soiniciulacht

#WERSPARTACUS #WORKFARE #DWP #BLACKTRIANGLEUK #COMMENTISFREE

The quantum nature of time in the UK parliament

In parliament there is often a time limit on debates and decision making; on occasion if a time limit is in danger of being breached there is a convention that the clock is stopped in that room.

Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)

On a quick point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was very perplexed by something that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said. He said that he had attended a sitting——

§ Mr. Speaker

Order. The fact that an hon. Member is perplexed by what another hon. Member has said is not a point of order. I am constantly perplexed.

§ Mr. Home Robertson

I seek clarification from you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Ogmore said that he was present at a sitting of the Welsh Grand Committee this morning. Surely that is impossible. He must have been there tomorrow morning.

§ Mr. Speaker

I think that I can indeed clarify that matter——

§ Mr. Wigley

rose——

§ Mr. Speaker

No, let me have the first go. It is Wednesday upstairs in Committee, but it may be Tuesday down here.

—————————————————————————————————————————————

Talking to the government:

HOUSING BENEFITS

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request received on 29 October 2010.   You asked for:-

1. How many households are getting over 50,000 / annum in housing benefit?
2. How many households are getting over 40,000 / annum in housing benefit?
3. How many households are getting over 30,000/ annum in housing benefit?
4. How many households are getting over 20,000 / annum in housing benefit?
5. How many in each of the above are outside London?
6. If social housing is increased to 80% of market rents is it expected that any of these new rents will exceed the housing allowance and if so approximately how many?
7. Is the linkage between housing benefits and CPI expected to reduce the number of properties available to those on housing benefit?

Response

The information requested for questions 1-5 is shown in the following table. This is based on the ranges of the weekly HB award as at August 2010 assuming the claimant would remain at this level of benefit for 52 weeks.

—————————————————————————————————————————————

THINK TANKS AND PARTY FUNDING 

Thank you for your request under the Freedom of Information Act 1 September 2011. You have requested;
1/ Given that many people who give donations to the Tory Party also fund various think tanks has the Commission investigated whether this is being used as a way of evading caps on donations?
2/ Given that these links between the think tanks and the parties are so close and extends to all areas of policy does the Commission review these links to see whether they are being used a way of avoiding spending limits by, for example:
*      carrying out research for the party
*      publicising proposals (kite flying)
*      attacking political opponents using information provided by politicians and/or providing material to politicians with which they can attack their opponents
3/ Has the Commission investigated suspicions that the relationship is bypassing generally accepted democratic processes when we see government statements such as in the Open Public Services White Paper (Section 5.25).*

Open Public Services White Paper 5.25 We will ensure that, at both the national and local levels, commissioning decisions and the performance of providers are transparent and open to public scrutiny. Commissioners can be held to account for their decisions by users (whose rights of redress we are strengthening), by independent audit and inspection bodies (for example, the National Audit Office) and by independent champions (such as the TaxPayers’ Alliance). They can also be held to account through democratic means, such as scrutiny by Parliament (Accounting Officers appearing before or reporting to the Public Accounts Committee), and by representative bodies of professionals and local councils (such as Health and Wellbeing Boards).

Dear

Thank you for your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 dated 1 September 2011.

You have requested information on three points:

I note that many of those who fund think tanks such as the Taxpayers Alliance are also funding the Conservative Party and UKIP.

1/ Given that many people who give donations to the Tory Party also fund various think tanks has the Commission investigated whether this is being used as a way of evading caps on donations?
2/ Given that these links between the think tanks and the parties are so close and extends to all areas of policy does the Commission review these links to see whether they are being used a way of avoiding spending limits by, for example:
*      carrying out research for the party
*      publicising proposals (kite flying)
*      attacking political opponents using information provided by politicians and/or providing material to politicians with which they can attack their opponents

3/ Has the Commission investigated suspicions that the relationship is bypassing generally accepted democratic processes when we see government statements such as in the Open Public Services White Paper (Section 5.25).

