grayling

All posts tagged grayling

Could DWP please at least lie consistently?

Posted by soiniciulacht on May 29, 2012
Posted in: benefits, employment, Factual, news, politics, welfare reform. Tagged: , , , , , , .

Those of us who have followed the ‘debate’ on Welfare reform have been shocked at the scale of lying, stereotyping, abuse and misuse of statistics and the bare faced chutzpah of DWP.

The latest in example in the series comes from the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9293283/More-dole-claimants-to-be-forced-to-do-community-work.html

grayling1

The mandatory work activity scheme, which forces people on the dole to do community work, is to be doubled

The scheme offers a month’s full time work to unemployed people who in the view of Job Centre staff are not “pulling their weight”. Whitehall sources described the scheme as “a kick up the backside” or a “big push for people who are struggling”.

Mr Grayling refused to be drawn on the details of the announcement.

He told The Daily Telegraph: “We will be giving more details about our plans next month. But it is the case that Job Centre Plus staff have said this has proved to be an enormously valuable tool in trying to focus people on their job search.”

Job Centre staff decide who goes on the scheme. They say it has proved popular – in the past year 18,000 unemployed adults have gone onto the scheme.

Next month Mr Grayling will say that the scheme, which for those on the dole who are aged over 24, is going to double in size.

Mr Grayling is also understood to be looking at forcing people who miss two fortnightly job interviews to go on the scheme.

Detailed statistics of the scheme, which was started last year by Mr Grayling as part of a “carrot and stick” approach to benefits, will be published next month.

They are likely to show that half of the people referred for a month’s activity were coming off benefits, or were not turning up and having their benefits as a result.

Ministers like the scheme because it stops benefit claimants from working on the black market at the same. One source said: “They can’t do both.”

At first sight this may, to many, seem reasonable, indeed some of it is. I have no problem with those who miss fortnightly benefits signings being subject to action, based as it is on objective criteria. The scheme, however, has drawbacks which have been pointed out before, and which the DWP answered in their normal manner ie arrogantly.

Report by the Social Security Advisory Committee under Section 174(1) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and statement by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in accordance with Section 174(2) of that Act

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/other/9780108510403/9780108510403.pdf

15. The Committee, along with some respondents, set out a concern regarding the intention of the scheme, likening it to a punishment, rather than a supportive employment programme.

16. The Government does not accept this position.

64. The Committee had concerns regarding what they saw as the discretion of advisers to impose sanctions.

73.  we are aware that there are certain disadvantaged groups that are disproportionately more likely to receive certain sanctions.

4.17 Evidence from the Department’s Equality Impact Assessment and DWP research shows that ethnic minority claimants and those with a learning difficulty tend to be disproportionately sanctioned for not actively seeking employment.

5.3 Most respondents are concerned by the level of discretion proposed for Advisers. Several respondents are very worried at the prospect of disabled people being referred to mandatory work activity without proper safeguards being put in place around unrealistic expectations of what they could do. Others point out the potential to adversely affect people with complex needs, including people who are homeless or disabled, and question whether Jobcentre Plus staff would have sufficient training and guidance to be able to deal with this type of client. Two further respondents note that the criteria for referral (including lack of timekeeping skills and/or lack of interpersonal skills) could include people with certain ‘invisible’ disabilities such as dyslexia, dyspraxia, autistic spectrum disorders, and mental health problems such as bipolar disorder.

The committee came up with only 1 key recommendation:

7.1 Key Recommendation: We recommend that mandatory work activity does not proceed.

More information: http://cynicism.me/2012/03/18/the-new-jerusalem-daily-briefing-day-17-since-the-free-press-died/

ATOS–Still Incompetent, Still Killing; Grayling– Still Lying, Still Killing

Posted by soiniciulacht on April 15, 2012
Posted in: benefits, employment, Factual, Legislation, Tories, welfare reform. Tagged: , , , , , , , .

#dpac #atos #workfare #commentisfree #dwp #werspartacus

atoscustcharter

First Delegated Legislation Committee

Tuesday 14 June 2011
Employment and Support Allowance (Limited Capability for Work and Limited Capability for Work-Related Activity) (Amendment) Regulations 2011

Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab):

I will begin, though, by asking the Minister why it has taken so long for the Committee to sit. The regulations were made on 8 February and debated in the other place in the middle of March, and they came into force at the end of March, so they have now been in force for two and a half months. I would be genuinely interested to know why we are debating them only now.

The first of the mandated independent reviews, conducted by Professor Harrington, produced its report last November. I am pleased that the Government have accepted all its recommendations. However, this is where things start to get a little difficult. There have been two reviews, not one: the internal review and the independent review. Their conclusions are different. Professor Harrington, who conducted the independent review, has commented on the conclusions of the internal review. Speaking last month to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, he said:

“I have heard nothing but criticism of the changes to the descriptors, admittedly from the groups who represent those particular people with those particular disabilities. I was not part of the internal review”.

Professor Harrington’s report of the views of the groups that represent disabled people is undoubtedly accurate. It is clearly the perception of the majority of the disability organisations that the changes to the descriptors that are before us ought not to have gone forward, or at least not at this time.

why did the Government press ahead with making the changes now, against the clearly expressed wishes of Professor Harrington, whom the Government had charged with carrying out the independent review? The remit of the Harrington review was broader than that of the Department’s internal review, and he identified a number of changes needed in how the work capability assessment worked, rather than solely in the descriptors. His review recommended that Mind, Mencap and, I believe, the National Autistic Society should look at the descriptors affecting people with mental health conditions and report back to the review. It also recommended that the second year of the review should address the wider question of the suitability of the descriptors.

I note that the Social Security Advisory Committee, in its 23rd report, questioned whether

“the WCA in its present form could be said to be working satisfactorily.”

Why have the Government pressed ahead with the changes now, contrary to the wishes of Professor Harrington?

Jenny Willott (Cardiff Central) (LD):

Given the rhetoric about some of the Government’s proposals, the Government seem to be painted as mean, nasty people who are trying to take benefits away from poor, disabled people, but proposals are in place that clearly show that that is just not true.

