Yesterday the ‘Usual Channels’, that’s the chief party whips meeting in private, failed to agree that the Welfare Reform Bill should be debated in its committee stages ‘in Grand Committee’, that is outside the main chamber. Grand Committee is usually held in the Moses Room but for Bills likely to generate more interest there is the option of using a larger room on the upstairs committee corridor.
I would prefer that every bill were considered in Grand Committee. It avoids votes at an early stage of examining the bill, the atmosphere is more intimate and business-like and we can spend more time on the detail. It feels to me like a more normal less stilted way of discussing an issue. The Education Bill was on its 10th day in committee yesterday for example whereas in the Chamber it would be rushed through more quickly. There is room to spread out one’s papers on a table in front of the speaker, the Minister has his support team of bill experts immediately behind him to consult and because it is not televised there is usually precious little grand-standing and posturing. It is easier to interrupt to question without it seeming rude. A technical bill like the Welfare Reform Bill in particular is best examined outside the Chamber. Then it returns to the Chamber for the important Report Stage when the important votes are taken.
The exchange was ill tempered, the Usual Channels were airing their dispute in public; we were obliged to vote. The Government won but we are in danger of losing the smooth negotiating which the Usual Channels is supposed to achieve.
.lotb
Since “the public” in a truly working and sustain-worthy (including sustain-able) Democracy has the ultimate Responsibility for the success and failure of the Nation-State it is the People-Nation-Participatory-Electorate of,
the “Usual Channels” (constituted) should have been including every voice from any one or more of The Pe4ople, shouldn’t it ?
and that in addition to their elected representatives, the Upper House and all the rest of the Appointed Establishment performing their “statutory” egalitarian democratic governance supportively for The Peoples’ needs & affordable Hows ?
It also sounds as if your “usual smooth negotiating” methodology is far from being Win-Win-Win Method III-Level, doesn’t it ?
That it was also “ill-tempered” shows further that it is still excluding the “Six Thinking Hats” methodology wherein “emotional thinking” (under the “red” meaning emotions not communists hat) has a co-constructive place ?
(That’s all there’s room for for now)
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/welfare-reform/legislation-and-key-documents/welfare-reform-bill-2011/
(Welfare reform bill)
@Gareth Howell:
The Policy you gave as a link to is so vague it leaves the mind entirely open for anyone to guess what is truly proposed.
However, it is a very good example of how the general public are sold down the river. When running for office, the idea of welfare reform sounds sensible but then we find the reality is ‘take from the poor and incapable to give to the rich.’ They must pay less tax because it encourages growth. Oh, does it? How much growth have they achieved in the USA where taxation for the rich is barely noticed as Warren Buffet explained so well in his video.
What are the plans for the disabled and those gross benefit cheats we see so regularly in our media? However, what is planned for those cheats in the Commons and Lords is kept behind closed doors? Will the sentences be doubled for them? And will they even face charges? We will see.
Why are the voters not aware of how much the wealthy of this country have increased their take of the economic pie over the last 30 years? Why does the government not advertise that regularly, as they do with individuals who cheat the benefit system? And why are they so loathe explain that those who should be claiming benefit and don’t far outweigh the cost of any fraud?
This is a US study, but as we are following their policies as closely as possible on the way they treat their electorate, who, by the way, pay the bill for social care but receive little more than military prowess in exchange, which means they are way ahead of us in redistribution of the money pie upwards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAGFVU9lSXY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HTkEBIoxBA&feature=relmfu
This is another view from the UK.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0KUymkWi_Q
And last, unclaimed benefit and tax evasion.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/19/fraud-unclaimed-benefits-tax-evasion
On a low income? Make sure you claim all you are entitled to. Those multi million pound companies and the idle rich, who can avoid paying tax cleverly make sure they claim their full exemptions, without any prohibitive sense of decency holding them back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LQ2_SMLxFE
However, what is planned for those cheats in the Commons and Lords is kept behind closed doors? Will the sentences be doubled for them? And will they even face charges?
============
We shall see.
However the Lords have set out what they want for themselves. Even if jailed they are unlikely to get over a year for their fraud. They will be locked up for a few weeks and do a Paul Hanningfield. The modern day equivalent of a Ernest Saunders. After all, they plan on keeping lots of peers with criminal offences on the gravy train.
Otherwise they would have put forward a single clause bill. Any peer convicted, past or present is struck off for life. Instead its a year or more in the clink, tacked on to a bill that won’t be passed in a month of Sundays.
Meanwhile in the Commons, they are still breaking the rules. Not a single fraudster there has paid back a penny of interest.
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/welfare-reform/legislation-and-key-documents/welfare-reform-bill-2011/
(Welfare reform bill)
The system of tax credits seems to have worked very well, since its introduction about 20 years ago, such that “Universal credits” are now very nearly a fact. Quite how it evolves from the tax credit, I am not yet sure. There was a yawning gap between
tax and benefit known as the “Social security trap” or benefits trap which locked people in to unemployment for life, knowing that they
could never earn as much, after tax, in work, than they could, out of it, and on benefits.
Tax credits prevented perpetuation of this when they were introduced, and is to be extended to all claimants of welfare benefits?
If you are out of work for two weeks, you get benefits for two weeks. If you are in work for a month, you pay tax for a month; you account is highly computerised and accurate up to the minute.
Benefits and taxation were aeons apart until the were unified by computerization, and electronic communication between departments in about 1999.
I became well aware of this when I made a claim for disability in 2003 and also had an emolument from the Coop Group Manchester, which I did not declare because it was not earned.
The DSS knew and the tax inspector knew instantly, and either one or the other wanted to know why I had not declared a wage.
I explained that it was not a wage, which they accepted, but the proof of the effectiveness of e-systems was not in doubt.
BOTH TAX and BENEFIT (credit) from one e-department, folder or file.
Benefit is negative taxation, and the sooner everybody understands that the better. A great many highly waged people do not.
UNIVERSAL CREDIT. Efficient systems.
Baroness Murphy,
My understanding is the in Lords all Peers in the House may attend the Grand Committee if they wish. Therefore it is not a way of sneaking past the scrutiny of and excluded group of Peers — is that correct? If it is then your position seems fully legitimate but I am not sure everyone reading your post would grasp that this committee ia open to the whole House.
It may be open to the whole house, but the whole house cannot fit into the rooms!
Sue Marsh,
That is a fair point. It is of course difficult to say how great an impact that limit has on any occasion where seats are available. In my case I also have no idea how well attended such sessions are..
As far as disabled people are concerned trying to hide away the Welfare Reform Bill in a side room and not the main chamber is a truly sly move by this government.
This is probably one of the most important bills this century yet this toxic government tries to do all in it’s powers to negate true democracy, disabled access is very poor outside the main chamber, the government don’t wish to let the outside world see what’s really going on, I suppose the introduction of a Eugenics policy in the Welfare Reform Bill wouldn’t do it much good?
This Bill does nothing but harm to disabled people, there are now 12 confirmed suicides that can be attributed directly to the assessment practices of Atos, Atos are getting away with murder and also they are costing the taxpayers up to 60 million a year in tribunal fees etc, why doesn’t the government ask Atos to pay back that money? Under the contract it can do that.
The intention is that the Grand Committee on the Bill is held in committee rooms on the main committee corridor, where there is more space for disabled visitors than there is in the Moses Room or, for that matter, the chamber.
If that’s the case why bother using the main chamber?
atosvictimsgroup: The whole point of using Grand Committees is to enable the House to cope with the volume of public legislation, as Grand Committees can meet at the same as the chamber is sitting. Grand Committees are the equivalent of parallel chambers.
The reason for this may have been that rather unusually, people have taken to lobbying peers instead of MPs.
An email that is doing the rounds calling on people to lobby peers can be seen here: http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?p=52784707
Also, an alternate explanation of why this bill should be debated in the Chamber rather than in Committee is located here: http://wheresthebenefit.blogspot.com
Perhaps they realize it works. Look at Truscott and co. Changes to legistilation for the masses – sorry cash rich.
Frank W Summers lll, yes you’re right all peers (and indeed the public) can attend and peers can speak on an amendment just as in the Chamber. The Moses room is however considerably smaller than the Chamber and there isn’t so much space for wheelchairs. Hence the occasional use of a larger alternative. I confess I love the Moses room, the art work is superior so even when not listening one can gaze at Moses looking threatening or young Daniel in his sandals.
Gareth Howell, Thanks for putting up the Welfare Reform Bill website; Twm O’r Nant yu’d find it helpful to clarify its provisions and hw it all ties together. JSDM, Oh don’t get me started on ‘Usual Channels’, I’ll go on and on….
The Labour party should learn how to negotiate like the Conservative party did in 13 years of opposition. Lord Bassam has to understand he is not in the driving seat!!