Our response is as follows:

1)      At present the party funding rules do not impose caps on donations.  Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA), political parties must check that donations above £500 are from a permissible source, and must report donations above a certain level (£7,500 to central parties, £1,500 to party branches or ‘accounting units’) to the Electoral Commission for publication on our website. The rules are explained in our guidance on how to manage donations to political parties, which can be found at:
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/102280/sp-manage-donations-rp.pdf
If a donor gives money to a non-regulated organisation such as a think tank, and that organisation then uses the money in such a way that it amounts to a donation to a political party under PPERA, then the party should treat this as a donation from the organisation concerned.
If a donor gives money to a non-regulated organisation with the intention that the money should then be used directly to make a donation to a political party, then the organisation should make this clear to the party when passing on the donation, and the original provider of the money will be treated as the donor for the purposes of PPERA.
Anyone who has reason to believe that the activities of a think tank are being used to evade the PPERA controls on donations can make an allegation to the Electoral Commission.  Our allegations procedure explains how to do this and how we deal with allegations.  It can be found on our website at:
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/party-finance/enforcement/making-allegations
2)      Spending limits apply to the campaigning activity of political parties and non-party campaigners in the run-up to certain elections.  Campaigning activity by a non-party campaigner in support of a political party that has been authorised by that party will count against the party’s spending limit.  Campaigning that has not been authorised by a party may count as regulated spending by the non-party campaigner involved, depending on the amount of spending and what it is used for.  The rules on the regulation of non-party campaigners are explained in our introductory guidance for campaigners, which can be found at:
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/105936/intro-campaigner-npc.pdf
During the regulated period in the run-up to elections we carry out campaign monitoring to promote compliance with the law.  The monitoring we carried out for the regulated elections and referendums in spring 2011 is described in a briefing note on our website, which can be found at:
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/109522/PEF-Campaign-Monitoring-Briefing-Note-2011.pdf
Again, anyone who has reason to believe that the activities of a think tank are being used to evade the controls on campaign spending can make an allegation to us, as described above.
3)      Our regulatory role is to monitor and take steps to ensure compliance with the rules on party and election finance, including those described above.  As described above, anyone who has reason to believe that an organisation’s activities amount to a breach of those rules can make an allegation to us.
I trust that this information satisfies your request. If you are not satisfied with this response, please note that the Commission operates a review procedure, details of which can be found on the Commission website at: http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/about-us/freedom-of-information-requests/how-do-I-make-an-foi-request

—————————————————————————————————————————————

THE DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION

From: no-reply@education.gov.uk [mailto:no-reply@education.gov.uk]
Sent: 20 September 2011 19:27
To: CORRESPONDENCE, PCU
Subject: Contact us form – The Department

What is your query about: The Department
Title: Mr
Other title:
Name:
Email:
Telephone:
Your role: Other
Other role: citizen of the UK
FOI enquiry: Yes
Complaint about DfE staff/service:No

Subject: Departmental Advisors
Enquiry:

1/ To list: All Special Advisors in the department who have come from organisations that could benefit financially from, or which could be expected to have some financial interest in, the Free Schools programme.

2/ To list all meeting the Minister or senior departmental officals have had with such organisations.

3/ To provide details of the above meetings.

4/ To state the Department’s attitude to FOI requests asking about such organisations.

5/ To say how many FOI requests have been recieved about NSN and how many have been refused.
Technical guidance unclear:
Document to provide: No

Wednesday, 21 September 2011, 11:24

Dear Mr

Thank you for your recent email. A reply will be sent to you as soon as possible. For information, the departmental standard for correspondence received is that responses should be sent within 20 working days as you are requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2011/0064801

Thank you.

Central Allocation Team

Public Communications Team

Tel: 0370 0002288
www.education.gov.uk

8 DECEMBER 2011

Could you please tell me when I can expect a reply?

Dear Mr

Thank you for your email of 8 December. I very much regret that the Department is not yet able to answer your request.