[Just goes to show that even when disabled people are committing suicide there is no integrity from the Liberal Democrats although, to be fair, she voted against Tuition Fee rises. She is now in the Whips Office]

Complaints have also been received about assessment centres not being wheelchair accessible. Carrying out assessments in such buildings on people with a range of physical and mental disabilities is, frankly, ridiculous, and claimants who are entering into the assessment process feel that that is not fair and that they are not being valued as individuals.

Stephen Timms:

I am sure that what the Minister has said about Professor Harrington’s recommendations is correct, but the professor says that the Department knew that he would have preferred a delay until his recommendations could be implemented. Is that incorrect? Did the Department not know?

The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling): [A proven liar]

All I can say is that I have had a number of meetings with Professor Harrington and at no stage did he make any such recommendation.

The other element was what we do about people who have a disability but have adapted to that disability. The internal review commissioned by the previous Administration made a proposal on that. The previous Secretary of State said:

“The revised assessment will for example take better account of an individual’s ability to adapt to their condition and introduce improved assessment of fluctuating conditions.”—[Official Report, 29 March 2010; Vol. 508, c. 88WS.]

The adaptation point is crucial. Let me deal with that straight away to respond to a couple of the questions raised by the right hon. Member for East Ham. Essentially, under the work capability assessment before these changes, a Paralympic athlete with a university degree and previous work experience would, if they had lost their job and were on benefits and applied to go on to ESA, have no obligation to look for work, because they would automatically be put into the work-related activity group.

If someone is in the work-related activity group, they have an obligation to take part in work preparation activities; they have no obligation to look for a job. That is an important difference. I could spend the rest of my life doing work preparation activities, but I would have no obligation to put in a job application.

[Is this really as farcical as it sounds? Theoretically spending 20 years writing CV’s and being patronised?]

Every Atos centre is accessible by wheelchair, but there are rules relating to the ability to escape in the case of fire—for instance, people who go to the top floor in the lift have to be able to get out of the building. Atos has taken steps to ensure that suitable arrangements are in place at its centres, but it is going further than that, by looking to relocate centres to the ground floor, so the impact will be reduced still further. However, I share the hon. Lady’s view.

I have had a couple of meetings with Atos, at which views were firmly expressed, and I am confident that there will be rapid improvement. I am surprised that such conditions were not written into the original contract when it was set up three years ago, but we are moving to rectify the situation.

Stephen Timms:

The Minister has been extremely generous and helpful in his remarks. I wish to press him a little about mental health descriptors. He has explained that the matter is rather difficult and that the tuning has turned it into something different, but roughly what timescale does he envisage before the changes that will result from the process can be made?

 

Chris Grayling:

The honest truth is that I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a clear answer this afternoon. Such changes will take place as soon as is practical. I genuinely do not know when because we are still working on how best to respond. I shall be happy to write to him and let him know as soon as I have a definitive answer. It is of no interest to us to delay matters, so we shall move on as quickly as we can. However, I do not want to give the right hon. Gentleman a definitive answer now without being absolutely clear about the time line, but that it will be as soon as possible is an absolute commitment.

FAIR AND ACCURATE ASSESSMENT

Work and Pensions Committee – Sixth Report
The role of incapacity benefit reassessment in helping claimants into employment The published report was ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 13 July 2011.

18.  We support the Government’s objectives of helping people with disabilities and long-term health conditions to move back into work, whilst continuing to provide adequate support for people who have limited capability for work or are unable to work. However, the scale of the challenge should not be underestimated and nor should the level of anxiety which currently surrounds the process. A suspicion persists that the only objective of the Government is to save money. The Government must be proactive in explaining its aims and spreading the positive messages about the benefits of work and the support which is available to find work, and in engaging employers. It is vital that the Government’s objectives are firmly supported by the reassessment process, and by the WCA in particular, but at the moment we are not completely convinced that it does this. Our report focuses on the changes we would like to see to help ensure that this happens in practice.

34.  The message which the Government sends to claimants involved in the reassessment process should be clear and simple: if the assessment process correctly finds someone fit for work, that is a successful and desirable outcome. However, we believe that the Government also needs to take greater steps to reassure claimants. It needs to explain that being found “fit for work” does not equate to denial or disbelief about the existence of an illness or health condition: rather the condition is acknowledged but its impact has been assessed as not being so serious as to prevent the person from returning to work at some point in the future.

35.  We believe that the language currently used to describe the outcome of the WCA is a barrier to the Government’s objectives for the reassessment being properly communicated. The idea that a claimant has “failed” the assessment if they are found fully capable of work risks negating the positive messages which the Government is trying to convey. It needs to be addressed across the board and to include all communications between claimants and DWP staff, especially Jobcentre Plus staff who tell claimants the outcome of the process, and Atos Healthcare employees who may explain the process to claimants. We also believe that the communications need to explain clearly and at every stage of the process that, where someone is found not fit for work, they will be eligible to receive ESA at the support rate.

120.  We welcome the improvements to the WCA which have resulted from the Harrington Review and the lessons learned from the reassessment trials. However, we believe that the Government needs to do more to clarify whether the purpose of the WCA is to be an eligibility test for benefits or whether it is a diagnostic test to assess a person’s ability to work. It is not yet clear whether it is quite achieving either of these effectively.

122.  Any new employability test must effectively link into the employment support available under the Work Programme. We recommend that Professor Harrington also includes Work Programme providers and sub-contractors in the work he is undertaking to try to design an assessment that identifies a claimant’s workplace capabilities and needs.

129.  We welcome Professor Harrington’s central recommendation on the need to strengthen the role of Jobcentre Plus decision-makers in the reassessment process. There are signs that decision-making is already improving and this needs to be reinforced by ensuring that all the supporting information from the claimant is available to the decision-maker at the time the decision is made. To facilitate this, it is important to ensure that claimants are able to submit medical reports, but GP charges for this service put it beyond the reach of some claimants. We recommend that the Government considers how to address the problem of charges acting as a barrier to the full range of medical information being available to decision-makers.

