For all our UK readers, who hope some day to collect pension benefits, we have two messages: i) our condolences, and ii) you won’t. Why? The answer comes straight from the ONS:
The new supplementary table published by ONS in Levy (2012)10 includes the following headline figures for Government pension obligations as at end December 2010:
Social security pension schemes (i.e. unfunded state pension scheme obligations): £3.843 trillion, being 263 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) (£3.497 trillion at end of December 2009)
Centrally – administered unfunded pension schemes for public sector employees (i.e. unfunded public service pension scheme obligations): £852 billion, being 58 per cent of GDP (£915 billion at end of December 2009)
Funded DB pension schemes for which government is responsible: £313 billion, being 21 per cent of GDP (£332 billion at end of December 2009).
In summary, the estimates in the new supplementary table indicate a total Government pension obligation, at the end of December 2010, of £5.01 trillion, or 342 per cent of GDP, of which around £4.7 trillion relates to unfunded obligations.
New report highlights failures of Work Capability Assessment as Spartacus campaign awaits Harrington’s final review
A new report from the Spartacus campaign today (Monday 12 November) analyses the failures of the Government’s Work Capability Assessment and the Employment & Support Allowance system, which is supposed to support people who are too sick or disabled to work.
It also warns that disabled people are at risk because of the government’s refusal to consider a ‘real world’ test – where part of the test would take into account the real barriers to employment.
The report, ‘The People’s Review of the Work Capability Assessment’, includes examples of people who have been told they are fit for work, including:
Someone with no short term memory mechanism
A man with a terminal brain tumour
An incontinent disabled man who is both blind and deaf
Other examples of claimants’ experiences include a man whose benefits were stopped for failing to return the necessary forms, despite his wife informing the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) that he was in a coma; and a man who died 48 hours after filling in his questionnaire - after informing everyone of his death his wife received a call 3 months later asking him to come in for his assessment.
Overall the report highlights stories of more than 70 people who have been inappropriately assessed, forced to go to tribunal, felt humiliated or treated inappropriately. It comes prior to the publication of the final review of the Work Capability Assessment by Professor Harrington, who steps down as advisor to the DWP this month, and whose resignation was announced in July, just days after the broadcast of two TV documentaries exposing the reality of claimants’ experience of the assessment process.
The report also highlights serious concerns about the number of people who have died after being told by the DWP they were ‘fit for work’ or have taken their own lives in circumstances where applying for ESA and going through the WCA appear to be factors in their deaths.
Professor Peter Beresford OBE, professor of social policy at Brunel University and chair of Shaping Our Lives, said:
“The work capability assessment is unreliable and unhelpful, as well as being arbitrary and cruel... No-one – not the doctors who make the assessment decisions, nor Atos which has responsibility for providing assessments, nor the Department of Work and Pensions which commissioned them – takes responsibility for the problems and failures in the system. It’s a perfect storm of irresponsibility and unaccountability.”
The report includes an analysis of the position of a number of professional and regulatory organisations on the WCA, including the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the General Medical Council, the National Audit Office and the Citizens Advice Bureau, as well as Government statements and background information on Atos, the company employed to carry out the assessments.
The report’s author added:
These issues are a matter of survival for people living with illness and disability. It is unacceptable that in 21st century Britain vulnerable people are being treated so appallingly. We hope The People’s Review will spur the Government into prompt and concrete action on the failures of the WCA. Radical change is needed - and it is needed now. Whilst there has been some acknowledgement of the problems following Professor Harrington‘s previous Reviews, our evidence from those at the sharp end of the process, including of the high rate of successful appeals and the huge backlog of unheard appeals, shows the whole system is still failing badly. The cost to the taxpayer is enormous and the cost to those going through it goes way beyond money. In the meantime, sick and disabled people continue to be severely affected by what they’ve experienced, and terrified of what the future holds.
In a battle with the information commissioner, the DWP has said that the government's mandatory work programme would "collapse" if the names were made public due to the likelihood of protests against the organisations involved.
In August the commissioner ruled that the names should be released. However, in a 14-page appeal document leaked to the Guardian, DWP lawyers have argued that the details of companies and charities involved in the mandatory work activity scheme – which compels unemployed people to do 30 hours of unpaid labour a week in order to retain their jobseeker's allowance – must remain secret.
The Guardian has also learned that the British Heart Foundation – one of the largest charities already known to be associated with the mandatory work activity scheme (MWA) – is to drop out of the programme, moving instead toward a more long-term voluntary scheme.
During the nine month secrecy battle – directly sanctioned by employment minister at the time, Chris Grayling – the DWP has fought hard against releasing the full list of names of organisations involved.
Government lawyers say the entire scheme would have come unhinged had they released placement details at the time of the request because campaign groups would have focused their protests and forced the charities and businesses involved to withdraw.
"Previous targeted campaigns had resulted in the withdrawal of providers from MWA and WE [work experience]," the leaked document reveals. "The DWP considered that, of all the workfare programmes being described externally as 'workfare schemes', the MWA programme was the most likely to be influenced by pressure from campaign groups and negative publicity, given that MWA programmes were generally provided by charitable organisations … and the placements were mandatory," lawyers said.
"Put simply, disclosure [of names] would have been likely to have led to the collapse of the MWA scheme, with incalculable losses to the taxpayer and many thousands of persons in long-term unemployment who are supported by the scheme," the appeal states.
Since its introduction in May 2011, mandatory work activity has been the subject of fierce criticism from campaigners who say that it represents a form of 'forced labour' or workfare.
