3533-misuse-of-jobcentre-funds-to-cut-claimant-numbers
  6. http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/3532-consultation-on-abolition-of-attendance-allowance-begins
  7. http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/3531-benefits-prepaid-cards-move-a-step-closer
  8. http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/3530-new-wca-handbook-published


Wednesday, 26 August 2015

Is it not high time that Welfare Reform Minister David Freud was punished for gross negligence?

By Dude Swheatie of Kwug

Referring to the 'fake quotes' on Department for Work & Pensions sanctions promotion literature, Work & Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith has said that those quotes were meant to be anonymised from genuine cases and that the staff involved in the misquoting will be disciplined.(1)

But if this alleged improper interpretation of Government orders is true, and it be any more heinous a crime than the DWP's negligence that has arguably led to a great many claimant deaths?(3) Maybe a real issue here is that when those most responsible for the policies and practices that prove publicly unacceptable when revealed are found out, they shift the blame to those who follow their orders on the grounds that those orders were [allegedly] not carried out properly?

And what of the architects of many of the nasty changes that have really screwed disability benefit claimants? I am referring most specifically here to
  1. investment banker turned Tony Blair's 'welfare reform guru' turned Tory Welfare Reform Minister David Freud and
  2. dodgy American health insurance company Unum that has been 'advising' successive UK governments on 'welfare reform'/privatisation of the welfare state since at least the mid-1990's.
Some of my charges against those are outlined by way of my blog comments on Kate Belgrave's blog piece If government is so obseessed with "helping" disabled people, why did it close the Independent Living Fund?(4)

Notes

(1) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34038928
(2) Eg, http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/?s=esa+claimant+deaths
(3) http://www.katebelgrave.com/2015/08/if-government-is-so-obsessed-with-helping-disabled-people-why-did-it-close-the-independent-living-fund/

Monday, 4 May 2015

Will Work & Pensions debate sideline abuses against benefit claimants and carers?

By Dude Swheatie of Kwug

(An email from a concerned family carer got me to do this blog piece that I actually started at about 4:55 this morning.)

On Monday 12 April a contributor to CarersUK online forum about today's Daily Politics Show stated:
....

 I watched question time last week and the only person that mentioned the worry and concerns of people with disabilities and Carers was Natalie Bennett. It was brief and the subject wasn't continued!

Then we had William Hague, stating that their party had created jobs to get people out of poverty when questioned about the rise in food banks and the amount of people who had to use them. George Osborne stated the same recently. This is all well and good but how do people cope until they do find work and get on their feet! This party quote numbers about people who are now employed but I am led to believe that many are zero hour contracts (casual labour) and jobs with little security.(1)

....
I had a similar experience back in about 2008 at an Economics Conference run by the Guardian in tandem with the Trades Union Congress. As the then spokesperson for the Green Party of England & Wales on such matters, I asked the panel that included Labour's appointed 'Happiness Guru' Lord Layard how they would improve the economic conditions of family-based carers who were little supported by Carers Alllowance and the removal of their support services from local councils, etc.(2) (Family-based carers saved the UK economy more than the total NHS budget even before the 2010 General Election!) The panel chaired by the Guardian's Economics editor and including one East Midlands Member of the European Parliament were greatly relieved by the chairperson's sidelining of that question as irrelevant.

Since then we have had a harsher 'Work Capability Assessment' i(WCA) n order for people to 'qualify' for Employment & Support Allowance; that test though not piloted until 2011 was actually authorised by Labour's last Work & Pension Secretary Yvette Cooper. And Carers Allowance is being made harder to claim on account of the changes from Disability Living Allowance as gateway benefit to 'Personal Independence Payments' that is tested by the notorious Atos. And the orchestrated smear stories intimidate Labour politicians into mitigating their language against giving proper support to benefit claimants, while its MPs obviously have histories of neglect and abuse of benefit claimants and jobseekers that they would rather not allow to resurface, such as the DWP system meltdown that happed on their pre-2005 General Election watch as a result of staff cuts and a move to remote control of benefit claims.(5)

And I also recall great unease and frustration in carers campaigning colleagues at the 38 Degrees online pressure group's non-inclusion of Atos and carers-related issues before the 2010 General Election when it asked people to vote for its campaigning priorities. Of course, since then things have got much worse, including the scrapping of Independent Living Fund that Labour is not keen to reinstate.