146.  The high number of appeals for new ESA claims is a cause of concern. The estimated cost to the public purse is £50 million per annum. The pressure on the Tribunals Service has also resulted in a significant delay for claimants before appeals are heard, causing stress and anxiety for claimants and their families.

151.  It is not acceptable that some claimants have to go through the entire assessment process again shortly after their appeal without any of the information from the appeal being passed on to JCP and Atos Healthcare. This is a waste of resources and causes unnecessary stress and anxiety for claimants and their families.

201.  In almost all of the discussion of the Government’s plans, the emphasis is on getting the claimant ready to go back to work. However, the Government will only achieve this laudable aim if employers are willing to employ someone who might have been on incapacity benefit and out of work for some time and who might still have substantial health issues. This will require a great deal of co-operation and change of attitude from many employers. Providers of employment support have a crucial role to play in building relationships with employers so that they can gain trust and an understanding of the challenges and benefits of employing former benefit claimants. However, it is also the Government’s responsibility to engage in changing attitudes and spreading good practice amongst employers. The Government must pay as much attention to this side of the “back to work” equation as it does to getting the claimant “work ready”

Treat with Respect

Media coverage

5.  Sections of the media routinely use pejorative language, such as “work-shy” or “scrounger”, when referring to incapacity benefit claimants. We strongly deprecate this and believe that it is irresponsible and inaccurate. The duty on the state to provide adequate support through the benefits system for people who are unable to work because of a serious health condition or illness is a fundamental principle of British society. Portraying the reassessment of incapacity benefit claimants as some sort of scheme to “weed out benefit cheats” shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the Government’s objectives. (Paragraph 40)

6.  Whilst fully accepting that the Government, and this Committee, have no role in determining the nature and content of media coverage, we believe that more care is needed in the way the Government engages with the media and in particular the way in which it releases and provides its commentary on official statistics on the IB reassessment. In the end, the media will choose its own angle, but the Government should take great care with the language it itself uses and take all possible steps to ensure that context is provided when information about IB claimants found fit for work is released, so that unhelpful and inaccurate stories can be shown to have no basis. (Paragraph 41)

The Work Capability Assessment—claimants’ experience and Atos Healthcare

55. Atos acknowledged that its call-centres had experienced significant problems in the past. We welcome the assurance that this has been addressed to ensure that waiting times are significantly reduced and most calls are picked up first time. We expect call statistics to be maintained and published to demonstrate that progress is being made and sustained. However, claimants are still unable to contact the assessment centre they are due to attend directly, and we believe they should be able to do so, even if calls are routed through the call-centre.

58. Atos routinely overbooks WCA appointments by 20% on the basis of the non-attendance rate for new ESA claims, which was 30%. However, the non-attendance rate in the IB reassessment trials was much lower, at around 9%, although it is too soon to say whether this low rate seen in the trials will continue in the national roll-out. We recommend that Atos reviews its overbooking policy as a matter of urgency, to take account of this much higher attendance rate by IB claimants, to ensure that people are not turned away from assessment centres without being seen. Atos should also continue to monitor and adjust its overbooking policy as necessary.

63. Instances have occurred where vulnerable claimants have had their benefit stopped as a sanction for non-attendance at a WCA appointment when the non-attendance arose because of administrative errors on the part of Atos or JCP, or because the claimant was too ill to attend but was unable to get in touch with Atos to inform them of this. We agree with the Minister that this is unacceptable. We recommend that DWP and Atos Healthcare jointly review the processes for recording non-attendance and change them where necessary to ensure that claimants are not sanctioned for “failure to attend” when the failure is on the part of Atos Healthcare and/or Jobcentre Plus.

66. We believe that Jobcentre Plus should be more proactive in establishing the reasons for non-attendance at WCAs, including by following up with a phone call as soon as is practical after an appointment has been missed.

71. It is unacceptable that disabled people should be called to attend an assessment at a centre which is inappropriately located, inaccessible to them or where reasonable adjustments cannot be made to accommodate special requirements arising from their health condition. We note DWP’s assurance that Atos Healthcare is “moving rapidly toward” a situation where this is no longer the case. We request that, in response to this Report, the Government sets out progress towards this aim. This should include options for the relocation of assessment centres where necessary, increasing disabled access, and improvements to the mechanisms for ensuring a claimant’s needs are known to Atos Healthcare in advance of the WCA.

92. We recognise that Atos Healthcare, as the sole provider of the Work Capability Assessment, takes the brunt of public criticism about the WCA. Some of this arises from the understandable anxiety which claimants feel about the process. We accept that considerable efforts have been made on the part of both Atos Healthcare and DWP to improve the quality of assessments. However, it is also clear that many claimants have not received the level of service from Atos which they can reasonably expect.

93. We remain concerned about whether there are sufficient levers within the DWP contract with Atos to ensure that Atos consistently gets the assessment right first time. We therefore recommend that, when the contract is re-let in 2015 and in future contracts for other medical assessments, DWP reviews the performance indicators, with significant financial penalties built in if standards are not met.

94. We agree with the Minister that it would not have been practical to introduce a second provider for the IB reassessment but we believe that the Government should consider contracting a second provider to deliver the ongoing Work Capability Assessments for new ESA claims when the reassessment of existing claimants has been completed, in order to drive up performance through competition. We recommend that the Government publishes proposals, before the end of 2012, for how such a system of competition could work in practice.

 

Easy Access

atosnoaccess

STOCKPORT

stockportassesscentre

CROYDON

croydonaccess

Why the WCA isn’t working

Posted: Monday 2 April 2012

At Mind, we follow a simple model of how we work – we listen to what people with mental health problems are telling us, and then we seek to influence change so that people’s lives can be improved.

For the last couple of years, the issue of welfare reform has consistently been an important issue for people with mental health problems. And one aspect in particular has dominated: the Work Capability Assessment (WCA).

It’s worth remembering that the WCA was initially conceived before the recession, when this country was estimated to be within a year of achieving full employment. Even in those early days, we urged caution as we had real concerns about how a new system would apply.

It’s in everybody’s interests to get this right. When around 40 per cent of people on Incapacity Benefit have a mental health problem, it makes sense to design the new system so it can properly assess the needs of people with mental health problems.