Atosvictimsgroup, sorry but doing grand committee in the Moses room is not hiding it away, its giving it more concentrated time for debate. Your concerns about Atos and the way the assessments are carried out is a very good example of an issue which is of concern to many but would probably not get sufficient air time in the chamber because it is about the technical implementation of the bill not directly about the legislation or schedules of regulations. Princeps senatus, I looked at the blog you posted up, the blogger doesn’t seem to realise the debate is recorded in Hansard just as in the Chamber, there has never been a time in my experience when anyone who wanted to attend could not find a seat in the Moses Room and bills aren’t necessarily helped by votes at committee stage,and I say this knowing that I quite often dislike the provisions of bill. But you are right that pees are now very vigorously lobbied by e-mail, letter and in person. It is actually very helpful if there are detailed briefs from organisations and individuals but rather as we read the Telegraph and the Guardian with an awareness of their political stance so one reads the various missives with a wary scepticism.
Baroness Murphy,
when I said your thought was purely legitimate I meant opting for Grand Committee not the room. However, I am sure the room is wonderful. When my grandfather was Chief Justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court there was a mosaic on the wall of the grand lobby of the Court (which has since moved back to an older building). The mosaic mural had as I believe Hammurabi, Napoleon, Blackstone, John Marshall or some other lawgiving assemblage. However, Moses dominated the ensemble. He presided over space and time in all his legal glory. In our current suicidal society it would be difficult to honor a Biblical figure in this way….
BaronessMurphy
It doesn’t matter If the debate is recorded in Hansard, one likes to see democracy in Action, I presume the debate will be shown live?
When will the Lords debate the Technical Implementation of the Atos assessment process for it is that very thing that is causing the biggest heartache and destruction of peoples lives, I don’t suppose the Lords really care, the amount of money peers get in expenses for a day would last the average disabled person a month?
http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2011/09/15/unums-game-plan/
Baroness Murphy – May I please suggest you click on the above link and please understand that some of us know a great deal as to the dire implications and reasons behind this diabolical Bill.The move to Grand Committee is yet another betrayal and was planned by the Minister long ago as he no doubt predicted the details that would be exposed in debate in the noble House. Your protestations of innocence don’t really work as, without a vote, it is rather meaningless so discussions as to anything else is rather missing the main point. The fact that the expressed concerns of Baroness Campbell were ignored tell us all we need to know.
UNUM Insurance are now boasting online as they prepare to launch their income protection insurance now that the DWP have terrified the able bodied public into knowing that they won’t get the much needed help they deserve if they become chronically sick or disabled. The company were involved with the welfare reforms and have been in consultation with the DWP since 1994. They planned the destruction of our welfare state, and now plan to profit from it, as the government and senior house make sure it will become a reality. The Office of Fair Trading will have an opinion on this and intend to bring this to their attention very soon.
Dear Mo,
You may not appreciate that the Lords works in a very different way from the Commons.
In the Commons, there is much less time to go through the bill and a much more partisan culture, with votes on party lines.
In the Lords, while there may be fewer votes, a lot of work is done behind the scenes by means of probing amendments, which suggest to the government a way to improve the legislation. It is very rare for the Lords to reject government legislation. Their role is to revise and improve legislation whose principles have already been approved by the Commons. It would be undemocratic (and members of the public like you would be the first to scream that) for the unelected Lords to overturn the will of the Commons.
Therefore, if you have these concerns, take them to your MP and let the Lords improve the implementation of the Bill that has already been approved by the Commons.
Dear Baroness Murphy, Having now heard that votes DO take place in committee, something I was not aware of, I am not as concerned as I was when I first heard that the WRB was to go to “Grand Committee”. What does concern me are the indications by the people bringing this Bill that Peers will be afforded what sounds like lavish presentations provided by the DWP BEFORE the committee decides anything. I am somewhat concerned that this process excludes any provision for any opposing view to present “seminars” or “audio visual” aids to explain their case also. Will this facility be made available and on what dates/times could this be provided? And who would be permitted to attend/provide such balanced view/information? Thank you.
Baroness Murphy,
A number of Lords are very concerned about this indeed – Not just Labour ones, but crossbench peers.
Their objections seem to be that they WOULD very much like the chance to vote, but now will not have that opportunity at this stage.
Hansard is all very well, but many campaigners like to follow the debates on parliament.uk and now they will not be able to.
The rooms may well restrict the access of enough peers to debate and certainly for enough disabled peers – who the bill directly affects – to attend.
It is highly unlikely that any campaigners would have been aware of these things before we were made aware.
We are also assured that it is “Highly unusual” for a controversial bill to be debated in Grand Committee – let alone this AND the Health and Social Care bill.
Perhaps we could look at this another way. Perhaps it is unprecedented for peers to feel so concerned about the democratic process and the details (or lack thereof) of a certain bill that they choose to engage with campaigners and charities to highlight the issue?
As I’m sure you are aware, this bill is highly controversial in many ways and speaking for sick and disabled people, (if I may?) we have engaged with it actively. Thousands follow debates, write to MPs and Lords, write, blog and telephone. There is every reason to believe that many more members of the public than normal may want to attend these debates and report them live on social media. This is NOT dependent on their political bias, but rather on the degree to which their lives will be affected by this bill.
This is not a “normal” piece of legislation and the only way ordinary members of the public have of engaging with it is if it is kept open, transparent and accessible.
Thank you for your assurances. They do go some way to explaining why this happened, but either way, this has ensured that scrutiny will be even greater, approaches to peers will be more numerous and potentially, confusion will increase.
Dear Sue,
To clarify a point in your comment, Hansard is published online on the Parliament.uk website and is normally updated three hours follwoing events in the Chamber or committee.
Princeps Senatus – WHO are you?
Please permit the Baroness to respond to direct querries placed for her. My MP cannot, will not and is incapable of dealing with this, and it’s been ongoing now for two years. As gvt advisers since 1994, the planned Unum Insurance mass marketing is a conflict of interest as permitted by the Commons, so please don’t presume to refer to me as ‘people like you’ as this is outside of your present experience. Thank you. Mo Stewart
Baroness Murphy
Will the public be able to watch the event/debate live? Straight question, just need a straight answer please..
Mo Stewart, it’s good that everyone has a chance here to intervene, Princeps Senatus was only doing what he is entitled to. The website you highlighted refers to the previous Labour government’s transfer of recipients of incapacity benefit to ESA, not to the current changes proposed in the new Bill. Unum run a perfectly legitimate business of the same kind as independent health insurers do (I stress I have no personal interest in these companies). Employers often offer short term or long term insurance for sickness and there is no reason why individuals who don’t enjoy those benefits from their employer should not themselves decide to insure themselves against the risk of disability.
While there are no votes in Grand Committee, there are exchanges which often lead to changes in the bill as it progresses through the House. I noted in the Education Bill last week that Lord Hill of Oareford committed himself to taking back several important aspects of the Bill to his department for further discussion and will probably introduce a government amendment to improve the Bill. Remember that there are nearly always votes at Report Stage and these are clustered round the important key policies of the Bill.
Ians12. No votes in Grand Committee, only votes in committee stages in the chamber. But normally votes are reserved for report stage. As to the DWP holding seminars and meetings for peers, these are very helpful but I should stress that many other organisation opposed to the bill hold meetings and seminars too. I have so far been to 26 such meetings for the Health Bill before we’ve even got started!
Sue Marsh, the Grand Committee debates are on parliament.uk very quickly as Princeps Senatus has stated. Because of the concern about the number of people who may want to attend (experience tells me that in the event most of the shouters won’t stick it out) Grand Committee will be in a larger room where there is even more space for visitors than the chamber. I know you don’t like this Bill and no doubt there is room for it to be improved but it won’t make any difference exactly where its committee stages are held. We shall be going through it line by line, word by word as we always do.
@Baroness Murphy:
And here am I thinking the public already pay into an insurance scheme, run by government, that covers individuals should they become infirm or disabled or unemployed, etc..
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/brave_new_world/welfare.htm
I don’t recall the public being advised their National Insurance payment was a fraud and that government was only playing when they set it in place. I also have no recollection of being informed this policy no longer existed.
But then, I don’t recall being advised that we were now an open door country for the world to take of advantage of. Which turns out to be another back door set up to dupe the voter into believing we were being governed by people whose interest was for the good of this country and its people.
Time for referendum to be used to enable the disgruntled to see justice done, don’t you think?
Baroness Campbell – the website I highlighted has nothing to do with a previous government but is the published game plan of Unum Insurance, who having been advisers to successive governments since ’94, helping to destroy the welfare state, and now they intend to profit from that insider knowledge. So, I respectfully request you look at the website in detail as this discredited American corporate giant, who were once banned from 15 states due to their malpractice, now intend to flood the UK market to promote income protection disability insurance. Having convinced the British public that disability is now frowned upon, and we are all now treated with suspicion, Unum intend to clean up and they will use the fear created by David Freud to achieve their aims.