The Department does make every effort to meet statutory deadlines, and to fulfil its obligations under the FOI Act. I am sorry that in this instance we have not been able to do so. We will reply as soon as possible .

Thank you

Public Communications Unit

Department for Education

Tel: 0370 000 2288

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Environmental Information Regulations 2004 Complaint form

Asked for help from the Information Commissioner

12 March 2012

Case Reference Number FS50435370

Dear
Thank you for your correspondence in which you complain about the Department for Education’s failure to respond to your information request within 20 working days.
I have written to the Department for Education and asked it to respond to your request within 10 working days.
When considering complaints about delayed or failed responses to information requests our priority is to ensure requesters receive a response as quickly as possible (where one has not been provided) and to monitor any persistent trends which might indicate that a public authority was routinely failing to respond within the statutory 20 working days permitted under section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act.
We monitor complaints where a serious contravention of section 10 is recorded and where persistent contraventions occur we will consider placing a public authority on our monitoring programme (http://www.ico.gov.uk/what_we_cover/promoting_openness/monitoring_compliance.aspx ).
We do not consider that in cases such as this a formal decision notice is the most effective means of ensuring future compliance with the section 10 provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.  Our monitoring programme is proving very successful at improving practices amongst public authorities who have shown a long term reluctance or inability to respond to information requests within the statutory timescales.
However, should you wish the Information Commissioner to issue a decision notice for your specific complaint we are able to do so.  We would however draw your attention to the time a public authority has to comply with any decision notice issued by the Commissioner.
This is longer than it often takes us to secure disclosure of information informally.  It is also important to note that the Commissioner does not need to serve a decision notice in an individual case in order to use that case as evidence for future enforcement action.
Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the Information Commissioner; even though we have not issued a formal notice, we have taken your concerns seriously.
This case has now been closed. Please contact our Helpline on 0303 123 1113 if you require any further assistance.
Yours sincerely

From:

To: “PCU.CORRESPONDENCE@education.gsi.gov.uk” <PCU.CORRESPONDENCE@education.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: Monday, 19 March 2012, 8:25
Subject: FOI Request 2011/0064801

I received notification on 12 March from the Information Commissioner that I could expect a reply from you within 10 days to the FOI request that is now months overdue. I trust that an acceptable response will be forthcoming in the next few days.

regards

19 MARCH 2012

PCU.CORRESPONDENCE@education.gsi.gov.uk <PCU.CORRESPONDENCE@education.gsi.gov.uk>;

Any sign of the reply? Or do I have to escalate yet again?

23 March 2012

Case Reference Number FS50435370

Dear

Thank you for your further correspondence in which you confirm that you have still not receibved a response from the Department for Education.
Your case has now been allocated to one of our case resolution teams who will contact you as soon as possible to explain how your complaint will be progressed.
The Information Commissioner’s Office is an independent public body set up to promote public access to official information. We will rule on eligible complaints from people who are unhappy with the way public authorities have handled requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
If you need to contact us about any aspect of your complaint please contact our Freedom of Information Helpline on 0303 123 1113, being sure to quote the reference number at the top of this letter.

—————————————————————————————————————————————

DEPARTMENT FOR HEALTH

Dear Mr

Thank you for your email of 12 October to the Department of Health about consultants within the Department.

The Department does not hold information centrally on the number of consultants engaged across England. Under the current system you will need to consult the local NHS bodies concerned to request a breakdown of the figures you require. Similarly, subject to the Health and Social Care Bill, you will need to contact the individual commissioning bodies for this information. However, I can confirm that there is currently no one in the Department on secondment from McKinsey.