In July 2010, I joined a the Harrington Scrutiny Panel, which was set up to oversee the work of the WCA Independent Review team. My role was to give advice and criticism regarding the areas the reviewer was looking at and the changes they are recommending.

The DWP has committed to making some changes arising from the Independent Review, but these will take time, and some fundamental changes required haven’t even started to be addressed.

Meanwhile, tens of thousands of people are being reassessed using a test which is still not fit for purpose. Around 50 per cent of people are appealing against the decision, and a remarkable half of those appeals are being upheld, meaning that as many as one in four tests are wrong. The cost to the taxpayer of the tribunal system alone is £50m, around a half of the £100m a year being spent on reassessment.

I spent some time last week at Mind’s Infoline. Call after call was coming in from individuals with a mental health problem, or a member of their family, anxious about the reassessment letter, concerned about having to appeal and the potential impact on their lives. We’ve heard about Job Centres who are shocked when someone who is clearly unwell turns up having been told that they are fit for work.

The callers to our line were not benefit scroungers – they were ordinary people whose health had put them in a very vulnerable state. Ordinary people desperate to recover and be able to work, but who just weren’t yet well enough. And instead of offering support and help to recover and then find and stay in work, the WCA process is making their health worse and so, ironically, the prospect of a job even less likely.

The time has come to call a halt in the reassessment process until real changes are made. It’s damaging people’s lives. It’s costing the taxpayer a fortune. And it certainly isn’t fulfilling its purpose of supporting people with mental health problems on their journey back to work.

This Government has some good aspirations on mental health set out in an excellent Mental Health Strategy – it’s seen the importance of good mental health to the country and it’s acknowledged the high cost of poor mental health. But when it comes to benefits and supporting people out of work to get back into work, the DWP is letting people down.

I have taken the decision to leave the Harrington Scrutiny Group. Our concerns about the reality of the WCA have grown, but we see insufficient recognition of the need to change the approach, and the need to do so quickly, before more and more people are subjected to a process which isn’t working.

Mind will continue to campaign on improving the WCA until people with mental health problems get the support and respect they deserve. I hope the Department will hear these concerns and act upon them.

Paul Farmer

Disability hate and Sleaze (Day 23 Since Free Press Died)

Posted by soiniciulacht on March 29, 2012
Posted in: accountability, benefits, budget, Comment, equality, Government, Legislation, Minister, Parody, sleaze, Tories, welfare reform. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Fact of the day

nine out of 10 people with learning disabilities have experienced abuse or harassment – Mencap

Disabled charity Access Dorset found in a survey that 40 per cent of people had experienced bullying behaviour.

Social landlords have a legal obligation to protect vulnerable tenants from disability-related hate crime

Hate crime action plan: Challenge it, Report it, Stop it [Wonder if we can report DWP Ministers and Press officers]

Disability hate crimes up a fifth

We will publish the Government’s new action plan on hate crime shortly. – Maria Miller

People with disabilities are being asked to talk about their experiences of bullying and hate crime in a new survey launched by Nottinghamshire County Council.

The BBC back to back with the Tories

——————————————————————————

The Wit and Wisdom of the Coalition Executive

David Cameron

Showing his continuing grasp on policy detail and sleaze.

Mr Cameron said that private companies, voluntary groups and charities will be given the right to run schools, hospitals and vast swaths of council services under ambitious plans to end the “state’s monopoly” over public sector work.

New draft laws published today will build on this idea by allowing private companies and charities to challenge local councils or hospitals if they feel they are being squeezed out of the market.

Now to wait for ARK Education , Stanley Fink’s Educational Charity, to bring a case against an LEA. £2.6 million in donations buys a lot of policies.

Two of Murdoch's Lap Dogs

William Hague

Not to be outdone on sleaze the lying bastard who vouched for Cashcroft’s tax status for a decade also likes the odd cosy dinner

Foreign Secretary William Hague has entertained three millionaire Tory donors at Chevening, his £15 million grace and favour Kent residence, it has emerged.

Tory peer Lord Ashcroft, who has given £10 million to the party, and financier Howard Leigh have attended twice. Malcolm Scott, former Tory treasurer in Scotland who has given more than £1.4 million since David Cameron became leader, also visited.

Must be useful as Foreign Minister having so much in common to talk about on visits to Zimbabwe, Afghanistan and other nations where government ministers have similar levels of ethical integrity.

Yes, I said 10 billion

Chris Grayling

Charities leaving Work Programme claim payments too low

The Minister for Employment responding with his customary charm– if he were lying on the ground next to a turd I’d move the turd away from the filth.

Responding to the exit of the Single Homeless Project from the Work Programme, employment minister Chris Grayling said:

“The deals that are done between sub-contractors and prime contractors are entirely down to them.”

Asked whether the government should be doing more to ensure that prime providers do not pass on all the financial risk to smaller charities in their supply chain, the Minister told the BBC:

“It is certainly the case that some organisations have done deals which are not working for them but I can’t be the person who does the deals for them.

“We have created an environment where we have given – particularly the voluntary sector sub-contractors – all the cards in their hand, but if they haven’t used those cards, that is not something the government can do for them.”

Prince Charming: prince charming, prince charming, ridicule is nothing to be scared of, don't you ever don't you ever, stop being dandy

Lord Fraud

On another post in this blog I discussed the definition of work and its effects on the legality of the MWRA schemes. Lord Fraud has seemingly got all the legal bases covered:

31 Jan 2012 : Column 1486 / 1487

Lord McKenzie of Luton: Before the noble Lord sits down, I thank him for that full response, but can he deal with the point about whether there has been any development of the definition of work for the operation of the cap in universal credit?

Lord Freud: No, my Lords, I am not aware that we have locked that down at this time. It is an issue that we are going to have to address when we lock down universal credit. I cannot update the noble Lord on that matter.

How wonderful to be able to design complicated policies before actually knowing what exactly is under discussion.

My Israeli donor's more generous than yours

Ken Clarke

What do the experts say about his plans for ‘secret justice’ ?