Following a change in the rules a fortnight ago, unemployed people who refuse to take the unpaid placements can have their jobseeker's allowance stripped from them for up to three years. The appeal, filed on 27 September, also reveals that those involved in MWA "tend to be charitable organisations". Previously the DWP has given assurances that only organisations who provide 'social benefit' could take part in MWA. Campaigners say it is of paramount public interest to know how many profit-making businesses are involved in using labour from forced work schemes.
In a statement about their withdrawal from the MWA scheme, the British Heart Foundation's retail director, Mike Taylor, said: "We rely on our fantastic BHF volunteers to help us fight heart disease and are very proud of the training, skills and experience we can offer people working in our shops. Last year alone we helped over 600 staff and volunteers gain vocational qualifications.
"We are always striving to improve the ways in which we recruit and retain volunteers. Currently we are moving away from involvement in the mandatory work activity programme towards schemes which provide longer term voluntary placements."
BHF said it was now working with Jobcentre Plus to "actively promote volunteering as an option for people from all walks of life who find themselves unemployed."
Campaign group Boycott Workfare, welcomed BHF's move. "It is good to see a charity that was using workfare on a massive scale acknowledge that forced unpaid work isn't palatable for their supporters or customers."
"For workfare to succeed, the government needs charities to co-operate. We hope BHF's retreat marks a new line in the sand: charities should not be making people poorer by putting them at risk of benefit stoppages. They have an ethical obligation not to profit from forced unpaid work."
Commenting on the FoI battle, Joanna Long from Boycott Workfare said: "That the government fears MWA would collapse if it publishes who is using workfare reveals how unsuccessful and unpopular with the public these schemes are.
"With people now compelled to work without pay on threat of three-year benefit stoppages, alongside a scarcity of jobs and overtime this Christmas, it is really important that information about the schemes is published so they can be held to account."
The DWP said it would not comment "on ongoing litigation". However, speaking about the BHF's move, a spokesperson said: "Mandatory work activity placements benefit local communities while giving jobseekers valuable skills. We are grateful for the support of the charitable sector in helping unemployed people re-engage with the system and move closer to work.
"British Heart Foundation has assured us their decision to move away from mandatory work activity has not been influenced by any protests and they are working with Jobcentre Plus to promote longer-term volunteering."
Some people reading this might think it tasteless to compare the number of people who have died while going through the Atos/DWP assessment process for Employment and Support Allowance with the number of soldiers who have given their lives for their country in Afghanistan. I don’t.
Consider the outpouring of sorrow that takes place when one of our soldiers dies. They deserve that recognition; they have made the ultimate sacrifice.
Sick and disabled people who have died because our bullying government’s assessment system caused more stress than their weakened system could handle – they don’t get that kind of recognition. Perhaps it’s because it is an action of their own government that is killing them.
Perhaps you will look more kindly on the sick and disabled of this country when you read the following:
According to the BBC, by October 30 this year, the total number of British soldiers who had died in Afghanistan since military operations began there in 2002 was 437.
That’s equivalent to the number of sick or disabled people who die - while going through the Atos/DWP work capability assessment system (or as a result of going through it) - every six weeks.
In previous times of economic hardship, the unemployed were urged to get on their bikes and look for work - but jobseekers in one Welsh town are now being told to claim a free spray tan.
The treatment is not paid for by the Job Centre or council
Under the scheme in Aberdare, Job Centre staff are sending candidates for tans and makeovers at the town’s Well-being and Training Academy.
But critics have questioned whether it is a sensible way for dealing with joblessness in the area, which suffers from unemployment of 9.6%, the highest rate in Wales.
The makeover has been dubbed the Gok Wan after the host of the TV show “How to look good naked”.
Sarah Sweeden, director of the Academy, said they were happy to give the makeover and free spray tans to genuine jobseekers.
She said: “We want to give people that extra confidence – or that Gok Wan makeover – to give people the incentive to find work.
“It will recognise those who are doing their utmost to find unemployment by giving them a beauty treatment.”
Job Centre staff will only send candidates for the treatment if they are seen to be serious about finding work. It is not paid for by the Job Centre or council.
The Academy is a not-for-profit Community Interest Company which aims to help people get back to work by improving their fitness, appearance, nutrition and confidence.
Plaid Cymru councillor Pauline Jarman, leader of the opposition on Rhondda Cynon Taff council, questioned the reasoning behind the scheme.
She said: “I don’t know any employer that would be impressed if you turned up tanned. They’d be more inclined to be impressed if you had the skills and experience to undertake the job that’s been advertised.”
Robert Oxley, Campaign Manager of the TaxPayers' Alliance said: “It is verging on the ridiculous that this is the authorities' answer to getting people working.
“The focus of job centres should be getting people into employment, not topping up their tans because they have made the effort to find a job.
“Competition for work is tough, but it is work experience and skills that will secure a job, not how bronzed you are.”
A Freedom of Information document from the DWP has revealed that rather than an average of 32 deaths per week as a result of Welfare Reform that figure has now risen to an average of 73 deaths per week!
When is this going to stop?! When are people going to wake up and help us fight against this government?! We need help!
Reblogged from Helen Sims How many more vulnerable, sick and disabled people have to die before something is done?!
As a disabled person, I don’t want to live in this country any more. We’re frightened of losing our benefits and our independence. It is happening.
People are being left with nothing! Vulnerable, sick and disabled people are being left destitute after having their benefits wrongly cut, by a cruel and callous government!
THIS GOVERNMENT (Aided by ATOS) KILLS!
As a person with Cerebral Palsy, who cannot walk or stand unaided, I know my turn for an assessment is coming soon…and I’m terrified! I know I will fail.