I hope this reply is helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Emma Backhouse

Customer Service Centre

Department of Health

DEPARTMENT FOR WORK AND PENSIONS

19 JANUARY 2012

The UK has signed and ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Given this can the department confirm that the changes to DLA have incorporated the following commitments:

1/ In DWP press releases are the people responsible aware of Article 8 of the convention? What policies are in place to ensure this?
“To nurture receptiveness to the rights of persons with disabilities” and “To promote positive perceptions and greater social awareness towards persons with disabilities” and
“Encouraging all organs of the media to portray persons with disabilities in a manner consistent with the purpose of the present Convention”

2/ Are the DLA changes consistent with Article 19
“States Parties to the present Convention recognize the equal right of all persons with disabilities to live in the community, with choices equal to others, and shall take effective and appropriate measures to facilitate full enjoyment by persons with disabilities of this right and their full inclusion and participation in the community”
If so how has this been guaranteed?

3/ There has been repeated use of a figure of 600 million in overpayments. This figure came from a 2005 report. Is the use of such data consistent with the requirement in Article 31
“States Parties undertake to collect appropriate information, including statistical and research data, to enable them to formulate and implement policies to give effect to the present Convention”
and given the failure to publish impact assessments and cost benefits analysis how has the DWP complied with the requirement that
“States Parties shall assume responsibility for the dissemination of these statistics and ensure their accessibility to persons with disabilities and others.

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request of 19 January 2012. You asked:

1/ In DWP press releases are the people responsible aware of Article 8 of the convention? What policies are in place to ensure this?

2/ Are the DLA changes consistent with Article 19, If so how has this been guaranteed?

3/ There has been repeated use of a figure of 600 million in overpayments. This figure came from a 2005 report. Is the use of such data consistent with the requirement in Article 31

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) complies with its HRA requirements and all legislation passed is compatible with those obligations when placed before parliament, who also consider compatibility issues.  All departmental procedures and processes are designed to comply with article 8 requirements, but to provide all departmental procedures and policies in which the principles are embedded would involve disproportionate costs.*

DWP published an impact assessment on the reform of Disability Living Allowance in October 2011.  This included a consideration of equality impacts of the reform.  A publication on the assessment criteria for Personal Independence Payment on 16th January 2012 gave further details on the likely numbers affected by the reforms. The Department will publish an updated impact assessment following Royal Assent of the Welfare Reform Bill.

The publication “Fraud, Error and other Incorrectness in Disability Living Allowance” in 2005 does comply with article 31.  The information collected and published in that review still has relevant implications for policy making.

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

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Edwards
Independent Living & Office for Disability Issues

* When I worked as a Teacher i had a ‘Manual’ this listed my obligations in general terms with important particulars noted – it was not necessary for these policies to be reprinted, modified changed or messed about with under every possible condition or set of conditions as, in case of doubt, responsible officials, usually senior management, were available for consultation should the need arise. Why answer truthfully when you can fob people off with bull.

21 JANUARY 2012

pip.assessment@dwp.gsi.gov.uk <pip.assessment@dwp.gsi.gov.uk>;

You have put out draft assessments and other documents asking for responses to proposals on changes to WCA. In one case you provide a 32 page document and a 74 page document which are supposed to be used in conjunction. These documents are almost impossible to understand and are almost totally lacking in clarity.

Given your obligations under the convention and the policies set out here

http://odi.dwp.gov.uk/inclusive-communications/index.php

Do you really think these consultations are fit for purpose?

—————————————————————————————————————————————

IDS COMMENTS ON ANDREW MARR SHOW

29 JANUARY 2012

MINISTERS@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK

Maybe you can reconcile the comments made on the programme with this report

” Children are, in domestic law and international human rights law
including the UNCRC, rights-holders and their rights are independent of those of their
parents or carers. In the context of welfare reform this is underlined by Article 26 UNCRC,
under which children have a direct right to apply for social security benefits.2 The failure of
parents or carers to comply with conditions on benefits or take up the incentives offered in
the Bill does not affect the Government’s children’s rights obligations, including the
requirements to provide social security and an adequate standard of living for all children. “

http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/content/publications/content_555

Dear

Thank you for your recent correspondence referring to comments made by the Secretary of State on that day’s Andrew Marr Show.  Government Ministers receive a large volume of correspondence and they are unable to respond personally on every occasion. As your correspondence falls within the remit of this Department, I have been asked to respond.