So I would ask my readers to put pressure on the BBC Daily Politics show ahead of their Work & Pensions Debate today, by emailing dailypolitics@bbc.co.uk (6)

Do we get the governments we deserve, or merely the 'options' that even lobbyists such as 38 Degrees and ivory-towered mass media moguls such as Paul Dacre tell us are our [only] options? While I do not approve of violence, maybe it's a case of 'shoot the censors' rather than the politicians as messengers in debates? How about firing an email at them? Politicians can say they are getting support and are supporting people who email them with their concerns, and maybe the censors might feel put under pressure. (Yet I wonder how many of the frontline recipients of email to mass media outlets are themselves unpaid graduate interns?(8))

Post Script

See also:

Carer Watch blog post: Will Iain Duncan Smith turn up for Welfare Debate (9). And note that because of election impartiality rules, if one party does not turn up the debate is cancelled!
Pollsters' 'vision' excludes those offline?,(10) on opinion pollsters as hegemonic censors in the sense of "the social, cultural, ideological, or economic influence exerted by a dominant group". (11)

Iain Duncan Smith did turn up and was strongly challenged over 'welfare reform' related deaths by Green Party Work & Pensions Spokesperson Jonathan Bartley. The spokespersons' podia were arranged so that a ding dong between Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative could be covered via one camera position, and the camera rarely moved from that position of a discussion between those who had 'been there, done that'. The only spokesperson who mentioned the plight of family-based carers was UKIP Work & Pensions Spokesperson Suzanne Evans and she was soon marginalised. (12)

Notes

(1) http://www.carersuk.org/forum/support-and-advice/carer-and-disability-benefits/daily-politics-show-welfare-debate-may-5th-22708?p=304562
(2) http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2009/07/16/change-the-terms-of-carers-allowance-to-allow-more-carers-to-work/
(3) http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2007/09/20/carers-unpaid-support-is-worth-more-than-nhs-annual-budget/
(4) http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=568244
(5) http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2006/11/16/jobcentre-plus-poor-service-continues/
(6)  http://kilburnunemployed.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/5-party-welfare-debate-tuesday-5-may.html
(7) http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2013/12/man-who-hates-liberal-britain
(8) http://www.newstatesman.com/economics/2013/08/generation-jobless-worst-youth-unemployment-crisis-european-history-should-be-blam
(9) https://carerwatch.wordpress.com/2015/05/04/will-iain-duncan-smith-turn-up-for-welfare-debate/
 (10) http://kilburnunemployed.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/pollsters-vision-excludes-those-offline.html
(11) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hegemony
(12) This is now available on BBC iPlayer http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05tb4pz/daily-politics-2015-election-debates-welfare

Wednesday, 11 March 2015

TUC Welfare Conference 27 February 2015

Kwug was there!  

From a Star Blogger in the Making (She has been tentatively dubbed 'Can-Do Cat Woman' though she claims that she has no idea what her 'byline' should be.)

Welfare conference at Trade Union Congress on Friday 27 February 2015 — Outline Summary

11.00-11.30 am:  

We were welcome by Kevin Flynn, Chair Trade Union Congress NCCUW (National Coombine for Centres for Unemployed Workers?)
  1. Introduction of Helen Flanagan (PCS): Vice President of the DWP Group of Public & Commercial Services Union who is responsible for Jobcentre issues.
  2. Introduction of Eleanor Firman (Disabled People Against the Cuts) who is a member of  the DPAC Steering Committee and Unite Community.

11.30 am: Workshops:

KUWG members who assisted at the Welfare Conference were Alan, Ben, Gisele, Joan, Abby, Liam, Leigh and Pauline. (Robin was one of the organisers.) There were about 100 people who attended the conference and these were divided into four groups:

1-Sanctions, Conditionality and Work Capability Assessment.

In this group people  shared their experience on how to challenge sanctions and the reasons behind sanctions.  A jobcentre’ Adviser apologised for the inhuman application of jobcentre policy. 

People present included among others, 

2- Contribution or a right? Who gets what benefits, when and why?

The group looked at contribution schemes and debated on unconditional basic income. How can we achieve real economy and social equality?  People on the whole have accepted that there should be a safety net for everyone.

3- Work: Workfare, internship, apprenticeship and traineeships.