An elite group of lawyers in charge of ‘secret justice’ measures has launched a fresh assault on Government plans to widen their use.

They cast doubt on claims the proposals are vital to protect Britain’s intelligence relationship with America.

The majority of security-cleared special advocates – 57 out of 69 – insist proposals to allow secret hearings across any civil court case or inquest ‘represent a departure from the foundational principle of natural justice’.

Tory Party and Sleaze explained

The DWP were warned their MWRA Regulations were a mess months in advance

Posted by soiniciulacht on March 24, 2012
Posted in: benefits, Factual, Government, Legislation, welfare reform. Tagged: , , , , , , .

There is a Lords Committee called the MERITS OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS COMMITTEE.

There remit is to scrutinise Statutory Instruments.

In his appearance before the DWP Select Committee on 19 March 2012 it was pointed out to the Grayling, a man who never knowingly tells the truth, that the DWP regulations and guidance around MWRA were of concern.

Instruments Drawn To The Special Attention of The House

 Annexe
Twenty-seventh Report

Instruments Drawn To The Special Attention of The House

The Committee has considered the following instruments and has
determined that the special attention of the House should be drawn to
them on the grounds specified.

A.  Jobseeker’s Allowance (Mandatory Work Activity Scheme) Regulations
2011 (SI 2011/688)

Date laid: 14 March 2011

Parliamentary Procedure: negative/

Summary: Although there is a considerable amount of paper attached to
this instrument the information it contains is very vague. Subsequent
questions asked by the Committee have produced little more clarity.
Given that the sanction on the individual claimant for failing in any
element of the Mandatory Work Activity Scheme to which they are referred
is the loss of 3 months’ benefit, the content and operation of the
Scheme should be much more clearly set out. The degree of flexibility
and discretion built into the arrangements causes the Committee to
question how it can be delivered with any degree of consistency. Unlike
its predecessor, the Work for Your Benefit Scheme, this is not a small
pilot exercise but will be implemented nationally from May. The SSAC
report on the proposal highlights a number of concerns, in particular
the lack of clarity about whether the scheme is intended as training or
punishment.

The Committee considers it unacceptable that the House has
been given insufficient information to understand the policy objective
of the scheme; to determine how the scheme will work; and effectively to
assess whether the outcome will help claimants to improve their
prospects of obtaining employment.

These Regulations are drawn to the special attention of the House on
the grounds that they give rise to issues of public policy likely to be
of interest to the House and they may imperfectly achieve the policy
objective.
1.  The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has laid this instrument
under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, the
Social Security Act 1998 and the Jobseekers Act 1995 (as modified by the
Welfare Reform Act 2009) along with an Explanatory Memorandum (EM). A
report by the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC), a statutory
consultee has been published with the instrument (“the Act Paper”).[1
<#note1>] The Committee also sought further evidence from the DWP. Their
response is printed in Appendix 1.

Purpose of the scheme

3.  This is not stated clearly or consistently. Paragraph 2 of the EM says:

“This scheme is aimed at those who require extra support to help them
re-focus their approach to job search and gain work-related disciplines.
The purpose of the Scheme is to provide work or work-related activity
with a view to assisting the customer to improve their prospects of
obtaining employment.”

But the Departmental Memorandum to the SSAC states:

“Jobcentre Plus advisers have clearly identified a small number of
Jobseeker’s Allowance customers who may be doing only the very bare
minimum to comply with the requirement that they actively seek work.
Advisers have made clear that a programme that allowed them to actively
intervene at an early stage with these specific customers could have a
positive impact…. This small minority requires active engagement
though a mandatory programme, in order to reorient their mindset and
change their approach to their search for work” (para 2.2)

4.  The SSAC’s letter to the Secretary of State included in the Act
Paper states explicitly the concerns of consultees that the scheme
appears to be a punishment rather than a way to help people improve
their skills and help them back into work (paragraphs 4.4 & 5.2). This
view is underpinned by the very strict sanction régime – failure to
participate fully in the 4-week scheme without good cause results in a
3-month benefit sanction. Failure to participate following a second
referral to a scheme would result in loss or reduction of JSA for 6
months. Unusually, the claimant cannot avert the penalty by re-engaging
with the scheme, and the first sanction is more severe than for other
circumstances where the length of an initial penalty for failing to meet
particular requirements is more normally 2 weeks’ loss of benefit.

5.  The DWP disputes this, stating in their response: “the Mandatory
Work Activity Scheme is not a sanction or a punishment but has been
developed in recognition that some customers require additional
support.” (paragraph 16, Act Paper). DWP go on to argue that “after
their four week placement, they will be better placed to re-assess their
approach and engage more effectively with the requirements of seeking
work and the other support offered by Jobcentre Plus” (paragraph 21, Act
Paper). The Committee asked DWP to provide evidence to support this
assertion and they responded “Mandatory Work Activity is a new scheme
and therefore we have limited evidence.” The Department did express its
intention to collect evaluation data but current plans are imprecise and
no timetable is given.

/Content of the scheme/

6.  The SSAC is sceptical that the Scheme will improve claimants’
prospects of obtaining employment in line with the provisions of the
Act. “Published evidence is at best ambivalent about the chances of
‘workfare’ type activity improving outcomes for people who are out of
work” (SSAC letter, paragraph 4.2). The Department’s own research on
similar schemes overseas indicates that “there is little evidence that
workfare increased the likelihood of finding work” unless conditions are
as close to work as possible.[2 <#note2>] The effectiveness of the
Scheme may therefore depend on the nature of the activities, but
material in the EM and the Act Paper gives very little indication of
what claimants on the scheme might actually be asked to do. Given that
the Departmental tender for providers went out on 14 February and the
scheme is intended to commence on 25 April, the Committee asked DWP
officials if they could provide some examples of actual schemes. DWP said:

“The contracting process for Mandatory Work Activity has not yet been
completed, contracts will be awarded in April 2011.

We have not asked bidders to specify the placements that they propose to
find for customers; instead we will rely on their ability to source
appropriate placements throughout the life of the contracts. This is in
keeping with changes across the Department, which focus on allowing as
much flexibility as possible to consider what will best support customers.