She doesn’t understand Mo, and I suspect doesn’t care.
“Most of the shouters won’t stick it out”? Won’t stick it out? Oh dear. I had actually logged on to pour a little oil on troubled waters, but I find that incredibly depressing.
I don’t like the bill Baroness, you’re right. I don’t like it because I think it contains some errors that we will pay for for a very long time. That said, I don’t chain myself to railings or abuse anyone I never swear or incite. I simply want to be able to follow this bill and help others to do the same.
Nonetheless, the thousands of people I represent have very little way of engaging with this democracy of yours. We may find it hard to unravel your complicated conventions.
We’ve “stuck it out” through endless parliamentary debates, “stuck it out” through constant hope and disappointment, we’ve “stuck it out” at endless welfare conferences – we always send representatives.
I find it heartbreaking that ordinary people trying to engage with you should be dismissed in this way. Please Baroness, don’t dismiss our concerns. We’ve had rather a lot of that and we haven’t given up so far.
I am not a “shouter” Baroness Murphy. I am a highly educated, politically engaged woman who has decided to try to change what I see as misguided policy that is hurting many, many people. I opposed it when Labour set it up and I know every detail of the new ESA arrangements.
I very much hope what you say is how it all turns out. I will be writing another article for next week which will be sent as a press release in which certain peers put their objections to this. If you would like me to quote your comments above about why you like Grand Committee, it would add balance to the piece and possibly go some way to reassuring the 50 -100,000 people who will be reading it in one form or another that this does not need to concern them.
Well said Sue and thanks for that contribution.
Thanks for saying that Sue.
From Baroness Anelay in moving the motion to commit the Bill to a Grand Committee:
“I hope that it is noticed that I am stressing Grand Committee, not the Moses Room, where I understand there would be some concerns about a Bill of this nature being considered. I fully recognise that a number of noble Lords who use wheelchairs and have other mobility restrictions would find the Moses Room difficult, and I therefore discarded that as an option. I want to ensure that as many Peers as have an interest in the Bill, whatever their mobility or access issues, are able to play a full part. I am also concerned that those from lobbies who brief noble Lords, who may themselves have mobility issues, should also be able to attend and observe our debates. I know that they are broadcast from both the Chamber and Grand Committee but it is clear that members of the public treasure the opportunity to attend in person.
I have already asked the Director of Facilities to discuss with Members which Committee Room layout they would find the most convenient and to take account of the likely number of participants and observers and their full needs. I am confident that the end result would be significantly more convenient for everyone than would be the case if the proceedings were all in this Chamber.”
Maude Elwes, I rather agree with you that it is a great shame that people believe that their National Insurance contributions provide a national insurance scheme for the sick an disabled. It has not done so since 1949. The amounts paid in NI do not go anywhere near the amounts paid out of current tax revenues for benefits or the NHS. This has been the case now for many years. Of about £700 billion spent by the Government just over half is spent on health, welfare and pensions but only 19% of this is raised from NI. The rest comes from Income Tax, VAT and Corporation tax and numerous other little taxes. The Chancellor has talked of being more honest about this and combining Income tax and NI in one tax, which I believe would serve to end this idea that we are all insured through NI and accept that it mostly comes out of tax revenues.
Sue Marsh, the ‘shouters’ I was referring to are those politicians in our Chamber who make a lot of noise but are not much in evidence when it comes to working through a bill, line by line in committee. I wasn’t referring to campaigners like you whom we need to be active to highlight a point of view. I certainly respect everyone’s right to put their point of view to parliament and you have a right to be listened to. I am listening and shall continue to do so as the Bill progresses. I share your concerns that this Bill needs improvement but so far I have not been convinced that the major provisions are wrong. But we are only at the beginning….
I hope everyone who is using this site and who wants to follow the Bill will follow the detailed debates in committee which will be available online within 3 hours of our speaking.
@Baroness Murphy:
So what you are telling us on this website is, there is no such thing in this country as National Insurance? Or, as they call it in the USA, Universal Care, paid for via the payment of National Insurance contributions to a given number? And has not been so since 1949?
Then why are we paying ‘National Insurance’ if it no longer is the ‘Insurance’ we were led to believe it was/is? That is outright fraud.
The people of this country could have collectively or separately have paid that money into an insurance policy that would have suited them better. They were denied this opportunity.
Where in this advice sheet does it explain this to the people reading it? Where does it reveal that National Insurance is indeed not an Insurance at all, but, a Government lie to make you believe it is?
http://www.expatica.co.uk/finance_business/tax/UK-taxation-_-Paying-National-Insurance-contributions_14533.html
This next advice links to Government policy and the government assurance telling us that you pay ‘National Insurance’ to cover you in times of difficulty, and it lists these benefits in full.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/BeginnersGuideToTax/NationalInsurance/IntroductiontoNationalInsurance/DG_190052
Are you telling us the Government, when explaining these benefits to us, are lying? That in fact, we are not paying for an insurance at all? We are, in truth, being duped by the State when they take our money from us forcibly?
If this is so, it would appear that the ‘people’ should be able to collectively sue successive Government officials on the grounds of abuse of power by misleading them for a period of sixty two years. Taking money under false pretenses and using that same money for political policies it did not divulge, or, get consent to so do.
It is no good giving an excuse that the National Insurance contributions no longer are enough to cover those benefits. Because, you have to then look into ‘why’ it doesn’t cover them? What is it covering that wasn’t known about by the nation when they handed over their hard earned cash in the ‘belief’ they were being protected by this payment?
If the country has been brought to bankruptcy by the people in power, because of bad policy, irresponsible investment or decisions, the officials doing this, should have explained their errors fully and ceased taking the cash they were helping themselves to under this lie.
How many individuals are receiving benefit from the collective ‘National Insurance Scheme’ that they did not contribute to, and are therefore not entitled to? Could this be the reason our disabled, sick and elderly are being denied their rightful care? The money they paid in having been diverted elsewhere?
Baroness Murphy,
Thank you very much for that response and I’m sorry for the misunderstanding.
I’m very reassured by it and would still like to add your positive comments about Grand Committee to our press release for balance.
As they are in the public domain, I will go ahead and quote from your post if I may.
If you are not happy with this, please feel free to get back to me today at suey2yblog@hotmail.co.uk
The disabled people’s movement has criticised the benefits agency for years on the basis of forms that do not tell you what we can do. I beleive that welfare reform is an abject manipulation of this position. Yes we can do things. yes many of us would like to work given the opportunity. it is the opportunity that remains missing. It is missing because of discrimination, a lack of understanding of what we can do, a failure to recognise our commitments to work, our commitments to our families and communities. It is not the welfare system that needs reform but the opportunities of the power holders, the one who give us work but who do not. uit is they who need to be penalised – not disabled people striving to find work. Sadly the failure to understand this will lead to increased poverty for disabled people. We will become discriminated against on a second basis. The basis that we are poor, forced to be poor and increasingly unable to look attractive to the job market except in those despicable circumstances where we are bemployed below our capacity to the benefit of the employers who started this rigmarol. Time to sort it out
Richard is absolutely correct, opportunities for disabled people are getting worse not better, things are going backward for disabled people.
Until the powers that be understand that we cannot go forward, we will continue to be regarded as second class citizens.
Baroness Murphy saying “Unum run a perfectly legitimate business” shows exactly the kind of ignorance and discrimination disabled people have to face.
Does Baroness Murphy understand what UNUM got up to in the USA?
Would she employ a company to build an extension on her house etc with such an appaling reputation as the one Unum have? I don’t think so because Baroness Murphy is not uneducated or stupid.
Getting Unum to provide advice to several British governments shows also the utter contempt to which our political class holds the British public….
Standing up for the working practices of Unum is very sad indeed…
@actosvictimgreoup:
Here is some information that should give a clearer thinking on having anything to do with American companies. Especially those who line themselves with the kind og get outs they know they will need.
http://www.physiciansnews.com/discussion/morris.html
The Government attack on the disabled and the infirm is to further bring down the cost of pay. Immigration was one, and now this attack on those who are unable to fight.
Richard Downes, I agree with you that there are many barriers to finding appropriate employment for people with disabilities but this does not mean that we should stop developing ways of trying to support people into work. Of course it is true that many people with and without disability have to accept work that is below their potential capacity to do but that is life. There are many graduates who are finding they have to take work below their expectations in order to maintain a foothold in employment. But I accept your basic premise about the difficulties. I would have thought it was helpful for people with disabilities to have recurrent assessments and a supportive person responsible for helping them into work. But the many letters I have had suggest many people with disabilities don’t want that and I am puzzled why this should be.
@Baroness Murphy:
You don’t know why this could be?