The group looked at the  government workfare which exploits and undermines employed workers. They also debated on how we could challenge such procedures, the defending of workers' rights and free education. Everyone agreed that volunteering and training should be voluntary and proper jobs should be paid, with over 100 charities signing against mandatory workfare.

4- Equality: Making it a reality in Welfare.

They looked at the Increase of discrimination and multiple problems that have been created through the stigma that politicians and the media have brought up around benefit claimants. And how it resulted for the most vulnerable in losing touch with services and other issues such as socialising (being marginalised). 
 
They concluded that we should implement services to help with more complex needs especially for those who can’t communicate or are unable to move because of their physical disability.

12.45: Feedback from workshops with what should be included in the DWP legislation (the combination of all the above workshops).

13.30. Lunch

After lunch pictures were taken from the group in front of TUC offices with the banner against benefit sanctions.

14.15: Plenary.

Short history of the UWC (Unemployed Workers Centres) movement by Alec McFaden. I missed the talk. At lunchtime there was so much food left over.I put all the sandwiches in bags and ask Tom Mellish “the organiser” to give me a hand to bring them to St Mungo's. He helped me to carry the food to St- Mungo.

14.25: Richard Exell (TUC)

Richard is the TUC’s Senior Policy Officer responsible for work and on Employment and social security, writing and commissioning TUC guides and reports. I missed the talk part of the talk but I do remember hearing that the sanctions were there to foot the bill for Tax Credit instead of asking the employers to offer decent wages. They take the money from the claimants to pass it onto the underpaid.

14.45 Ideas sessions. Mapping a welfare system.

Discussion in mapping a Charter (more or less):

  1. Unconditional income that hasn’t been defined completely

  2. Banned sanctions for good
  3. £10 hourly work rate ('Living Wage')
  4. Jobcentres should advise the claimants. (This advisory role should not be surrendered to an external agency.)
  5. Workfare that is mandatory should be banned
  6. Free Education and proper training
  7. Only doctors, specialists and the claimants should be involve in assessing ESA and other health benefits not ATOS or MAXIMUS.
  8. Financial Help for families’ carers.

16.15. Report back and brain storming from ideas above.

A final Charter will be revised and published in later date.

17.00

Liane Grove spoke about what Unite is doing. Her own experiences and the hard work that the group is contributing to in changing the policies of this government through workshops like this one.

17.15 The End.


Monday, 25 August 2014

"'Welfare to work' pathways far from satisfactory for people with mental health problems" — IPPR

Swheatie of the KUWG reflects on a new report from a 'think-tank'

In its own words, "the IPPR, the Institute for Public Policy Research, is the UK's leading progressive think-tank." Well, they would say that, wouldn't they? For a slightly more impartial reference turn to Wikipedia:

IPPR (the Institute for Public Policy Research) is a thinktank based in the UK with a centre-left viewpoint. It was founded in 1988. It produces research and policy ideas committed to upholding values of social justice, democratic reform and environmental sustainability.
The founding director was James Cornford.[1] The current director is Nick Pearce,[2] a former Head of the No. 10 Policy Unit and special advisor to David Blunkett MP. Former members of staff include the current pensions minister Liberal Democrat MP Steve Webb and former Labour cabinet ministers Patricia Hewitt and David Miliband.
The Institute edits a quarterly journal called Juncture (formerly PPR and New Economy), published by Wiley-Blackwell, which features articles from academics and politicians.
IPPR is based in London and IPPR North has branches in Newcastle and Manchester. The organisation is an independent registered charity. Funding comes from the following:[3]
  • trust and foundation grants
  • European and international funds
  • central and local government funding
  • corporate, public sector and voluntary sector support
  • individual donors
While I would tend to regard those bods as right wing rather than left-wing, what they say up front in the blurb for this report suggests that even they don't reckon the assessments treat folk with mental health issues appropriately:

In safe hands? Evaluating employment pathways for ESA claimants with mental health problems