However, all the placements that the providers find must offer people
the opportunity to gain fundamental work disciplines, as well as being
of benefit to local communities. The Department has stipulated that each
provider will be expected to have placements available across a range of
sectors.”

*The House may wish to press the Department for further detail.*

7.  These Regulations bear similarities to the Work for Your Benefit
regulations which the Committee considered last year,[3 <#note3>]
although they were not actually implemented and the current Regulations
revoke that scheme. One of the key concerns at that time was that
providers should not exploit participants as a source of cheap labour
and that participants would gain relevant skills from the experience.
These concerns remain for the replacement Scheme set out in the current
Regulations. The Work for Your Benefit Scheme differed in that it was
based on a randomised selection process and was a small pilot scheme
with a clear evaluation plan aimed at examining whether mandatory work
activity had demonstrable benefits. That evidence was not obtained but
the Mandatory Work Activity Scheme is being introduced nationally from
the start of May 2011.

/Selection of participants/

8.  Whatever the Department’s intention, a key factor in the way the
scheme will work in practice is the way in which a customer can be
selected for participation in the scheme. The Departmental Memorandum in
the Act Paper indicates that although under the Regulations advisers
will be able to send a customer to Mandatory Work Activity at any point
in their claim, they expect most referrals will be for customers who do
not find work quickly and have been unemployed for 13 weeks or more, but
this will normally not include people actively participating in other
elements of the Work Programme such as Work Club or Work Experience
(paragraph 4.1). DWP estimate that the Scheme will initially deliver
around 10,000 placements per year[4 <#note4>] but expects that this
number will increase because “the competition to deliver Mandatory Work
Activity asked bidders to maximise the number of places that they
offer”. No evidence is provided to explain how this scale of provision
has been assessed to meet the expected level of demand or need for the
scheme.

9.  Detailed criteria on the basis for referral to a Mandatory Work
Activity are not included in the Regulations as DWP’s intention is to
allow Jobcentre Plus advisers discretion in deciding when a referral is
most appropriate. The Departmental Memorandum in the Act Paper indicates
that the Adviser will be required to consider whether the particular
activity is reasonable for the individual customer and to take into
account any circumstances that may affect a customer’s ability to
participate in the Scheme (for example childcare responsibilities).

10.  The Committee has commented before on the great responsibility
placed on the individual Jobcentre Plus Adviser. We welcome the
intention stated at paragraph 30 of the DWP’s response to the SSAC that,
as an additional safeguard, once a personal Adviser has identified that
a customer may be suitable for the Mandatory Work Activity Scheme they
will be encouraged to discuss the appropriateness of the referral with
their Adviser Manager who will decide whether to approve the referral.
However we note that this safeguard is indicated as recommended best
practice rather than a statutory requirement.

11.  As the Guidance to Advisers is an important element of
understanding how the Scheme will work the Committee asked to see the
extract from the guidance that sets out how Advisers will identify
claimants as being suitable for referral to mandatory work activity. DWP
replied:

“The Department is currently in the process of finalising the guidance
for Jobcentre Plus advisers, and so is unable to share an example of the
Guidance with the Committee. However, we are able to share the high
level principles that will be used to identify suitable customers.

Jobcentre Plus advisers will consider evidence demonstrated by the
customer against a set of standards to make constant judgements about
whether the customer would benefit from the Mandatory Work Activity
support. These standards will be underpinned by indicating behaviours
associated with the disciplines that are key requirements of finding,
securing and retaining employment. Customers who consistently fail to
demonstrate a number of these indicators over a period of time will be
considered for a referral to Mandatory Work Activity.

Some of the indicators Jobcentre Plus advisers may include:

* tends to take no personal responsibility for job search activity,
waits to be organised/contacted;
* reluctant to make speculative approaches, follow up advice or job
leads;
* regularly fails to attend appointments and interviews on time;
* has little or no recent work experience;
* limited awareness of the types of support available to help them
with their jobsearch; and
* has no realistic appreciation of employer attitudes or requirements.”

12.  We are concerned that the EM attached to the instrument mentions
that this Guidance to Advisers will be issued via the intranet. To
reduce the likelihood of appeals and to ensure that the guidance is
applied with transparent fairness it would be appropriate for it to be
made available to the public.

/Conclusion/

13.  Although there is a considerable amount of paper attached to this
instrument the information it contains is very vague. Subsequent
questions asked by the Committee have produced little more clarity.
Given that the sanction on the individual claimant for failing in any
element of the Mandatory Work Activity Scheme to which they are referred
is the loss of 3 months’ benefit, the content and operation of the
Scheme should be much more clearly set out. The degree of flexibility
and discretion built into the arrangements causes the Committee to
question how it can be delivered with any degree of consistency. Unlike
its predecessor, the Work for Your Benefit Scheme, this is not a small
pilot exercise but will be implemented nationally from May. The SSAC
report on the proposal highlights a number of concerns, in particular
the lack of clarity about whether the scheme is intended as training or
punishment. *The Committee considers it unacceptable that the House has
been given insufficient information to understand the policy objective
of the scheme; to determine how the scheme will work; and effectively to
assess whether the outcome will help claimants to improve their
prospects of obtaining employment.

The New Jerusalem Daily Briefing (Day 19 since the Free Press died)

Posted by soiniciulacht on March 21, 2012
Posted in: benefits, Comment, Factual, Government, Legislation, Minister, Tories. Tagged: , , , , , , .

Budget Statement 2012 (a dream)

Today Mr Speaker, having regard to the need to act in a fair and consistent manner to reduce the public debt whilst continuing to ensure that we are all in it together the following key points, from the report which the government used to inform its decisions on welfare reform, will be at the heart of the budget I am putting before the house today.

State of the nation report: poverty, worklessness and welfare dependency in the UK

1

The UK has higher levels of inequality than Sweden, France, Germany, Australia, Canada, Japan and Spain

2

The 2006/08 Wealth and Assets Survey finds that the least wealthy half of households owns only 9% of total wealth in Britain, with the lowest third owning 3%.  The top 20%, by contrast, owns 62%.