I’m luckier than some I know, because I have my wonderful husband (and his Pension Credit) to help us live, but there will be no more independence for me (what there is of it), because if I lose my Disability Living Allowance, I may as well close my bank account. There will be nothing going into it!
I’m going to be completely reliant on my husband, and feel even more of a burden than I already do. At the moment I can help pay household bills – just like any ‘normal’ wife does. I can get taxis to see friends, and attend appointments alone when I am able. It enables me to feel just like everyone else.
The government has already taken a lot of my self esteem, and my place in society. The constant, relentless lies about Disability Benefit Fraud has done that for me.
You see, the real fraud figures are very different to what the government would have you believe. In reality only 1 in every 200 claimants is committing fraud, but the unceasing’scrounger’ rhetoric has made me, and many others feel virtually worthless, and very unwanted – no matter how genuine we are.
I hate this country and I’m beginning to hate myself again. I thought I’d accepted my life, it’s limitations and constant pain.
I know I will never be a mother and I know I won’t work again. I did work once – for a year. I was dedicated, hard working, and always there when needed, but I was exhausted and in agony. I came home…and slept.
My boss knew I was struggling. I was pale and losing weight. When my contract came to an end, they didn’t renew it.
I was heartbroken because I loved my job, but I was relieved at the same time. In reality I didn’t know how much I could take.
I’m exhausted now, and my pain (through wear and tear on my body) is worse. It is always there, and some days I can barely move, never mind get myself out of bed and get to work!
Who is going to employ me? I’d have to take regular days off because I am mind numbingly exhausted and in agony. Not to mention the frequent hospital and GP appointments…!
How many times will my employer put up with me saying “I’m sorry, I can’t come in today”…before they sack me, in favour of somebody who CAN?!
This is not my fault. I didn’t choose my life – none of us did. None of us would! To cut our benefits now, in this economic climate when there are no jobs even for the able bodied, is nothing short of barbaric!
It is inhumane, callous and cruel to treat a whole section of society in this way. The fact that we are some of the poorest, most vulnerable people in society just makes it worse!
How can they do it? How can they hurt people like this? How is it right that this government is able to drive people to suicide (regularly) and hardly anyone bats an eye lid?!
Why is this not a real Human Rights issue by now? Surely it counts as one! It is the oppression of people, and that should be covered somewhere…somehow.
Where has the compassion gone? That’s what makes me saddest I think. People just don’t seem to care like they used to. Have we become that selfish and blinkered as a society, that we can close our eyes to the suffering of others? If we have, it makes me more ashamed of what is happening here!
I no longer trust people like I did, and I will never forgive this government for that. When is it my turn to become a statistic in the 20% national rise in Disability Hate Crime? I’m terrified it will happen.
Will I be one of the people who gets my property vandalised? Will I be verbally abused or physically attacked when I go out in my wheelchair? That thought crosses my mind every time I go out. People should not have to live like this!
We suffer enough, and now we have to deal with victimisation, extra anxiety and pure fear for our futures as well.
It is easy to make judgements. In my case, my disability is visible, but there are so many illnesses and disabilities that aren’t, and it is these people who are often victims of ‘Scrounger’ abuse, but just because you can’t see it, it doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
It is these people too, who will suffer most as a result of the assessment process. The suffering caused by mental illness or invisible disability is not as easily quantifiable – but it can be just as debilitating as any physical visible condition.
As for me, I don’t know what will happen to me on assessment day. I don’t know if I’ll be able to handle questions based on a ‘tick box’ computer programme, that doesn’t allow for pain or variation and rarely takes a person’s medical records in to account. I know that I’ll be set up to fail.
I know that it could be a person who is not medically qualified and who, after meeting me for forty five minutes, will decide whether I get to keep my life, my independence, and my pride intact.
No wonder I wake up sweating, (that’s if I actually get to sleep of course)! No wonder I am plagued by anxiety that buries itself in the pit of my stomach every night and refuses to budge. I am fighting for my life. We all are. I’m waiting for an envelope to drop on the mat and tell me that it’s my turn.
Every time the letter box goes, I jump half a mile out of my skin! I am unable to open, or even look at official envelopes because I am so scared that it just might be it. It isn’t just me. The panic and fear I feel every single day is widespread through the disabled people of this country.
My only consolation, is knowing that I am not alone.
Disabled and ill people like me need your help now, We need the help of our Councillors, MP’s and society at large. This should not be happening to us.
Even if you feel that can’t get involved in our fight, you’d be surprised how much difference a few kind words of support can make. It gives people hope when it can feel like there is none.
I’m asking you – one human being to another – to not let them take our lives. There is no difference between you and I. Anyone can be struck by illness or disability at any time. No one is immune. It only takes a second for lives to be changed forever, and I hope that if it does, there will be someone there who is willing to fight for you.
I have now received several more letters from around the country which illustrate the ruthlessness with which Atos Healthcare is dismissing all the medical evidence as ‘irrelevant’ and then cavalierly awarding people with patently serious disabilities 0 points.
* “He is aged 50, long-term unemployed and has been receiving ESA. He is taking anti-depressants and 8 different types of medication for his various physical problems. In order to be mobile, he uses a crutch. He is in constant pain when moving around and unable to bend down to pick things up without the greatest of difficulties, or to stnd or sit for any length of time. He feels quite wretched about himself, and has expressed that he would be better off dead than alive, and would consider doing away with his life. But he was awarded 0 points, and his ESA benefit has been stopped”.