Author:
Published Wed 20 Aug 2014
This short briefing shines a spotlight on welfare-to-work pathways that are 'far from satisfactory' for people with mental health and behavioural problems.
    It is estimated that 1.9 million people are receiving ESA, rising to 2.4 million in 2015. However, people with mental health problems, who make up 40 percent of those going through the work capability assessment (WCA) process, are being let down by a system that appears to be neither effective nor accurate in determining the appropriate level of financial or employment support for claimants with mental health problems.     Equally, the system fails to provide the kind of support for claimants that is adequate or appropriate for people with mental health problems.
    This paper makes recommendations focusing on:
  • collecting additional information and evidence about people who might be disadvantaged by the level of self-reporting that the WCA requires
  • additional training for assessors and decision-makers before they are allowed to handle applicants with mental and behavioural health problems
  • continuous monitoring of how the WCA is conducted to mitigate negative effects on the wellbeing of participants with mental health problems.
Beyond these specific areas of improvement, we propose two principles for wider reform of employment assessment and support.
  • The WCA should be about assessing support needed for a person to work, not policing a gateway to benefits: despite the rhetoric, the WCA is still a test of what people can’t do, focused on benefits rather than employment.
  • Work support services should be about pursuing ‘supported employment’ strategies, not just supported job search: the current regime is too focused on labour market attachment, but other approaches are available, like the ‘place, train and retain’ approach used in Norway and Sweden.
I welcome the above summary as an aperitif to further study. As I am a person with very slow reading pace, I welcome the fact that the full report — available as a downloadable pdf document — is a mere eight pages long.

Yet I point out that the dodgy provenance of the Work Capability Assessment system is rooted in the outlook of American-based 'disability denial factory' — and 'disability insurer' Unum who have been 'advising' successive UK governments on 'welfare reform' since 1994, and Unum's 'bio-psychosocial model' of disability. Of that, Mo Stewart — a disabled war veteran turned researcher into how her own military disability pension from the UK's Ministry of Defence came to be adjudicated and downgraded by Atos Healthcare — wrote in a March 2013 research summary entitled 'The Hidden Agenda':

Of course, [the] destruction of the welfare state could never have been so readily achived 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 Welfrare Reform for the Coalition where he has excelled. Indeed, one of Lord Freud's most recent claims was that: "Poor peope should be prepared to take more risks because they have the least to lose..." Clearly, this man is yet another millionaire Minister who demonstrates no concern, an 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 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 1992, was in post when Unum Insurance was invited to become corporate 'advisers' to the UK government....
 
[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. Meanwhile, Unum Insurance is happy to continue to offer new careers to former government 'advisers'.
 
So, this IPPR report that has been supported by input from mental health charity Mind is useful information that needs promoting to help counter public ignorance, but we must realise that the 'welfare reform' agenda is generally directed by those who are short on scruples and understanding, and blinkered by greed.


Friday, 18 October 2013

An Example of Work Capability Assessment Cheating by Atos and the DWP

Yesterday's Casework and Members' Wellbeing section of he KUWG business meeting heard how one of ours folk recovering from a cancer operation and living with asthma had been awarded only 6 eligibility points from her most recent Work Capability Assessment. (She has been retested a number of times in the sick game that could be called 'Atos Roulette'.)

The report that was used by a Department for Work and Pensions 'decision maker' in awarding 6 eligibility points (threshold 15 to qualify for Employment and Support Allowance) included Atos lies that she could raise her hands above her head, and followed such long delays in her getting the result, that after a recent cancer operation she was feeling totally worn down. The Atos 'Disability Analyst' had lied in saying that the person examined as a 'claimant not a patient' could raise her hands above her head. ('Computer services' company Atos with its contract to conduct assessments for the UK Government assumes that getting medical staff to think of people as 'claimants not patients' assumes that such mental gymnastics overwrites the Hippocartic Oath.)

One of our members had attended the WCA with the 6 pointer and can thus give testimony as to her true capacity to raise her hands above her head, but the rules or goalposts regarding appeal deadlines keep changing, so our Miss X who could not attend our meeting yesterday might be timed out of justice.Another member reported that at his first WCA he wanted the Atos staff member to focus on his mental health situation while he was crying his eyes out and found it bizarre that in a limited time appointment he was asked to raise his hands above his head. He had been awarded 0 eligibility points at his first WCA. When he attended with a knowledgeable friend he was able to get the 'Disability Analyst' to have a better focus, and was subsequently put into the Support Group of ESA claimants. But even when a claimant has a supportive friend, they have no control over the number of times or frequency with which they will be retested, or the targets that the DWP denies exist but numerous cases testify to. Contrary to ministerial statements, Atos Roulette is generally not life enhancing.

KUWG blames the DWP for the way that it awards Atos Healthcare bonuses of about £1,400 per claimant that they declare fit for work.

The meeting also decided to help the claimant concerned pay parking fees so that she can attend our meetings.