3

The top 10% of households possess 100 times the wealth of the bottom 10%.

4

There is also evidence to suggest that, while the level of qualification at the low end is improving, the demand for jobs requiring these qualifications is not growing in response, resulting in more jobs that report not requiring qualifications than people with no qualifications.

5

Only 7% of the population attended independent schools yet those who attended  independent schools make up over half of many professions, including 75% of judges, 70% of finance directors and 45% of top civil servants.

6

Measured by intergenerational earnings, Britain performs poorly, having the highest correlation between sons’ and fathers’ earnings.

——————————————————————————————————————–

The integrity of Maria Miller

Hansard 5 March 2012

Alun Michael:

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the effect of work capability assessments on the way in which disability living allowance decisions are made. [97697]

Maria Miller:

As disability living allowance entitlement is not related to capability for work there has been no such assessment. The introduction of the work capability assessment has seen no changes in the way disability living allowance entitlement is decided.

And then we have

USE OF EMPLOYMENT AND
SUPPORT ALLOWANCE
INFORMATION IN CLAIMS FOR
DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE
A Handbook for Decision Makers

This handbook has been prepared by the Department’s Health, Work and
Wellbeing Directorate. It considers how Disability Living Allowance (DLA)
Decision Makers (DMs) can use the information obtained in assessing
Employment and Support Allowance in determining DLA benefit entitlement.

——————————————————————————————————————–

Official crest of the Coalition

The Grayling not content with lying his face off at the committee yesterday also appears to have very few qualms over hypocrisy.

Part of his petulant outburst was to accuse opponents of workfare of conflating various issues in order to cloud the issues.

Welfare Reform was dicussed in the document 21st Century Welfare in which the following figure is given under the heading: High rates of welfare dependency and poverty

’12 million working-age households receive benefits’

The source is referenced to Cabinet Office, 2010, State of the Nation report: Poverty, worklessness and welfare dependency in the UK, HM Government ref 401172/0510, and the full figure complete with caveat:

• At least 12 million working-age households receive benefits each week (including tax credits and Child Benefit)

Obviously no conflating of various items there in order to come up with a more supportive headline.

The Government’s response to 21st Century Welfare.

——————————————————————————————————————–

Yet another method of cutting benfits by the back door

Having announced the intention to bring in regional and local pay there is also an ominous passage in the Tory welfare reform discussion document for those on benefits:

There are a number of options for moving to a less centralised welfare system. 

——————————————————————————————————————–

What the hell is this arsehole doing in parliament?

Disabled people so worried that some see suicide as the only way out, millions disgusted at the selling-off of the NHS and John Hemmings, Lib Dem if you needed to guess, has decided the most important contribution he can make to democracy?

MP John Hemming upset at phrase ‘tonne of bricks’

Lib Dem MP John Hemming

A Liberal Democrat MP is calling on the media to stop using the phrase “a tonne of bricks”, claiming it is incorrect.

John Hemming says it should be “ton”, the imperial weight, not “tonne”, which is a smaller metric measurement.

He has tabled a Commons motion condemning what he calls the “unnecessary metrication of traditional British phrases”.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17449495

——————————————————————————————————————–

Conditionality

2. Individuals who are able to look for work or prepare for work should be required to do so as a condition for receiving benefit and those who fail to meet their responsibilities should face a sanction such as a benefit reduction. This is known as conditionality. Evidence shows conditionality is effective in reducing unemployment.

NO, this is known as bullshit, as is the following:

For those who fail to meet their obligations we may withdraw their benefit until they demonstrate that they have re-engaged with their personalised set of commitments. For those closest to the labour market this loss of benefit for the period of their non-compliance may be permanent.

The truth is revealed in the Report by the Social Security Advisory Committee under Section 174(1) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and statement by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in accordance with Section 174(2) of that Act

…. on the evidence presented we found little to suggest that the programme can be effective. In particular we remain sceptical about the effectiveness of mandation. As we have pointed out in the past, coercing benefit claimants, for example to take skills training, has not demonstrated improved employment outcomes for participants.

New Jerusalem Brief–Chris Grayling Special (14 days since Free Press died)

Posted by soiniciulacht on March 16, 2012
Posted in: accountability, benefits, EU Law, Factual, Government, human rights, Legislation, Minister, Tories. Tagged: , , , , .

#werspartacus #blacktriangle1 #dla #workfare

Chris Grayling is the Minister for Disability Denial. Where Duncan Smith will spit in your eye and lie straight to your face, Maria Miller is so far above her pay-grade that even she doesn’t know what she’s saying (lying about meeting charities she’d never met was not the best move), and Father Ted lies politely and then promises so many reviews  that were Paul Raymond still alive he’d be hired to run them.

Chris Grayling however is the sociopath within the Ministry supposedly charged with representing the interests of some of the most vulnerable in our society.

It’s always a matter of regret…

Up until entering parliament he worked at Burson-Marsteller whose methodology appears to be:

“Evidence-Based Communications. Inform. Monitor. Measure. Succeed.”

It would appear from the ‘evidence-based communications’  below that this was not an approach with which the Grayling agrees.

Talking on Channel 4 News he was asked about the voluntary nature of one of the ‘workfare’ schemes being rolled out.

“Kathy Newman: ..this letter makes it absolutely clear that if you fail to start you could get your benefit stopped. Do you accept that now?

Grayling: The rules for this scheme are absolutely clear that you have a week to opt out.”

Despite the whirring of industrial scale shredders in the basement of Minilove, manned by hordes of 18-year olds under threat of sanction, and the best minds of CCHQ drafted in on secondment to amend, delete or otherwise unlawfully change public files to agree with the minister’s statements ‘after the fact’ those of us who actually have a clue what we’re doing were soon all over this blatant attempt to not only lie initially and then to lie again repeatedly, but to exhibit prima facie evidence that you knew you were lying. Instead of apologising you acted in a Nixon-esque manner whilst hiding behind the never-ceasing smokescreen of leaked stories of benefits cheats and the vile outpourings of columnists in newspapers unfit to wipe one’s arse with; the Sun’s campaign meriting special mention, apparently they’d run out of dead teenagers and thought that invalids were almost as good, but when Murdoch says he wants to run an ethical organisation one can hardly be surprised that he uses a different dictionary.