* Another issue raised with me, which has so far had little attention, is that someone can win an appeal, thus have their benefit claim reinstated, but then within a few weeks be required to undergo another assessment. It smacks of hounding and harassing people who have been shown by tribunals to be incapacitated. “She was told by the DWP that it was not a medical but a fit-to-work assessment. At her assessment the medical practitioner refused to accept 4 separate medical statements and deemed them ‘not necessary’. On appeal, however, she won her case. Then just 2 months later she was called to undergo yet another assessment. She has been told she may have to be assessed every 6 months”.
* Another device being used, which is a flagrant denial of hitherto inalienable rights, concerns people who are actually employed, but are having their (statutory!) sick pay removed after work capability assessment and prior to their returning to work. “He is in late middle age, and says he has worked for a long time. He went on the sick because he was waiting for a hip replacement, but had every intention of returning to work when the operation was done and he had had time to recuperate. He was then assessed the next monthand 2 months later received a letter from the DWP saying his sick pay was to be stopped because he had been found fit to work. He had undergone however 4 days earlier his hip replacement surgery, and obviously could not work for at least another 3 months”. So why is he being persecuted? It’s not about getting people back to work because he already has a job. It’s about denying someone who has worked and paid into the system the right to claim sick pay when he desperately needs it.
I’m taking up these cases with IDS (for what that’s worth), and will be raising them in the House as soon as I can get a debate.
I feel that my last post ended on a somewhat cryptic note regarding Professor Wessely, and that I need to support the claim I made about the undermining of physical medical authority within his ‘doctrine’. This I feel I have previously done to an certain degree with regard to Professor Aylward and his colleagues (here and here), though the potential certainly exists for more to be highlighted.
An insight into what could be termed the ‘under-the-radar‘ approach to undermining the integrity of medical personnel, such as GPs, is provided by Professor Wessely’s article for Unum’s Annual Chief Medical Officer’s Report 2007 entitled “Why and When do Doctors Collude With Patients?” (The CMO for this publication was Michael O’Donnell, now occupying the same role with Atos Healthcare.)
Subtle But Significant
This notion may seem to be introduced with apparent goodwill, even humour, but the important fact is that it is introduced at all. The question should always be asked about corporately financed material “Who is set to benefit from the dissemination of these ideas?”. Is there anything to gain on the part of the Insurance firm Unum who produced the report? – Such as carving a first chink in the hitherto resilient armour of the authority of physical medicine, perhaps. This, by suggesting that doctors can be psychologically ‘vulnerable’ to forms of ‘collusion’ with those in their care in ways which might work against the patient’s welfare.
Might it not in fact be an attempt to first, construct such a thing as this type of ‘psychological failing‘ of a doctor, and second, draw it into the classification of ‘iatrogenesis‘, a term historically limited to the adverse effects on patients of drugs, medical error, or negligence through decisions taken by medical personnel. Note should be taken of Professor Wessely’s reference to the naivety of ‘ethically pure’ young doctors, new to practice, who will come to the realisation that “in real life things are not neat and simple, but grey and ambiguous”, ultimately, presumably, succumbing to this ‘necessary collusion’. Some of the reasons for colluding that Wessely lists give anything but a favourable impression of our medical practioners, including as it does such things as financial reward, lack of time and fear of complaint.
Poor NHS. Also deluded.
Just prior to introducing Professor Wessely’s article Michael O’Donnell bemoans the way that “our NHS managers [are] fixated on providing those treatments which can be measured” such as operations and injections. As opposed perhaps to psychological interventions which rest solely on, and the success of which is evaluated only by, certain ‘experts’ in that field. He then states that “until return to work is included as the objective and final measure of success, it seems likely that the NHS will continue to miss the point.” This is of course an ‘objective’ perspective, and nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that it serves insurers such as Unum’s best interests (and saves them money) to get the sick back to work.
Wessely’s ‘Previous’
If what I’m claiming seems a little exaggerated, or ‘conspiracy theory-ish’ perhaps you should also take a look at this paper by Professor Wessely from 2003. The main thrust of of which is that doctors who accept the possibility that their patients suffering from (ahem) ‘Medically Unexplained Symptoms’ (MUS) may actually be physically ill are in danger of committing an ‘iatrogenic’ offence against them. He does this by arguing that patients with ‘MUS’ conditions (an important and expensive group he alleges) are in effect made worse by doctors taking their illnesses seriously and organising physical investigations and treatments. There are, Wessely concludes, “points within the doctor-patient encounter where MUS may be iatrogenically maintained“. In simple terms, doctors need to stop ‘colluding’ with these patients because it is doing them harm.
Note: Professor Wessely’s list of MUS illnesses in the paper (detailed below) correlates very closely with those listed by fellow psychiatrist Dr Christopher Bass at the 2004 Atos Conference referenced in my earlier post. (Though he omits chronic back pain in favour of irritable bowel syndrome)
An unexpected interjection to the article under the sub-heading ‘Social’ is yet more evidence of just how entitled proponents of the Biopsychosocial model perceive themselves to be in stepping out of their own field and usurping theories from Sociology to twist into their arguments. Aylward from his ‘Medical’ expertise, and Wessely from Psychiatry. It is very telling indeed that there are no qualifed Sociologists involved in the Biopsychosocial lobby. A small matter of ethics, perhaps.
Illich explains the meaning of his term as referring to the “impairments to health that are due precisely to those socio-economic transformations which have been made attractive, possible, or necessary by the institutional shape health care has taken“. Note the use of the word ‘institutional’ here.
Illich’s main concern is that autonomy has been removed from the people, and he speaks about the danger of ‘radical monopolies’ such as is expressed in the idea that “When cities are built around vehicles, they devalue human feet“.