The Government is committed to tackling child poverty and improving children’s life chances. Central to this is the involvement of parents in the lives of their children. Evidence shows that ongoing involvement is better for children across a wide range of outcomes.

In this context, we are in the process of reforming the Welfare system.  At its foundation is our belief that work, not welfare, is the best route out of poverty. Work is generally good for the health and well-being of parents, brings social and emotional benefits to their children, and of course, provides a source of income for the family.

To encourage people to move into work, the Government firmly believes that there has to be a limit on the overall levels of benefit it is appropriate for the state to provide.  From April 2013 we plan to set the limit at £500 a week for couple and lone parent households. This is equivalent to a net salary of £26,000 per year, or a gross salary of £35,000 per year.

We are aware that concerns have been raised about the impact of the cap on children.  However, children will already have their life chances and opportunities damaged when they see that not working and living on benefits can make them just as well off, or even better off, than working. That is why parents who move into work and get Working Tax Credit will be exempt from the cap on benefits.
Ministers have considered the requirements of the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights in developing these reforms, and the way in which we will implement them will be fully in line with the Government’s children’s right obligations.

15 February 2012

THE FUTURE OF THE WELFARE STATE UNDER THREAT?

MINISTERS@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK

In the Lords debate (14 Feb, Hansard columns 730-734) on Welfare Reform, Lord Freud appears to imply that DLA/PIP and Attendance Allowance are at risk of being abolished due to EU law. Could you clarify this?

Baroness Lister : When I put it to Dr O’Brien that it would appear that the Stewart judgment had been seized on as a pretext, she agreed, adding, “I think it is a very flimsy pretext”.

If, however, the department’s interpretation were correct, it might also raise questions about entitlement to DLA/PIP and attendance allowance. Can the Minister please give the House a firm assurance that there will be no attempt in future to abolish those payments using the same pretext?

Lord Freud: My Lords, that is an enormous question. In this context, I am in no position to give the undertaking.

Website: http://www.dwp.gov.uk        E-mail Ministers at: ministers@dwp.gsi.gov.uk
Ministerial Correspondence Team, Caxton House, Tothill Street, London, SW1H 9NA

Mr

Our Ref: TO/12/01920

Dear Mr

Thank you for your recent correspondence. Government Ministers receive a large volume of correspondence and they are unable to respond personally on every occasion. As your correspondence falls within the remit of this Department, I have been asked to respond.

We remain steadfast in our support for the principles of Disability Living Allowance as a non-means-tested cash benefit contributing to the extra costs incurred by disabled people. It is, however, important to understand that Disability Living Allowance has not been fundamentally reformed since its introduction 20 years ago and it was never anticipated that the benefit would go to so many people. It lacks some of the basic checks and reviews that are integral to most other State funded support. We have to ensure that this critical support reflects the needs of disabled people today rather than those of the 1990s.

The current Disability Living Allowance assessment process is not up to the task. An over reliance on self-assessment is resulting in inconsistent awards; more than half of all decisions require no additional medical evidence. There is no inbuilt process of regularly reassessing claims, including the 72 per cent receiving an indefinite award, meaning there is no way to know whether someone is receiving too much or too little support. In 2004/05 the National Benefit Review estimated that disabled people lost out on £190 million a year in underpayments, and received £630 million in overpayments. Additionally, almost 130,000 people on Disability Living Allowance since 1992 have not had their awards changed since getting the benefit. Those with a short-term condition could find themselves being treated in the same way as those with a lifelong disability.

Disability Living Allowance is a product of its time, focusing primarily on physical disabilities. Compared to the 1990s there is now better understanding of the needs of individuals with mental health conditions, learning difficulties and sensory impairments like blindness. Understanding of conditions like autism has also changed measurably.