Lets start with your position. Every three months the people ask you be reassessed for your capacity, both mentally and physically, to collect your state payment as a Baroness. And you know that should you be found lacking in any way, you will be cut off knowing you will never find another situation such as you have, as none exist.
On top of that, you know that the people want you to be thrown out of the Lords so badly they are going to pay individuals to find you unworthy on any trumped up theory. Does that make you feel a little more than insecure and afraid?
Doesn’t this wear you out when, at your age and physical condition, it takes all your little bit of energy to keep you able to get into your seat of a morning.
I think a really good learning curve would be to instantly, without any more deliberation, rid the Lords of three quarters of their capacity. That may raise a level of understanding in you, especially if you were one of the chosen to be ousted.
Dear Baroness
I think the points below will express my position on recurrent testing more articulately than I can currently muster.
Disabled People have been victimised by the medical model of disability for far too long. We are constantly subjecting ourselves to testing. Testing for benefits, testing for services, testing for health, testing for work. I take your point that others have to pass tests too. However, this is on the basis of ability not on the basis of impairment. Recurrent testing would only be put in place because we are disabled people who do not have work. the tests are constantly put in place to save money on the welfare bill. They are not put there to address the issues that disabled people have.
This is different to putting services into place that enable us to find work by providing appropriate support. Support that enables us to find work but does not go on to blame us for not finding it when society has proven itself as a continuing discriminator.
I also take your point about young graduates currently facing a job market that undermines their achievements. They will however have already achieved something. They would have already have put themselves into a better position than a young disabled person who may not have had the same opportunities to qualify. We reamin more likely not to have qualifications than non disabled people.
I am glad that you are raising these points with such openness. I welcome that you are testing your own theories and assumptions. My hope is that you are listening to the voices of experience and moving your position accordingly.
Many thanks
the tests are constantly put in place to save money on the welfare bill.
===========
Why should money be paid out to people who do not meet the criteria? That is not without harm. It does serious harm because it diverts money from people who really need it. It diverts money from people who really can’t afford to be paying taxes to fund it.
The fundamental problem is around 400 bn has been wasted on paying people ICB who were just disguising the unemployment figure. That’s a fundamental reason why there is a massive deficit and the government has cracked down.
So 93% have been removed from ICB. For others it is going to be blatently obvious they are permanently on ICB. I would suggest very infrequent testing here. As you point out, its expensive. For those what are border line, I suggest more frequent testing. For illnesses that get worse over time, I would suggest that over time testing becomes more infrequent too.
On the support aspect. Very simply. If you have extra needs because of a disability, then we all fund it. For example, if you need a wheelchair, we all fund it. As for getting a job, its down to you.
the problem is when the criteria is changed to save money and ignore need.
the good lord blagger is very kind to offer to pay for a wheelchair should i need it. I must let my friends and colleagues who do not have a wheelchair, who need a wheelchair, who are unable to get one from the NHS or be able to afford a private one due to their lack of employment know about his kind offer. I’m sure it will change lives for the better.
Surely the Lord has made many a good point in making this comparison between a wheelchair and a job – being given one and getting one for oneself. Maybe he is suggesting that one kind of support is better than another. Maybe we should be giving wheelchairs to all disabled people regardless of their impairment, regardless of their support needs. It will make a worthy change to geting on one’s bike. It will also include 96% of disabled people who do not use wheelchairs and fit merrily in a package around the olde christmas tree.
Many thanks your lordship
Baroness Murphy
You say you think it would be helpful for people with disabilities to have recurrent assessments and a supportive person responsible for helping them find work?
How many assessments should a disabled or sick person have to undergo each year? How many times should a disabled person have to undergo the indignity of an Atos assessment? Once, twice, three times per year, more, less, how many assessments?
I know individuals who have had 4 and 5 assessments in a year, I know loads of disabled people who have had benefit witheld from them only to win at appeal and then right away recieve the brown envelope within days of that appeal being called for reassessment, surely this cannot be right, maybe you think it’s OK for disabled people to be continously assessed, maybe like Atos you think people who have amputations will get better? Maybe their terminal illness will improve.
The reason disabled people don’t appear to like what you suggest is that they know all too well that it’s just an excuse to remove their benefits, nothing more and nothing less.
They see the corruption between government, companies like Atos, and ex- members of the government who go on and represent the views of companies like Atos and Unum, Prof Mansel Aylward comes to mind, his department in Cardiff is sponsored entirely by Unum, please don’t tell disabled people of this country there is no collusion, disabled people may be disabled but where not stupid.
93% are capable of some sort of work. I’m not surprised either. ICB was used to get people of the unemployment number.
How many assessments should a disabled or sick person have to undergo each year? How many times should a disabled person have to undergo the indignity of an Atos assessment? Once, twice, three times per year, more, less, how many assessments?
Well, for any repeated claimants that fail, frequent.
For any people who are marginal, frequent.
For those with conditions that are stable or declining, then less frequent testing if they are sufficiently far over the margin.
As for corruption, what about getting back the money from the 93% of people on ICB who shouldn’t have received it.
Other people deserve that back. Lots of people on minimum wage have been paying 2,500 in taxes for others to ‘receive it’.
The 7% who really need the money have had peanuts as a consequence of this corruption, and because of the debts that have resulted, they will carry on getting peanuts.
That’s the fraud and corruption in the matter.
Lord Blagger
Who’s figures are you using to verify your point may I ask?
The 93% is so far wrong it’s a joke.
Those figures have already been proved wrong and the government even apoligised, it’s all spin to make a target out of the vulnerable.
The work and pensions committee Chair Person Dame Ann Begg wrote to the government to complain about the false use of figures about people on benefits, this was backed up by the ONS as far as I remember.
Benefit fraud is very very low, 0.04%, far less than the fraud committed by the city and the very rich, maybe Cameron should start hitting their pockets before attacking the least able.
Lets hope you never have to rely on benefits to survive?
What percentage have been deemed capable of some sort of work? It’s 93%. Do you have a figure that different?
Note. If you try and claim the number who are successful on appeal is the same as the percentage deemed capable, I will explain the difference.
Lets hope you never have to rely on benefits to survive?
Lets hope you never have to survive on minimum wage and have to pay 2,500 a year in employment taxes so as 93% of people on ICB can be hidden off the headline rate of unemployment. An expensive political fig leaf.
Don’t you care about people on minimum wage?
@actosvictimgroup:
If this disgraceful situation has been the experience of your members, I feel you may do them a service by suggesting they find a solicitor who has knowledge in this field and take the situation to the European Courts on Human Rights grounds.
Which is one of the reasons the UK must remain in the European Union. As, without that legal overview the Tories will go wild with their desire to avenge those they see as fraudulent disabled.
From personal experience David Cameron should know better.
Maude Elwes
Many of my members are tired of having to fight for what is rightfully theirs, they don’t have a problem with being assessed in a professional way by people who are properly qualified, the people doing the assessments at present are not properly qualified.
When medical evidence is completely ignored how can anyone unless there an idiot justify this system?
Lord Blagger is living in fantasy land,where are all the jobs going to come for that he wants the disabled community to do? There are not enough jobs for the able bodied, in some areas of this country 80 mpeople are going for every job available, does Lord Blagger really think employers will give those jobs available to disabled people? I think not but that doesn’t matter to him?
As for advising my members to find a solicitor to fight cases in the European Court of Human Rights I think that’s something that some National organisations are already thinking about, it’s not as easy as you make it sound.
There is now no doubt that the whole assessment process is totally flawed, it is cruel, undignified, and wholly unaceptable in a decent society.
The assessment process needs to be carried out by Doctors and consultants who understand the medical problems that claimants have, doing an 8 day in house training course run by Atos does not make someone qualified to assess a persons abilities.
Many of the doctors carrying out the assessment process are from abroad, some don’t even understand the illnesses that claimants tell them about, many don’t even speak English, at present there is a large number of Atos employees under suspension for inapropriate work practices, they are under investigation by the GMC.
We are now seeing this government telling JobCentrePlus staff to refer people to Food Banks, British people having to go to food banks, this is going the way of America, soon it will be food stamps.
Wherever the American system is introduced the poverty, Homelessness increases, mental health problems increase, suicides increase, family breakups increase, the only people to benefit from a system such as this is the rich and private companies like UNUM and Atos.
12 suicides can be directly linked to the Atos assessment process, more are happening as time goes on, eventually individual members of this government will be held responsible legally…
“rightfully theirs”
The money is someone else’s. Period. You want the government to take that money of them and give it to someone else. If those people don’t cooperate with their money being taken, then the state will use force to get it.
You need to keep that in your mind when you talk about ‘rights’.
Lord Blagger is living in fantasy land,where are all the jobs going to come for that he wants the disabled community to do?