Illich asserts that “Ordinary monopolies corner the market; radical monopolies disable people from doing or making things on their own”. Disregarding this core idea, Wessely feels entitled to put his own spin on ‘Social Iatrogenesis’. Describing it as “a term for illness caused or prolonged by wider sociopolitical inputs” he uses it to discredit ‘Patient Support Groups, no less! It would be quite one thing were he a qualified Sociologist to make that assertion, and accordingly be ethically required to back it up with a full argument as to why that could be a reasonable (though inexplicably contradictory) interpretation of Illich’s theory. It is quite an extraordinary presumption to appropriate that theory towards the opposite aim of its originator. Patient Support Groups are nothing if not an attempt to restore a measure of autonomy to ‘the people’ within what has become an ever more bureaucratised, institutionalised healthcare system. This is nothing short of abominable arrogance on Wessely’s part, but oh so very symptomatic of this group of ‘experts’ including Aylward et al.
Could He Possibly Be More Wrong?
Wessely just couldn’t be more wrong in citing Illich in this context, when the latter complains that the spread of medicine “turns mutual care and self-medication into misdemeanors or felonies”. Please compare against Wessely’s rubbishing in the Unum Report of any steps that that an individual may take outside of traditional medicine to ‘self-medicate’. These potential treatments he disparages as ‘”cod-immunology [mixed with] pseudo radiation science interspersed with New Age homilies” directing us towards that reknowed ‘quack-busting’ site ‘BadScience.com’. Hardly comments or sentiments in line with Illich’s philosophy is it? No, it’s quite the opposite. Perhaps Professor needs to sign up for a beginner’s course in Sociology, or better still refrain from playing with concepts that he doesn’t understand.
I’ll leave the final word to Illich on “nosology” (the system of classification of diseases, which he notes “changes with history”)
In our society nosology is almost totally medicalized; ill-health that is not labeled by the physician is written off either as malingering or as illusion.
I wrote yesterday about the plans by Iain Duncan Smith to restrict what "troubled families" can spend benefits on through the use of smart cards, and why this is a terrible idea for many reasons. It's even worse than that though. The plan is to get councils to send "troubleshooters" to confront these families and force them to conform to the expectations of the government. The Independent and BBC News both have more details.
What I didn't write about yesterday is the definition that the government are using for troubled family, and that definition is very bad indeed. The Conservative Party have turned to research by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) to decide who might be "troubled". The government have decided that a troubled family is one that meets five out of seven criteria:
Low income
No one in the family who is working
Poor housing
Parents who have no qualifications
The mother has a mental health problem
One parent has a long-standing illness or disability
Unable to afford basics, including food and clothes.
Government Lies
In fact these criteria boil down to one thing: poverty. And the ESRC have come right out and stated that the government have basically made up their own minds about what it all means. They said "In the term 'troubled families' it deliberately conflates families experiencing multiple disadvantage and families that cause trouble." The definition that the government are using does not mention child truancy, criminal records, ASBOs, police call outs, drug abuse, or any of the other things that they claim to be addressing.
It is quite likely that none of these conditions are under the control of the family themselves, and yet under government plans they can be penalised for it. Even worse than that, though, is the presence of illness, disability and mental health on that list. These are definitely not under the control of the people involved, but it is clear from what Eric Pickles told The Independent that the government do blame these people. Pickles said that these families must end an "it's not my fault" culture of excuses and must stop avoiding taking responsibility for their own lives. He said that there would be "less understanding" and a tougher approach.
Victim Blaming
This is blaming the victim, plain and simple. It fits right in with the Bio-Psychosocial model of disability that the government have adopted after decades of being advised by insurance company UNUM. The model basically says that disability is all in the mind of the disabled person and they only need to adopt a better attitude to overcome barriers to work and other activities. This is the model that has seen so many people judged fit for work in their Work Capability Assessment by Atos, and now we see it being used to clamp down on poor people who the Tories find distasteful. Instead of helping them, which costs money, they are punishing them because they don't fit their Victorian ideal of "deserving poor".
Investigative news outfit Exarohave revealed that a recent survey commissioned by mental health charity ‘Rethink Mental Illness‘ demonstrates the devastating effect that the, now notorious, Work Capability Assessment is having on the sick and disabled across the country. Of a thousand GPs surveyed it was reported that 6% had disabled patients who had either attempted, or actually committed, suicide due to the distress the process is causing. One in five (21%) revealed that they had patients who have considered suicide in connection with the WCA, either as a result of undergoing it, or fear of having to. 14% of GPs also confirmed self harming behaviour among patients forced to undergo the Atos administered test.
“These shocking statistics show that the work-capability assessment is pushing some of the most unwell and vulnerable people in our society to the edge.” – Paul Jenkins, chief executive, Rethink Mental Health.
Further, Rethink’s survey indicates that not only is the WCA exacerbating ill-heath for those with existing mental health problems, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, but
“More than eight out of ten GPs say they have patients who have developed mental health problems due to [the] controversial benefits test”[italics added]
Only ‘Anecdotal’
an·ec·do·tal [an-ik-doht-l, an-ik-doht-l] adjective based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation”
“But many of the stories we have heard are anecdotal. It is difficult to find a statistical or empirical set of figures to tell us exactly what these problems are.”
Is this survey ‘statistical’ and ‘empirical’ enough for those such as Mr Johnstone? Or will they find some other means of dismissing the facts? There is material which has been expressly designed for just that purpose, including the means by which GPs and other doctors’ authority can be undermined or dismissed. It can be found among the output from proponents of the BioPsychoSocial model of illness, and adherents to the ‘Wessely’ psychogenic doctrine. Sourcehttp://downwithallthat.wordpress.com/2012/10/05/521/
Six per cent of doctors have experienced a patient who has attempted - or committed - suicide as a result of “undergoing, or fear of undergoing” the Government's fitness to work test.