Formal public consultation on our proposals to replace Disability Living Allowance ran from 6 December 2010 until 18 February 2011. The Government’s response on 4 April outlined our proposals to bring Disability Living Allowance into the 21st Century by replacing it with a new benefit – Personal Independence Payment. The Government’s response to the consultation exercise can be viewed at http://www.dwp.gov.uk/consultations/2010/dla-reform.shtml.

We are designing Personal Independence Payment to reflect a modern understanding of disability; to treat all conditions fairly and ensure proper support is in place. This is a real step forward. Reform of Disability Living Allowance is long overdue and the benefit must be changed to better support disabled people to lead independent lives as they want to today.

This is an opportunity to better target support for disabled people and to enable them to lead full, active and independent lives. Personal Independence Payment will maintain the key principles of Disability Living Allowance: it will be a non-means-tested cash benefit available to people in and out of work, but it will be delivered in a fairer and more consistent manner. It is only right that support should be targeted at those disabled people who require the most assistance to lead independent lives and this reform will achieve that, along with delivering a more consistent assessment process.

Key to the benefit will be a more objective assessment of individual need. We have been developing the assessment criteria in collaboration with a group of independent specialists in disability, social care and health, and the initial proposals were published in May 2011. Over the summer of 2011 we tested this first draft of the criteria and sought views from disabled people and their organisations on how well they worked, and if they could be improved.

Following this, on 14 November 2011 we published revised draft regulations and a second draft of the assessment criteria, including relative weightings for each of the descriptors, to inform debate on the Personal Independence Payment clauses as the Welfare Reform Bill moved through the House of Lords. These documents can be found at http://www.dwp.gov.uk/pip. Since the publication of these documents we have analysed the testing results further and have developed initial thoughts for the entitlement thresholds of Personal Independence Payment.

On 16 January 2012 we launched a 15 week formal consultation on the second draft of the assessment criteria. We would welcome thoughts on the revisions we have made to the criteria as a result of the informal consultation and testing that took place during the summer, and on the proposed descriptor weightings, the entitlement thresholds and the draft regulations. The consultation will close on 30 April, and further details and documentation can be found on this Department’s website at http://www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/disability/personal-independence-payment/the-assessment-criteria.

The final draft regulations for the assessment will not be laid until later this year, subject to Royal Assent of the Welfare Reform Bill, and will be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny through the affirmative procedure. We will continue to work with disabled people and their organisations as the detail of the assessment and its operation is further developed.

Finally, we have published answers to the most frequently asked questions about Personal Independence Payment. We hope that these will prove helpful to existing Disability Living Allowance claimants, disabled people generally, their families, carers or representative organisations of and for disabled people. These can be viewed at http://www.dwp.gov.uk/pip.

Yours sincerely
Goff Daft
Head of the Correspondence Team

—————————————————————————————————————————————

3 March 2012

CABINET OFFICE – BREACH OF MINISTERIAL CODE

I would like to point out the behaviour of Maria Miller MP, Minister for Disabled People.

I refer to the allegations relating to the claims made in the newspaper interview which would appear to contravene the duty placed on Ministers under the principles of Accountability and Honesty.

The allegations are detailed in this article:

http://www.thirdforcenews.org.uk/2012/02/scottish-disability-groups-boycott-meeting-with-uk%E2%80%88government/

If this is outside the scope of your authority to deal with could you please forward this to the relevant person for further consideration.

SCOTTISH disability charities this week attacked the UK Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) and boycotted a meeting in Edinburgh that was supposed to involve disability minister Maria Miller.

Miller called off from attending the meeting at Capability Scotland headquarters on Tuesday to discuss the UK government’s disability consultation, Fulfilling Your Potential.

However, three Scottish organisations – Inclusion, the Lothian Centre for Inclusive Living and Independent Living in Scotland – had already decided to boycott the meeting.

The organisations were angry that the minister said in an interview with a national newspaper that she had personally met with 60 disability organisations to discuss reform of the benefits system for disabled people.

When campaign group Disabled People Against Cuts asked the DWP for a list of the organisations Miller was referring to, it included a number of Scottish groups who are campaigning against the changes and have never met Miller.