You have to ask a simple question. Will all these disabled people generate a profit for their employers. If not, you are asking for the employer to lose money employing them, and that in some cases will result in the loss of other jobs.
As for the availability of jobs, the high skilled disabled person will get them. The problem comes with disabled people with lower skills, and what to do about any extra costs imposed in employing them. So I suggest getting rid of the low skilled economic migrants. Frees up lots of jobs and housing, and replacing them with the unemployed.
As for advising my members to find a solicitor to fight cases in the European Court of Human Rights And which right has been violated? From what you are saying so far you seem to assume that there is a right to other people’s money.
We are now seeing this government telling JobCentrePlus staff to refer people to Food Banks, British people having to go to food banks, this is going the way of America, soon it will be food stamps.
Yep, there will be. If you haven’t noticed the government spent too much money, ran up too huge debts. That’s why I’ve been banging on about the wasted spending and money.
This is a direct consequence of that mismanagement. As is the restriction of ICB to fewer people.
You need to explain why when so much money has been pumped into the NHS, and when there has been a big reduction in working that results in ill health and injury, that the ICB bill and the numbers on ICB has rocketed?
Now I know why, its because it was politically expedient to get people off unemployment and onto ICB. Around 400 bn has been spent doing this on the people who now don’t qualify for ICB. That shows why the tests are needed.
As for saying only the rich benefit. It’s your pension that has been spent. That has taken 75% off a median worker’s retirement income. 5K instead of nearly 21K a year. Meanwhile those on Minimum wage are paying 2,500 a year in taxes for ICB to people who don’t meet the test.
So let me ask you. Will the people who were claiming ICB, but don’t meet the test be held legally responsible and made to pay back the money? With interest? [Unlike politicians who haven’t paid a penny in interest]
@atosvictimsgroup:
Your post was well written and to the point.
I agree with every aspect of it. And yes, personal accountability is the only solution to the abomination we currently are in the grip of.
I wish you well.
PS: I am only too aware of how difficult it is, on every level, to bring a court action, especially when you have to rely on financial assistance.
Baroness – I think you hit on thee heart of the matter.
I would LOVE to sit down with someone compassionate who has the ability to provide training, possibly re-education or a helping hand with employers.
ALL of these reforms would be fine if the premise they are built on was realistic. “Helping people into work with the right support”
With A4E work schemes just 8-12% successful, what on earth happens to the other 88-92%?? Why oh why would we tolerate such appalling success rates from private companies charged with doing a very important job??
I could relate endless stories to you, of disabled people unable to even access a £200 training course, of one man who spent 6 YEARS with a work programme and had 3 – yes three phone calls in that time. Kafka-esque, non-sensical nonsense, patronising interviews.
No-one has ever approached me to say they found it helpful, in fact a sick or disabled person is as likely to find work on their own as they are with the “support” on offer.
There is a supporter of my blog that you might like to talk to. His story alone might make it clearer why people are so very opposed to much of this “reform” If so, I can ask if he would mind.
A cursory look at the figures involved shows that we are helping almost no-one into work. This kind of makes any “Work Related Activity Group” redundant (pardon the pun) doesn’t it?
The government (and the last) make it all sound so supportive and positive, but the figures just don’t bear out their rhetoric
This short video is of A4E in front of a select committee asked to justify their enormous payments in the face of such abysmal “success” rates. It might make things a little clearer. Please do take a few minutes to watch it if you can.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wWvhWNzt4M
The government have now raised the targets as though this will somehow miraculously make companies “try harder”
The result? http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/08/22/governments-work-programme-at-risk-of-collapse-say-experts/
@Sue Marsh:
And that is because there is no work to help them into.
The Government aim is spin. The idea being to support the media as they enrage the population into the belief that disabled people are fraudulent and should be deprived of their benefits as a result.
Lord Blagger – You are simply wrong.
-93% are not found fit for work, 36% are.
-IB WAS used to get people off unemployment figures in the 80s. That is simply no longer the case, those people have now retired or died long ago and I can, if you wish provide you with all the figures and stats to prove it. You might like to start with this.
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/07/the-three-things-cameron-should-know-about-sickness-and-disability-benefits/
As you took the time to comment on this issue, I’m sure you would like some evidence to consider.
Lord Blagger: now that you’ve mentioned ‘corruption’ I suggest you consider the realities by access to a detailed research report called: Welfare Reform – Redress for the Disabled, recently sent to 360 members of the House of Lords, and it can be found on the BT website at http://www.blacktrianglecampaign.org – the corruption is enormous, planned since 1994 and the people who are corrupt are not the chronically sick & disabled people you hope to blame. Members of the House of Lords seem to be taking this report very seriously. I respectfully suggest you do too.
When you say “not the chronically sick & disabled people you hope to blame” you clearly haven’t read anything I’ve written.
I have not blamed anyone who is chronically sick or disabled. They are free of any blame.
Now I’ve written that will you acknowledge that statement? Some how I doubt it.
No, I put the blame fully and squarely at the feet of politicians.
So what needs to be done to fix the ICB.
First lets look at the rules. The rules have changed. Those who are capable of some sort of work, and no longer eligible for ICB. They now move over to the job seekers benefits.
Are you trying to say that those who are capable of some sort of work should be excused looking for work, and they should be paid extra compared to other job seekers?
If you also note, I’ve said that any one with any disability, and that includes those capable of work, should get the cost of those extra needs met in full. So if you need a wheel chair we all pay for it. What it also means is that if you are stressed, you don’t get ICB.
As for rights, I’m still waiting for which right entitles you to other people’s money?
It’s the same logic as the fraudsters in the Lords and Commons. They are ‘entitled’ to the money. It was their right. That was part of their defence.
It’s the same with the rioters. They said they were entitled to that colour TV, and since it was a right they didn’t have to pay for it.
What about the right of the people who’ve earned the money? That bloke on minimum wage who loses 2,500 pounds a year for it? {And more because its borrowed). The worker on 25K a year, who loses 15,000 a year off their pension. Don’t they have any rights?
I think you forget that everyone pays taxes, everytime you buy something you pay tax, you seem to be saying that people in receipt of ICB don’t pay tax?
I have worked for minimum wage, I understand what that’s like, I don’t begrudge anyone who is disabled or sick getting any benefit, so long as they are sick or disabled, the problem is the people who decide If your disabled or sick are incompetant and in many cases acting fraudulently.
As for you wanting to know what entitles me or anyone else to yours or my money is because we all pay into a pot, that money is distributed to various areas of our society, schooling, hospitals, policing, roads, foreign aid, we all put into that pot so when we are in need we should be entitled to take out from that pot.
And yes I do acknowledge your statement Lord Blogger, please forgive me…
1. They don’t pay more than they consume. As such they are taking money off other people. As I’ll keep pointing out, don’t those people have rights?
For example, do you think the government rules by consent? If so, how does one unconsent? The usual argument to this is bugger off elsewhere, we don’t want you. But when Mrs Green does this, she and her husband are scum.
I disagree on your view of entitlement. The reason is you’re just looking at the view point of the consumer of other people’s money. My view is that any entitlement should be for the bar minimum, in order to protect the forced donor.
When you say the decisions about who are and who aren’t disabled you’re not being clear and distiguishing between the assessment and the rules.
The rules have been changed, and they should have been changed ages ago. If you are capable of ‘some sort of work’ then you are not incapacitated. I think that is the correct rule.
As for deciding now about who is or isn’t meeting that test, we know that 93% aren’t meeting that standard. Of those, a percentage on the border line will appeal, and 40% have their categorisation changed. Don’t forget too that there will also be quite a few who did ‘pass’ who shouldn’t have passed. Again those on the borderline.
Now comes the next bit. If you calculate how much money has been wasted since Thatcher started her massaging of the figures, and another 14 years of Blair and Brown doing likewise, its 400 bn. So why aren’t you surprised there are cuts now? Think what the 7% could have done with a small percentage of that 400 bn that the 93% who were capable of work got instead?
That’s the reason why you’ve go these cuts now, and its going to get worse.
It’s going to get worse because of the debts, almost all of it hidden off the books in a gigantic ponzi. The Lords haven’t done their job here on bringing the commons into line. Mainly because so many of them are failed politicians, who caused in the first place.
So sadly, its going to get even worse. You’re not going to get your pension from the state. They will start confiscating private pensions to pay for it. They will tax more and more, and deliver less and less.
End result, the 7% who really need the help, get screwed.
Lord Blagger – Please stop using inaccurate statistics to justify your arguments.
Here is the link to the DWP breakdown of figures on NEW ESA claims (much lower than existing claims)
As you can clearly see, 1% of claims are ongoing.
36% closed their claim before completion – this should be good news to someone like you as it means the person either found work or other forms of support.
39% Were found “Fit for Work” as you claim
17% went into the Work Related Activity Group
and 7% went into the Support Group.