The survey, highlighted by Exaro, the investigative website also found 14 per cent had patients who had self-harmed as a result of the test.
As I’m commenting on this, I’m so angry that the words are crashing against one another in my fury.
People are either contemplating, or actually committing suicide, because their Government, our Government, are pushing through with policies which defy all understanding.
The survey found that one in five GPs had at least one disabled patient who had thought about suicide because of the test.
There are people are dying because their elected representatives have chosen to make the welfare reform a reality.
In 2011, the Government ordered that everyone on incapacity benefit, some two million people, should be assessed.
This is just the beginning as George Osbourne set out plans for £18 billion in welfare savings by 2014-15. And yet it seems to me that disabled people are always remembered for a politician’s PR photo opportunity, but forgotten when it comes to pushing through dehumanising policy.
This is robbing disabled people of life chances and meaningful existence, but with an eye to the polls, the votes and the perceived will of the public, no one will speak out.
These men and women are choosing death because life is offering no meaningful option. They have no champion, they have no hope. So they tell their doctor. These doctors are ignored by the people paid to bring the savings, but these same doctors have made an oath to save lives.
Charities are urging the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to remove “gagging clauses” forbidding subcontractors working on the Government’s flagship Work Programme doing anything to “attract adverse publicity” for the department.
The National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) – which today warned that seven out of 10 charity subcontractors felt their contacts were at risk of failure – says subcontractors are also prohibited from making press statements or publicising their contracts without approval from the department.
It wants the clauses to be lifted following concerns that undesirable funding terms, low levels of referrals and prime contractors managing referrals in-house were making contracts unsustainable. Many, it said, were having to subsidise delivery through their reserves.
The report said: "Transparency, advocacy and holding government public services to account are at the heart of the VCS. DWP should clarify its guidance around 'gagging clauses' to ensure that they are being interpreted correctly and to tackle the perception that they prevent the sharing of good practice."
Launched last year, the Work Programme replaced the popular Future Jobs Fund, and sees nearly 20 prime contractors, mainly private firms, sub-contract to specialist providers, including housing associations and charities, to provide the unemployed with job skills training.
The £5bn programme sees the government pay contractors by results in three stages – through an initial attachment fee, a main outcomes fee and cash for sustained employment.
One of the criticisms has been that the prime contractors have been passing on the tough payment terms to smaller charities and housing associations who might not be able to carry out the employment support and wait for months, even years, before they are paid.
The NCVO report – which details the survey responses of nearly 100 voluntary organisations –reveals that 71 respondents claim their contracts are at risk of failure.
Its report found that 47% of respondents felt that their contacts were at risk of failure within the next six months and 26% thought they were at risk of failure before the end of the contract.
Other issues identified in the report include a “considerable mismatch” between anticipated referral flows and Work Programme customers received, subcontractors dissatisfied with the relationship with their prime contractor and the majority of prime contractors not sharing supply chain performance data with their subcontractor partner.
Sir Stuart Etherington, CEO of NCVO, said: "The sustainability of these contracts is a major cause for concern. This programme is clearly not working for many charities involved in its delivery. More worryingly, this will have a damaging knock on effect to the many job-seekers who desperately need the specialist support that charities can deliver.
"Despite concerns about contract viability, charities are still working hard to provide a quality service and are dipping into their own reserves rather than neglect people that need their help. It’s still early days and 2013 will prove critical to the overall success or failure of the Work Programme - we have a small window of opportunity to get this right and ensure that this scheme delivers for job-seekers.
"We are calling on the Government to investigate the current funding arrangements to determine why so many contracts under the Work Programme are at risk of failure and why some charities are subsidising this work."
A separate investigation by the BBC revealed that several charities that have closed recently, have cited their Work Programme contracts as a major reason in their collapse.
The DWP told the BBC the financial arrangements between providers and their subcontractors were a matter for them and no organisation should negotiate a deal they could not afford.
A spokesperson said: "Payment by results is working. It is right and fair to the taxpayer that we only pay organisations that get people into work and keep them there, unlike the last government which paid out money to schemes upfront regardless of results.
"There are hundreds of organisations playing a part in the Work Programme, all working closely with us with the aim of making this a success and getting people into long term employment."
I wish to point out that the DWP improperly responded to my request and did not provide mortality statistics on 2012 ESA claimants; see http://www.twitlonger.com/show/j63qek
This information certainly must be available as the Department is supposed to be monitoring and modifying systems on a continual basis.
‘Allow me to introduce researcher John William Brown:
I’m beginning to understand the various figures I’ve been supplied with on the DPAC FB page and it is not simple - I WILL TRY RECAP – IN BRIEF – It is greater than one thinks!
Number of deaths for Jan. to Nov. 2011 = 10,600 - supplied by DWP via Atos from page 6 of following pdf
Some claimaints will lose their benefits if they do not find extra work - even if there is none available where they live. Photograph: Rex Features
Nearly 1.2 million working adults will for the first time next year face losing some of their benefits if they do not comply with new state requirements to work longer hours, find an additional job or seek higher wages, it has emerged.
Until now benefit sanctions have only applied largely to those out of work. The new sanctions regime is an unprecedented byproduct of the government decision to introduce universal credit, merging most existing means-tested benefits and tax credits together into a single system.
The aim is to increase the incentives to work but it means that people will lose money if they don't find extra work, even if there is none available where they live.
There are currently 1.4 million people working part-time because they are unable to find full-time work – compared to 500,000 in 2004.
The claim that 1.2 million working adults will be brought under the oversight of the department of work and pensions sanctions regime is made by the Resolution Foundation thinktank, and is based on figures supplied by the DWP for the first time.