Here is the relevant documentation (simplified):

WORK EXPERIENCE AND SANCTIONS
From 5.4.11 JSA may not be payable or it may be payable at a reduced rate to claimants who are entitled to JSA and have
1. lost a place on a Work Experience through misconduct (see DMG 34734 -34735)2 or
2. subject to the good cause provisions detailed in paragraph 8 of this guidance given up or failed to attend a place on a Work Experience without good cause (see DMG 34736 -34747)3 or
3. after being notified by an Emp O of a place on a Work Experience, without good cause (see DMG 34751 – 34752)
3.1 refused or failed to apply for it or
3.2 refused to accept it when offered or
4. neglected to avail themselves of a reasonable opportunity of a place on a Work Experience (see DMG 34757 -34758)5.

Good Cause
8 A claimant is regarded as having good cause for failing to attend or giving up Work Experience providing they
1. attend the first day of Work Experience and
2. give up not later than one week after the date on which they begin Work Experience and
3. do not lose the Work Experience place due to misconduct.

Here’s a transcript of another appearance by the Grayling.

The only scheme that we have at the moment that involves mandatory activity is a short term scheme operated by Job Centre Plus called Mandatory Work Activity

That’s only part of the truth though. the protests, strangely missing from the mainstream media who will die to get a story from Syria but will let the unemployed and disabled in the UK rot under a barrage of misinformation from the UK government, the protests were in an attempt to either stop or change the WRB before it became law. The WRB contains these categories of workfare:

Totally voluntary, not mandatory, not workfare (and not legal)

I’m really beginning to feel rather nauseous now so I’ll just bring in one of my heroes in this affair, and it’s to Labour’s extreme discredit that there are so few, Sheila Gilmore. During a debate on the Work capability Assessment or as it should more accurately be called, the Terrify Them or Make Them Wait Until they Die Procedure brought to you in Association with UNUM Healthcare.

A brief extract that just gives a small illustration of the behaviour of DWP and other government minsters throughout the whole parody of democratic engagement:

The Grayling:

I will move on to the recommendations of the work carried out by the charities. I commissioned that myself. I asked the charities to come back with recommended changes to the descriptors. I very much wanted, and do want, to get this right. The problem is straightforward: they did not actually do what they were asked to do. They were asked to make recommendations about further ways to improve the descriptors that would allow us further to ensure that the assessment process for people with mental health challenges was accurate, effective and reflected their needs and potential. That is not what happened.

The charities came back with a recommended system that would have involved tearing up the whole work capability assessment for mental, fluctuating and physical conditions and starting again from scratch, redoing all our computer systems and all the training for every member of staff in the entire network. That was not just a tweak; it was a comprehensive change to the whole

thing, based on no actual evidence. The charities did not come forward with tangible evidence. They simply said, “We think it would work better this way.” They may or may not be right, but that is quite a big step to take just on the basis of a set of recommendations from a group of charities that had been proved wrong in the internal review process.

Sheila Gilmore:

The recommendations from the charities were put to an independent scrutiny panel that had a large number of people with considerable expertise, so will the Minister agree that it is not true to say that they were simply the recommendations of a group of charities?

(Here they are referring to this document ‘Responsible Reform’ aka The Spartacus Report)

The Grayling

That is the case, but what we lack and what we intend now to get is hard evidence to determine whether this is right. Given that the charities were wrong the first time round, I am very reluctant to tear up the whole thing and redo all the computer systems—a vast amount of change; probably a two or three-year project—only to discover that that does not make a difference.

Wonderful work, belittle something that almost cost the authors their lives, literally (and I mean literally it put them in intensive care), accept a correction and then immediately dismiss it again. I would also point out the inconsistency of turning down a document that was agreed by virtually everyone to be an excellent investigation into the whole area around reform on the grounds that he is very reluctant to tear up a system that has a 40% appeals rate of which up to 70% are successful. Maybe if DWP had done the work properly in the first place instead of trying to rush it through they wouldn’t be in the situation they are now.

And, by the way, you may not have a choice over whether or not you get to spend 2 or 3 years rebuilding it the whole WRB breaches so many national,  EU and international laws , directives, treaties, conventions there’s hardly a clause in the whole mess that can’t be challenged.

Finally, just in case The Grayling had forgotten about the Corporate Manslaughter question:

The list to so far…..

1. Richard Sanderson

www.wandsworthguardian.co.uk/Richard Sanderson

2. Paul Reekie

http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2011/06/02/lost-genius-legacy-late-scottish-poet-paul-reekie/

3. Paul Willcoxson

www.thisishampshire.net/Paul Willcoxson

4. Leanne Chambers

www.chroniclelive.co.uk/Leanne Chambers

5. & 6. Christelle Pardo and Kayjah Pardo

www.guardian.co.uk/Christelle Pardo and Kayjah Pardo

7. Elaine Christian

www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/Elaine Christian

8. George – From Chesterfield

www.blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/George Chesterfield/sick-who-gives-atos

9. David Groves

www.mirror.co.uk/David Groves

10. & 11. Mark and Helen Mullins

www.coventrytelegraph.net/Mark and Helen Mullins

12. Man From Uncle

www.abcofesa.co.uk/Man From Uncle

13. Vicky Harrison

www.dailymail.co.uk/Vicky Harrison

14. Tuvalu Widow

www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/Tuvalu Widow

15. Linda Knott

www.menmedia.co.uk/salford/Linda Knott

16. Jack Shemtob

www.thisislondon.co.uk/Jack Shemtob

17. Appeal Too Late To Save Sister

www.dpac.uk.net/2011/05/cuts-kill-sister

18. Stephen Hill

http://www.derbyshiretimes.co.uk/Stephen Hill

19. Sandra Moon

http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/Sandra Moon

HOW MANY MORE ?

* The above alleged welfare reform deaths do not take into account the admission by Department of Work & Pensions Minister, Mr Chris Grayling of a further 31 deaths ….