I have no interest whatever in persuading people like you – you clearly have no intention of listening to anyone’s point of view – but I think you should be very careful about using statistics to lie about a vulnerable group on a public forum.
Please remember, the figures above are for NEW claims. New claimants are by far the likeliest group to find work within 6 months – in fact does it surprise you to know that by far the majority find work in 6 months? This explains the high non-completion rate of new claims.
The transition of existing claims has a much higher likelihood of finding people unfit for work, though considering these are peoploe with long term conditions such as Parkinson’s, MS, Heart disease, Kidney Failure, and every other terrible condition you might think of, one might hope so.
Are the new figures high enough? I don’t believe so and you can jump up and down about your tax pound all you like. If we have a system that is inaccurate in assessing disability, those incorrectly assessed will simply ensure that your tax pound goes to the nonsense of a tribunal or places huge extra burdens on the NHS.
And by the way, it’s OUR tax pound. We all pay VAT and many people who become ill or disabled have worked for decades.
Lord Blagger – Please stop using inaccurate statistics to justify your arguments.
Here is the link to the DWP breakdown of figures on NEW ESA claims (much lower than existing claims)
====================
I’ve posted about ICB. You want to distort that to talk about ESA.
====================
39% Were found “Fit for Work”
====================
Ties up with the 1/3rd who are fully fit for work – not a particular sort.
Now, that 1/3rd have been claiming for years. Now, because of financial incompetence, the government is up to its neck in debt. All financially engineered off the books.
End result. Those who really need the money for their needs aren’t going to get it.
I can’t see why you are trying to claim that 39% of people who’ve been claiming when they didn’t need to isn’t a disaster for those who do need the money.
===========
but I think you should be very careful about using statistics to lie about a vulnerable group on a public forum.
===========
I’m not lying. It’s about interpreting the numbers.
I am concerned about the disabled. I want them to have support.
I am even more concerned about those who aren’t disabled claiming the money that could be going to the people who are. 39% according to your figures.
==============
or places huge extra burdens on the NHS.
==============
How?
So how would you set up a system that means the truly disabled get assessed, and those that are capable of some sort of work, don’t get the money ear marked for the first?
And by the way, it’s OUR tax pound. We all pay VAT and many people who become ill or disabled have worked for decades.
=============
So what? The government has taken all their money and spent them on Peers expense and other luxuries.
There is now a massive debt problem, and no matter what you wish for, its not as if some prince is going to come riding over the hill, showering money all over the place, and everyone will live happily ever after.
Baroness
Thank you for participating in this discussion on my blog, people are very angry indeed.
You say I exagerate the problems that disabled people have with regardf to our Welfare System, going cold, not eating, losing their homes etc, If you care to look some of my members have replied to your posts.
Maybe now you’ll believe me when I say that those things are happening or will you just say that’s not representative of what’s really happening?
I can assure you that’s exactly what’s happening amongst disabled people in this country…
http://victimsofatoscorruption.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/baroness-murphy-this-woman-lives-on-another-planet/#comment-441
If anyone has any doubt as to the accuracy of this governments figures on Benefits etc please take a look at this please…
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/08/dwp-admits-disability-reform-based-on-dodgy-figures-as-reported-by-left-foot-forward/
Again I say your figures are WRONG, the government have admitted massaging the figures.
Your statement here is obviously a joke?
“The rules have been changed, and they should have been changed ages ago. If you are capable of ‘some sort of work’ then you are not incapacitated. I think that is the correct rule”
Some sort of work? What does that mean? I know someone who can hold a pencil in their mouth, does that make them fit for work?
I’m amazed you haven’t taken a job at Atos as a HCP, you would be top of the class?
I’m not going to argue with you over your philosophy on money and who’s entitled to what by what they earn or their personal needs, it’s a no win argument with you.
The rules have changed that’s a fact, many of the rules are unjust, that’s a fact also.
Fair assessments are what we want, we think that is morally and ethically not unreasonable.
The government cannot continue to state this is about helping disabled people into the workplace, it’s either that or a money saving exercise, it can’t be both???
The rules have been changed, and they should have been changed ages ago. If you are capable of ‘some sort of work’ then you are not incapacitated. I think that is the correct rule.
Sorry, here’s the link. You’ll be glad to know the figures are even lower this month!!
6% Support
16% WRAG
36% unfinished claims
39% fit for work
2% still in process.
Thanks for putting that up Sue.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8663663/Nine-out-of-10-sickness-benefit-claimants-are-judged-fit-to-work.html
More than a third of the 1.3million people who applied for Employment and Support Allowance were found to be fully capable of working, while a similar proportion abandoned their claims while they were still being processed.
Some were found to be capable of holding down a job with the right help while only 7 per cent of applicants were deemed too ill to carry out any work, including cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy; the terminally ill; and the severely disabled.
==========
The figures I have seen for appeals is 40% successful. However, people appealing are not representative of the people who have been claiming ICB
============
The rules have changed that’s a fact, many of the rules are unjust, that’s a fact also.
Fair assessments are what we want, we think that is morally and ethically not unreasonable.
============
You’re confusing two things here. One a change in rules, and secondly how the rules are applied.
Can you spell out what the rules are that have changed that you think shouldn’t have been changed?
Then we can address the issue of how you go and interpret those rules and assess whether or not people meet the criteria.
============
I’m not going to argue with you over your philosophy on money and who’s entitled to what by what they earn or their personal needs, it’s a no win argument with you.
============
I’m a lot more flexible that you think. I think the money should go to pay for the needs of those that need something.
I don’t think it should go to keeping people off the unemployment figure.
Wouldn’t you agree?
Those in need should get the benefit their entitled to.
The problem is that the government have changed the criteria.
I know. I’m trying to find out from you two things.
1. What has changed? (And why you think its bad)
2. How would you assess people against those new criteria?
So lets say we place people along a line. Able bodied at one end, completely disabled at the other.
I doubt you are saying that the able bodied should get ICB. Clearly at the other end, people need ICB and in reality far more help.
Somewhere in the middle there is a point at which those who are on the left don’t get ICB, but those to the right do.
Now in the past, we’ve had the long term unemployed being labeled as being disabled for political reasons. That’s gone.
1) Good thing or bad thing?
2) We have people who were say a policeman and was injured or became ill. They can’t cope with the stresses of being on the front line. However, they could work in an office. Do we right them off as being disabled because they couldn’t do the job they were doing?
3) Now we move to the right. At some point, and there has to be a point, people get ICB or they don’t. Do you agree, if not, why not?
4) Even those to the left of that point, may well need extra help with certain extra expenses. I think they should get that help in full. Do you agree or disagree?
5) When it comes to extra needs, should people get help for extra needs, even if they don’t have any requirements? For example, stress versus a wheelchair
Now for assessment. You need a objective set of tests. Not a subjective one. Here are something to consider.
1. There are fraudsters out there
2. With some conditions, its downhill.
3. With some conditions, you won’t get improvements
4. Some conditions, people move up and down that line.
5. People far to the right of the point, are unlikely to move to the left.
So from this, isn’t it sensible to assess the borderline cases more frequently, and the other cases (on the right) infrequently, depending on the condition?
=============
Those in need should get the benefit their entitled to
=============
And part of that ‘entitlement’ is that its based on criteria. They are ‘entitled’, but the ‘entitlement’ has changed.
Now that all IS rather sensible, and actually I think few sick or disabled people would argue with it.
I think the thing that has changed is that we now have a functional test not a medical one.
Perhaps we can argue for a combination of the two, but using one to the exclusion of the other is ridiculous.
If you are asked if you can do up a button or pick up a coin, then you can see it will exclude many people with many conditions.
I would like a “real life” test that looks at what you could actually do on a day to day basis in the real workplace.
Chris Grayling however is “utterly and implacably opposed to a real life test”, which surely explains exactly why sick and disabled people feel they are not being dealt with fairly.
Until the test is based on the real world, it will remain one of the most hated and reviled policies of modern times.
Until the descriptors used to determine who is or isn’t fit to work bear any resemblance to actual illnesses, the tests will never be fair.
What’s the difference between functional and medical?
For example, my mother has MS. Medically diagnosed. However, so far she has had 2 spells and at 83 is doing fine.
However other people with MS have huge functional impairment. My mother doesn’t need ICB. Others with MS do.
The problem is you have to come up with objective tests. You’re after more subjective tests.
For example, if you take your coin example. Unless lucky, all blind people would fail it. Does that mean they should be excluded from work because they are incapacitated? Ask the question the other way round. Clearly not. What they need is help with any additional expenses. They should be met in full.
Now apply that to stress. Why should someone be signed off work permanently for stress? What about self inflicted illnesses? Should we have to bail out the obese?