The foundation suggests about 700,000 single people will be affected, as well as 500,000 who are living as part of a couple.
The conditions will be set on payments to many working claimants who earn less than the weekly equivalent of the minimum wage – £212.80p for a single person.
The Resolution Foundation claimed on Wednesday night that the work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith was moving into unchartered territory and questioned whether DWP jobcentre advisers have the capacity to cope with double the number of claimants subjected to potential sanctions.
Universal credit removes the requirement to work at least 16 hours to be entitled to benefit, so allows claimants to receive state help if they are working as little as five hours a week.
To counter the clear financial incentives for low-hours work in the new system universal credit introduces, for the first time, a bolstered system of personalised conditionality, including directed mandatory activity to help people obtain and prepare for work.
Claimants will be expected to meet a new, higher conditionality earnings threshold, equivalent to 35 hour week at national minimum rates through a combination of measures. These can include: increasing their hours or their hourly wage with their current employer, finding one or more additional jobs alongside their existing employment or finding a new job with a higher income.
The foundation warns that "with little over a year until implementation it is of concern that little has been said about how a fair, consistent and adequately resourced conditionality system for working claimants will be implemented. It also questions "whether an extension of conditionality to working claimants can function in the current context of a chronically weak labour market in which millions of people want to work more hours, but are unable to do so".
Laurie Taylor hears about a new study into the views and experiences of the long term sick and disabled in the context of ongoing welfare reforms.
The researcher, Kayleigh Garthwaite, highlights their ambivalence – whilst some have a deep seated anxiety about losing rights and income; others hope it will distinguish between the genuinely ill, such as themselves, and those that are ‘faking’.
Also, the former social science magazine ‘New Society’ broke new and radical grounds in its creation of a space for thoughtful debate about everyday culture and social issues; showcasing the ideas of academics and intellectuals as diverse as Angela Carter and Richard Hoggart.
A former editor, Paul Barker, analyses the heyday and legacy of ‘New Society’ 50 years after its launch. He’s joined by the writer, Lynsey Hanley and the Professor of Cultural Studies, Fred Inglis.
Fear of the brown envelope: sickness benefits recipients and welfare reform. Hardly a day goes by without sick and disabled people being discussed in the media, painting a picture of lazy, faking, workshy scroungers; yet it is very rare that the voices of sick and disabled people involved in the welfare reform process are heard.
This paper draws on long term sickness benefits recipients’ perspectives and experiences of the welfare reform process. The research reveals a dichotomy of responses – firstly, a deep seated fear of reform and what it could mean for participants in the study, and secondly, a belief that reform is a positive shift that will not affect them as they are, in fact, genuinely ill.
This narrative is situated alongside a wider one that encompasses ‘Other’ sickness benefits recipients as scroungers. The relationship between identity and welfare reform for participants will be outlined, before a final reflection upon the future of welfare reform and what this could mean for sickness benefits recipients in terms of policy implications.
Lastly, this paper highlights how fears over welfare reform can evoke extreme anxiety and apprehension, but above all, how this fear, coupled with government, media and public perceptions, appears to be creating a worrying undercurrent amongst sickness benefits recipients themselves that perceives other sick and disabled people as ‘undeserving’.
Former editor of New Society, writer and broadcaster, and senior research fellow at the Young Foundation The Other Britain Publisher: Routledge and Kegan Paul ISBN 0-7100-9340-3
SECRET figures obtained by the Daily Record show the full scale of the “misery money” Atos will rake in.
THE Atos axemen are set for a £40million payday as they cash in on the misery of disabled Scots.
The Record has seen secret figures outlining the huge sums the French IT firm could collect from the taxpayer for their humiliating assessments of whether the disabled should still receive benefits.
Panicked Con-Dem ministers have desperately tried to suppress details of the new Atos Healthcare contract for carrying out the tests on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions until 2017.
But in a move that will lead to major recriminations in Whitehall, a dossier has emerged that outlines the full scale of the “misery money” Atos will rake in.
MSP Kevin Stewart, who obtained the figures, said: “That Atos may be set to profit by more than £40million is absolutely disgusting.”
MSP Kevin Stewart
Titled “Atos Risk Management Plan”, the dossier shows a predicted £40,535,679 profit from the £206million Atos contract for Scotland and northern England.
That would pay the disability living allowance of 10,851 people for a year, based on the average weekly payment of £71.84.
Atos will collect the colossal sum if they manage to put 15 per cent more people through their tests than broadly expected.
Even if the number of tests carried out is in line with predictions, they will make £28,636,419 by 2017 – enough to pay a year’s disability allowance for 7664 people.
And if they drop 15 per cent below their expected total, Atos will still be in the money, making a profit of £16,712,945.
The Record has been telling the harrowing stories of Scots who felt bullied and harassed after Atos work capability assessments.
The tests, which have already been going on for years, have been slammed as degrading by doctors and charities.
The new contract will see two million disabled people across the UK tested to see if they should still receive benefits when the Con-Dems replace disability living allowance with “personal independence payments” and slash the welfare state.
There was uproar over the summer when Atos, one of the sponsors of the Paralympics, won £400million worth of contracts to carry out the tests in different parts of the UK.
SNP Aberdeen MSP Stewart used freedom of information laws to request details of the deal for Scotland and northern England.
The DWP tried to keep the vast Atos profits secret by blacking out the figures before sending the paperwork. They claimed, to Stewart’s fury, that they were protecting “commercially confidential” information.
But the blundering bureaucrats failed to censor the documents properly, and the staggering sums became visible when transferred to another computer format.