It is not that these people are being denied money. They move onto other benefits, but they have to look for work. That to me is fair. It’s part of the deal that if you are going to receive other people’s money, taken by force, that there are responsibilities that arise out of that ‘entitlement’.
However, entitlements change over time. They have changed with ICB. There is no rights issue at all.
Lord Blagger
I agree with many of the things you say, you make some fine and important points.
Yes there are fraudsters out there and they should be prosecuted, I have no problem with that whatsoever, disabled people all over the UK would agree I believe also, the amount of fraud is tiny though.
As for your line of people, peole to the left and to the right, some will be able to do something and some won’t, again I agree.
Mine and other disabled peoples points of view are that the criteria doesn’t take into account actual real life or everyday situations.
I suffer with several conditions which prevent me from doing normal things, I have COPD, ASTHMA, HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE, DIABETES, NEUROPOTHY, CHRONIC PAIN SYSNDROME,DOUBLY INCONTINENT FIBROMYALGIA,SEVERE OBSTRUCTIVE SLEEP APNOEA I have a few more problems but I won’t bore you with those at present, I’m also unable to walk more than a few yards,when we do venture out it is in a wheelchair, sitting also causes me to get pressure sores If I’m not careful, without
the support of my wonderful wife who cares for me fulltime I would not be able to cope.
Please tell me what work you think I am able to do?
I’m not being sarcastic but I’m really interested to know your opinion?
The problem I have is not with being assessed but by who’m is doing the assessing.
Someone who has been a Nurse or a Occupational Therapist for three years is not qualified to assess my Physical ability to perform work, he or she knows nothing of my medical problems and how they effect my everyday life.
Giving someone an 8 day inhouse training course which Atos do, is hardly sufficient enough to decide ones complicated life and disability or sickness.
Past and present governments say that GPs or Consultants are not experienced enough to decide someones ability to work, they say they are not qualified enough to decide someones functionability? If your GP or Consultant doesn’t know If your capable of doing something what’s the point in accepting their decisions when going to them?
The government are saying that Doctors or your own doctor isn’t qualified but there’s are?
Last year I had over 40 appointments, that includes GP, Consultant, Pain Clinic, AE, Foot Clinic, Cardio Thoracic, Rhumatology, I have over 500 pages of documentation from consultants, specialists etc, do you think my functionability can be decided in a short assessment by someone who doesn’t understand my problems and who doesn’t actually care?
The people doing the assessment process are doing it for money, nothing else,no matter what politicians, minister’s say, they are obviously working to some kind of target, this cannot be right.
The evidence is overwhelming that severely disabled people are having their lives ruined by this process, it must stop.
The Harrington Review is a complete joke, Prof Harrington is a stooge of the government, one only has to see some of the things he has said to know he is completely out of his depth.
The statistics also prove the assessment isn’t working, or should I say not working for the people it’s supposed to help.
It’s costing the taxpayer £60 million pounds per year for the appeals and tribunal system yet our government refuses to demand that money back from Atos, why is that I wonder?
The other very disturbing thing is the Independent Tier, this is where you go as your last chance when all other avenues have failed, this is a secretive body, even under FOI requests noone can find out who this is or who it’s made up off, we do know one thing though, and thatis that it is ATOS who set up and chose the company which does this service, How can that be Independent?
The best way to assess a persons functional ability is to ask their own GP and Consultant, people who see them on a regular basis, people who understand the daily problems they have just living on a daily basis.
That’s my opinion, sorry to go on, I’m now finished, I’m tired and my wifes getting me a drink…
Please take a look at this manual
http://issuu.com/atosvictims/docs/wca_handbook_2011_regulation?mode=a_p
I’m not being sarcastic but I’m really interested to know your opinion?
==============
Accepted it. My view is that you are on the right side of the line. I’ll repeat again, if you run extra costs, you should get those met in full. But carte blanche, one benefit fits all isn’t a good thing.
As for doing it for the money, so is anyone who makes a living in the NHS. Are you going to have a go at them?
Are they working to a target? I hope so. If you don’t set goals, you won’t achieve anything. Or is it you mean they have a set number of people to reject? I doubt the later. If you want to investigate and come back with answers, start with FOI requests. When you get to the point they invoke national security to cover up fraudsters, you are getting close. The Lords have done that twice with me. Can’t have the public knowing about their scams can we.
===========
It’s costing the taxpayer £60 million pounds per year for the appeals and tribunal system yet our government refuses to demand that money back from Atos, why is that I wonder?
===========
Peanuts in the scheme of ICB. Total cost last year, 12,500 million. Given the numbers about the percentages earlier, 60 million is money well spent. Why should they claim money back?
As FOI and the indepentent tier, I’m not surprised. FOI isn’t quite what its cracked up to be. Try asking the cabinet office for anything. They are already on report.
I disagree on GPs and Consultants. They are not experts in the criteria. It’s better to have independents such as ATOS. (or some over service that is consistent).
However, don’t forget that those appealing will be the boarder line cases. You can expect a significant number to win on appeal, because its not a group that is representative of the whole group of claimants.
OK. I’ve read some of the report. Mainly section 3. The rest is mainly about paperwork and admin.
What bits do you object to?
http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2011/08/23/important-read-circulate/
My Lord, may I suggest you access the above website link to my research report and you’ll be much better informed. 360 members of the House of Lords were provided with another research report: WELFARE REFORM – REDRESS FOR THE DISABLED in advance of the recent debate and, if you were not one of them, may I suggest you invite Jane Campbell or Tanni Gray-Thompson to offer you a copy.
Personally I think the whole system needs change but that is obviously never going to happen.
People need to be assessed in a real way, not by whether you can hold a carton of milk or hold a pencil, doing either of those things doesn’t make you fit for work.
The document reads well, one of the major problems is that no Atos HCP actually bothers to adhere to anything in it, it is a NON document, it’s all rubbish.
1. Do you accept that ICB should not be for people who are capable of some sort of work?
If not, why not?
2. What tests do you them apply to determine if people are capable of some sort of work?
When you say some sort of work what does that mean?
As I’ve said before Lord Blagger, I and other disabled people as far as I understand agree that people who are fit for work should work, I think we agree on that one.
The problem is determining who is fit for work?
It is obvious that Atos are not up to the job of doing the assessments, you would say they are because in your opinion you see ICB as a huge problem, you see massive fraud which there isn’t, I agree there is some fraud but you would get that in any system, disabled people want a fair and just assessment process, I don’t think that’s an unfair request.
I have like you applied under the FOI Act for various information, both from Atos, the government, the DWP etc, some info I’ve got back but in the majority of cases they basically clam up when asking questions, I’ve even asked my own MP to ask questions and he get’s the bums rush also.
Atos even got my website closed down, my website hosts recieved a legal letter from Atos legal department, Atos implied I had made libelous comments, they refused to say what comments were Libelous but my hosts closed down my site in any case, Atos have been using bullying tactics to silence website owners for some time now, many are now using Icelandic servers for their own protection, I may have to resort to that also.
Things are going to come out very soon about what’s been going on, the corruption and deceipt which has been going on is incredible.
Your assumption that people who appeal are BORDER LINE CASES is wrong also, how you make that assumption astounds me, no maybe it doesn’t?
People who are totally bedbound are found fit to work, people who are paraplegic, that’s a FACT, we have evidence so please don’t say those who appeal are border line, what sort of work do you expect someone who is bedbound permanently to do? Maybe they could use a voice programme on a computer and work from home answering calls for a call centre? I am being sarcastic because I get angry when people seem to brush off the huge amount of incompetance by Atos and the DWP, they are destroying peoples already basic existence.
As for the doctors/consultants thing, that’s mine and loads of others who think the best people to assess is the people who know the patient/claimant for the longest amount of time, how can someone who has just met me for twenty minutes know my everyday problems of mobility, feeding, eating, incontinence problems, Atos HCPs will not know my problems nor do they care, their sole purpose is to deny people benefits, or should I say fail them their assessment, it’s simple really If you understood what’s going on?
When the system is replaced with a system that’s fair then disabled people will stop campaigning, until then we shall continue our fight for this just cause.
It is obvious that Atos are not up to the job of doing the assessments, you would say they are because in your opinion you see ICB as a huge problem, you see massive fraud which there isn’t,
You haven’t provided any evidence. I’ll reiterate the evidence to the contrary.
93% of people fail the new test.
That has various possible reasons why.
1. They don’t meet the new criteria.
2. They don’t even meet the old criteria (not necessarily fraudulent, just convenient) This is the main reason in my opinion.
3. The fraudulent.
Lastly, errors in the testing. This can work either way. Those who shouldn’t get, do get ICB, and those that should have been refused. The first group doesn’t appeal. The second by and large will. For a cost of 60 million to reassess all, when the spend is 12,500 million it is cheap.