Stewart, who says he has been swamped by calls from constituents terrified about the Atos tests, called the contract “absolutely disgraceful”. He added: “That a company is making profit like this from other people’s misery is terrible. The UK Government should hang its head in shame.”
He called for an urgent review of the “sickening” sums being paid out.
The revelations will heap more pressure on Tory Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, who has defended the Atos contract.
Medical examination documents are used by ATOS
Earlier this year, the National Audit Office criticised the DWP for setting performance targets too low, failing to adequately fine Atos for poor performance and not checking the accuracy of data from the company.
A succession of MPs have tried to find out more about the performance targets and financial penalties in the Atos deal. The UK Government have refused to answer the questions, claiming the days is “commercially confidential”.
Official figures show that 40 per cent of appeals against decisions not to award employment and support allowance, largely based on the Atos assessments, are upheld. The figure rises to 70 per cent if the claimant gets help from Citizens Advice or other groups.
Atos said: “All our contracts are competitively tendered and subject to strict Government procurement rules.”
The DWP said the contract was part of a “new approach, working with regional providers, for a service which best meets local needs”.
They said they were making the system better by replacing an “over-complicated 40-page claim form” with “a discussion with a health professional”.
And they insisted: “Atos were chosen in Scotland following the usual procedures for open and fair competition.”
Colin's story
Colin Grieve fears his benefits could be removed by ATOS
COLIN Grieve is living in fear as he awaits his Atos assessment. He is terrified of being forced into poverty if his benefits are removed.
The 59-year-old from Selkirk has been unable to work for more than a decade, after being diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and suffering two mental breakdowns.
He receives incapacity benefit but was recently told he would have to attend an Atos assessment.
Colin said: “I keep reading about this Atos and I’m absolutely petrified.
“You don’t know what’s going to happen and it’s playing on my mind.”
Colin says he would be unable to pay for food or other essentials without his benefits. He worries that his lifeline will be taken away and he will be left to starve.
He says mental health patients currently living independently could be forced into residential care, creating a further burden for the public purse.
Jane's story
Jane Ramsey at her home in Muirkirk, East Ayrshire
Ayrshire gran Jane Ramsay is facing yet another Atos assessment, only months after she successfully appealed against the findings of a work capability test.
Atos decided last year that the 59-year-old was “fit to work” even though a number of doctors had found that a recent hip replacement and crippling arthritis in her knees had left her unable to hold a job.
Jane is also waiting on word over a potential knee operation.
She said: “I have been receiving disability living allowance and incapacity benefit since 2000.
“But last year I was told by Atos that I was fit to work and my money was going to be stopped. I’d failed their assessment, despite being told at loads of other meetings with doctors that I was unable to work.
“When I spoke to my GP about an insurance line, she laughed and said there was no way I could work.
“I was helped by the Citizens Advice Bureau to appeal the Atos decision, and I won in April this year.
“However, just last week I received more forms in the post from Atos.
“It looks like I’m going to have to go through the whole process again.”
James' story
James Girwood at his home in Muirkirk, East Ayrshire
James Girdwood, 58, was badly hurt in a road accident in 1995 as he headed home from work at Yarrow Shipbuilders in Glasgow.
He suffered serious foot and ankle injuries and needed several operations. He has since developed a catalogue of other ailments including an elbow injury, arthritis, high blood pressure and a heart condition.
But DWP officials ruled James, of Muirkirk, Ayrshire, fit for work. Now he has been summoned to an Atos assessment and faces an agonising wait to see if he will lose his incapacity benefit.
James said: “I asked the DWP to explain why they think I’m fit to work, but they didn’t answer.
“Instead I have an appointment with Atos to assess me. I have to go or they will stop my payments.
“I’ve been unable to work for years and I rely on lifts from friends to get me about. I also need that extra money from incapacity benefit.
“The assessment they’ve made about me is ridiculous. They are more interested in cutting the money than a person’s health.”
It might seem ridiculous but the DWP and Atos are guilty of the behaviour described in this image – and much worse – leading to loss of income and stress that, for some, has been intolerable. Thousands of deaths have been recorded.
It may seem like fantasy but the International Criminal Court has been asked to consider whether to take legal action against ministers in the UK government whose enforcement of austerity measures has led to the deaths of sick and disabled people.
Disability specialist Samuel Miller has written to the office of the prosecutor at the ICC in The Hague, intending to file a complaint against the ministers at the Department for Work and Pensions who are considered most responsible for the “draconian welfare reforms and the resultant deaths of their society’s most vulnerable” – Iain Duncan Smith, Chris Grayling and Maria Miller.
He believes there is precedent for such a case, thanks to a request for a Greek austerity trial at the Hague.
But the matter is not cut and dried. Mr Miller’s letter seeks clarification on whether austerity deaths of the sick and disabled in the UK are considered a crime against humanity by the ICC and whether the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities would be taken into consideration by the court.
Mr Miller has spent the past year reporting on the crisis for the UK’s sick and disabled to the United Nations. His own verdict is clear as crystal: “Austerity measures consisting of draconian welfare reforms and ‘sham’ means-testing (Atos Healthcare UK and the Department for Work and Pensions) are ostensibly to blame for their plight – with disability hate crime and inflammatory media attacks factored into this mix.”
My own opinion is that Mr Miller is right. At the very least, IDS and his cronies are guilty of corporate manslaughter (see previous blog posts on disability, Atos, the DWP and the many, many deaths).
Will the International Criminal Court see it this way? We’ll have to wait and see.
To be honest, I doubt that this campaign will score a victory at its first attempt.
But the recent verdict on the Hillsborough tragedy has shown that people are prepared to work hard and wait a long time for justice.