If you want some help on FOI, I’ve a little experience. Ask, and I’ll look at your questions and maybe we can work out better ways of asking the questions to get the info out of them. However, at the end, they will invoke national security or some other fig leaf like the lords for their scamming of public money. About the same cost as ATOS by the way.
What’s still surprising to me, is why you can’t say what an appropriate test is people to be able to work.
For example, as you say, there are quite a few jobs that can be run from home, for real money. You’ve given a good example.
The problem again with your argument is that there probably are cases where its been wrong.
However, given the large number of people who have moved to job seekers benefits, not all of them fall into that category.
As for doctors, a lot of the ATOS people are doctors. One of my neighbors is a doctor and doing that sort of work. That means that the standards are more consistent than the current set up.
You need to face up to the situation that the system has been abused in the past. Hiding unemployment. Proof is simple. Why when so much money has been pumped into the NHS, and work has been less risky, have the number of people on incapacity increased. Now there is no money left, just debts.
End result is just a foretaste. People who were receiving money are going to be denied it. That applies across the board.
So when you say fight, just what are you fighting for? A bigger share of the debts?
There are nonw so blind as those whowill not see. Instread of batting this back and forward, why not read thje evidence sent to you by email and look up the many, many, MANY detailed reports as provided by Citizens Advice, MaxMillan, Arthritis Care, the Disability Alliance et al, which are all ignored by gvt. Read about why the system is wrong, what type of test would work and the MINIMAL numbers of less than 0.5% of bogus claims for DLA etc and then you’ll know as much as we do.
Well, the link to the source was provided. The ATOS manual. I’ve read through it and I can’t see what people are complaining about, bar the fact that some no longer get ICB, but get moved to benefits where they have to look for a job.
The reason is that they are capable of some sort of work.
Hence I’m asking you, not other people, to tell me what tests you would scrape, and the manual is available for you.
In addition what are the tests that you would apply in a constant manner for all people wanting ICB.
So far no one here has been able to do that.
I’m the only one who has proposed anything, and the main part there is that all additional costs of people with a disability, either on ICB or job seeking benefits, is met in full. ie. An additional benefit for those that need it.
You seem to be proposing extra money for those who can work, and those that don’t need the money as well.
You think the government will buy a specialist motorised wheelchair for £16,000 pounds or more?
Well Lord Blagger, your idea of everyone who has additional costs being met is fantastic, the reality is that would cost the government even more than the present system, disabled people don’t get all their extra costs met at present, why do you think our government would wish to spend more?
Lord Blagger – no able bodied none medical group of people will ever comprehend the vast differences in illnesses and disabilities. The bottom line is that you CAN’T do ANY one size fits all test!! The actual concept is absurd and only able bodied none medical people could believe that it is possible to have such a test. THAT’S WHY WE HAVE EXPERT MEDICAL OPINION CALLED CONSULTANTS!!!
The very idea of the test is WRONG because all any test can do is to determine anyone’s abilities on that ONE day. Any test is simply one day in the life of the claimant. By definition, ALL chronic illnesses and disabilities are variable, often from hour to hour as well as from day to day. People talk about ‘on a good day’ or when having ‘a bad day’, QED the suggestion that there can be one test for all is medically incomprehensible and administratively unworkable. Now do you understand?
Why not ask the experts Lord Blagger as I guarantee that MacMillan and Citizens Advice know a great deal more than anyone using this site. Their detailed reports are a matter of record and the recent damning research report: Welfare Reform – Redress for the Disabled is already in circulation with 360 members of the House of Lords. Perhaps you could read it or, if still unmoved, I direct you to the comments by Baroness Jane Campbell during the debate at: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?gid=2011-09-13a.658.0 Mo Stewart – retired healthcare professional
That’s why I’ve repeatedly posted on the tests and ask you to come up with a replacement set of tests that you would find acceptable.
You won’t, and that is telling. It’s also telling that you clearly haven’t read my posts and have jumped to conclusions.
For example, I’ve posted that all extra costs should be met in full. People wanting more benefits then attacked me for saying this.
The problem you face is the lords, the EU and politicians in general.
THERE IS NO MONEY. They have spent it, and the UK is up to its neck in debt, all hidden like Bernie Maddoff in a set of funny books.
Now, you want huge sums of money to be paid to people who are capable of some sort of work.
Lets look at the sums.
1. Free health care. You still want that. Ignoring that those with disabilities consume more health care, the average cost of the NHS ignoring the pensions is 1800-1900 a year.
2. Pensions. I suspect even the disabled will need a pension, or the MIG if they haven’t saved. 200,000 in current values.
3. Add on housing benefit for many, with adapted houses.
4. Add on all the rest.
It’s a huge sum of money, and you want this without independent testing?
Given the huge numbers that were moved from unemployment benefits to incapacity benefits, and an error rate of a couple of a percent, no doubt due to the those that have good days, and bad days, there is ever need for testing of people.
Here’s another reason why you can’t have the money.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8797358/EU-fraud-and-irregularities-hit-1.6-billion.html
Yep, this is one of those tractor production numbers for fraud in the EU. Up 25%, so its got to be good. Note too that there is a don’t ask, don’t tell policy within the EU in lots of countries about reporting fraud.
The Lords cost 600 million over 5 years. Lots of money there too for people with disabilities if they are axed.
The reason no-one has come up with a test is because there ISN’T any one test that can or could work for all possible disabilities and illnesses. I refer you to my previous post.
It’s NOT to do with money Lord Blagger, it’s to do with the fact that there is NO ONE TEST that is possible. We don’t want more money Lord Blogger and, with respect, I think it’s you who continues to miss the point, as we want justice and fairness and that CAN’T be achieved by unqualified and incompetant junior civil servants making decisions for which they are totally unqualified.
When it comes to cheating, someone should invite the gvt to establish why this scheme was introduced at the behest of a discredited US corporate insurance giant, why the gvt suddenly decided that unqualified junior civil servants knew more than Consultant expert medical opinion and how they justify the absurd and increasing costs of an assessment system that, by demonstration, is totally inadequate for the job expected. It is you Lord Blagger that continues to resist being informed.
ALL of us have good days and bad days and, as for the costs to the state of us being disabled, when are you going to acknowledge the vast amount of WORK many of us do free of charge? I have been volunteering for in excess of 30 years, I have been the Director to 3 charities, ran a branch of a national charity, spent 20 years helping to keep my local district theatre open and now spend a great deal of time doing the research that feeds information to national institutions – all free of charge and all only possible as and when my health permits. Is that worthless too because I am disabled?
Forget the US giant. It was introduced by the UK government. It is government policy.
I have been volunteering for in excess of 30 years, I have been the Director to 3 charities, ran a branch of a national charity, spent 20 years helping to keep my local district theatre open and now spend a great deal of time doing the research that feeds information to national institutions – all free of charge and all only possible as and when my health permits
And people who earn minimum wage are paying for you to do this to the tune of 2,500 pounds a year.
So its not worthless, but you should be working to earn money if you are capable of doing that sort of work load, even if intermittent, and not relying on other people being forced to work to pay you.
I’ve posted the link about the number of disabled tripling. You need to explain why the numbers have gone up to that level.
NO, Lord Blagger, I don’t expect all the above without independent testing but I do expect people like you to comprehend that there IS NO ONE TEST that could possibly qualify to cover all possible illnesses and disabilities. CONSULTANT opinions are independent opinions, accepted in every court of law, and it’s only Parliament that resits input from medically qualified experts. The GP is the regular contact with the patient, and whose opinion could not be expected to be independent BUT a Consultant opinion is. Accept that, remove the costs of Atos and the Tribunals and you’ll get a fair system with those who could consider employment iddentified but the chronically sick and disabled would not need to be terrified.
Then explain Liverpool. Liverpool has vast numbers of men on incapacity. Not a mining area. Not a heavy industrial area either. Quite easy to remove work related incapacity as a major cause. Compared that is to a mining area.
So what’s going on? Incapacity has tripled and its pretty likely that this is as a result of people being moved from unemployment to incapacity to hide the unemployment figures.
However, this can only be done if the doctors have signed people off. There in lies the problem with the “lets leave it to the GPs”. They have signed off at least 2/3rds of the claimants when they shouldn’t have. 400 bn down the drain at a minimum, and there is the strong hint about why those deserving of help are being forced to jump through hoops.
It has everything to do with money. The reason it is being done now is there is no money.
We don’t want more money
If you don’t want more money, don’t claim it.
it’s to do with the fact that there is NO ONE TEST that is possible
Let me turn it round. You say there is no test. OK, lets for this argument accept it.
Now, I’ll turn it round. You come to me as ‘Government’ and say, I need some cash because I’m disabled. As the government I have no test.
So my question back to you, is how do you prove you’re disabled enough to warrant me giving you other people’s money?