My last blog on the breakdown of the Usual Channels generated a torrent of comments on the Welfare Reform Bill. This is fine, indeed very welcome but as a result of organisations passing on my parliamentary e-mail address I have now received a torrent of messages to which I am simply unable to respond adequately and that jam up my e-mail in-box. I regret I have now put up a standard response on my e-mail site. So please, if you are thinking of commenting on the Welfare Reform Bill do it here on this site where everyone can see it. And please don’t tell me that Atos gets it wrong sometimes, I already know!
-
Authors
-
Subscribe to lords of the blog
-
In a nutshell…
Launched in early 2008, Lords of the Blog encourages dialogue between the public and Members of the House of Lords. This is where Members of the Lords write blogs on their specialist areas and talk about life and work in the House of Lords. We have a growing number of regular contributors as well as guest appearances from other Peers. If you'd like to know more about how the Lords of the Blog project has developed since 2008 read our Media Briefing here.
All the authors write the blog posts themselves and welcome your comments. They will try to respond to most comments, but please remember to keep them on topic (read our terms and conditions if you are unsure).
Opinions expressed by the authors/bloggers are their own and don't represent those of the House of Lords, its administration or other Members (including parties and other groups of Members).
This site is managed by the Hansard Society - the UK's leading political education and research charity - as part of its commitment to Parliamentary democracy. If you have any comments about the blog, please email us.
-
House of Lords on Twitter
- Checking & challenging govt policy: find out more about the work & role of Lords cmttees http://t.co/mYGe3mvM 16 hours ago
-
UK Parliament's Flickr
More Photos
354 Comments
@Baroness Murphy:
Finally, the sleeping Dragon awakes from his eternal rest. We hope the fire of his breath remains a relentless, scorching fury.
How does the saying go? ‘The straw that broke the camels back.’
I continue to read the minutes and amendments being made to the Wefare Bill. I hope the Lorrds give as much attention to the section Part 4 on Personal Independance Payment, especially section 83 on persons receiving certain services. It is implied in this clause those who are disabled in live in a care will have access to transport if they remove the motability element (in my son’s case his access to a car) and loss of freedom.
I have already noticed reading the discussions on housing benefits the Lords are following the Govetnments approach and passing the problem to local councils, who are struggling to support the disabled locally, ie in Leeds Day Centres are being closed!
So I will really interested to see if as much time is spent discussing section 4 clause 83 and if anybody is prepared to stand up for those in care but based on comments from Maria Miller I don’t hold much hope, as she appears to very little understanding what is like to fight for every service and piece of equipment throughout a disabled persons life.
So if you already know that Atos get it wrong “sometimes”, although I have to disagree and say a lot of the time because in my experience they blatantly made things up on my report, then why have they not been gotten rid of? They’re so obviously not keeping up their end of the contract, unless that is, the contract is to ensure that many people going for work capability assessments are to be failed almost immediately?
If you are finding your email is being jammed up with people commenting on the welfare reform bill and you’re finding it very stressful, imagine having the stress of having the benefits you rely on daily being ripped away from you by a company who couldn’t care less one way or another and just as you get it reinstated after a sucessful appeal, you then have to worry about that brown envelope falling on your hallway carpet almost immediately to. Not to mention you have it hanging over your head that you know you’re going to fail even before you enter their doorway and have to do the appeals thing all over again!
Hear the cries for help for once before it’s to late and you have a whole other mess on your hands.
Ditto the above.
-Omission of additional difficulties
-Omission of primary difficulty’s symptoms
all observed, and commented upon, during assessment, is not evidence of ATOS getting it wrong its deliberately deceiving the level of diability and difficulty being experienced by those assessed principally it seems to meet contractual requirements.
As JSA staff are overturning ATOS assessments and returning people to ESA its a situation the DWP must be aware of.Will they now claim that JSA staff are trained to assess disability and to do so on the basis of an initial back to work interview of 30 minutes or less?
Deliberatly omitting information in an assessment in order to remove from someone the benefit to which they have a legal right woulkd seem to me to be an obvious disability discrimination as the equivalent able bodied claimants are not being subjected to eroneous reports in order to remove from them the same right to benefit.
How can we trust the DWP to provide genuine assessments we can trust in when experience shows that they have not done so so far?
Four possibly relevant points, towards the Welfare Reform Bill thinking:
1. Percentages-Thinking needs to be included in either the Bill or in the ensuing Regulations, because of the literally destructive & demeasning “false balance” between –
Person A, weekly income £100pw having only £10 per week “pocket money” left over, after living expenses; whilst
Person B, weekly income £1000, living next door, has £900 pocket-money left over after essential living-expenses.
2. The individual’s real-life essential expenses need to be 100% included in the Welfare equation:
I recently had to telephone the Australian Centrelink Welfare Payments authority to ask (on behalf of my more elderly Caree pensioned widow lady) how the Government calculates her ‘entitlement’ vis a vis her actual expenses, and I was told
“The Government pays such welfare as the government can afford (the recipient citizen’s essential expenses have no place in our formulation)”.
3. The same lady caree without her instigation and without her knpowledge had been being overpaid by that pensions-authority $10 per week,(hold breath please for a moment)
for over ten (10) years
before they woke up to their overpayment, blamed her, and wrote demanding immediate repayment of over $5200 within 28 days on pain of losing her whole entitlement.
There being concurrent Postal slow-downs, due not only to the first Iceland volcano dust cloud preventing air-mail, that letter did not reach the lady until two days after expiry of the deadline)…(that night I made an immediate part-repayment online, and telephoned Centrelink, and fortunately got an extension)…(but the lady is having to repay in instalments, all appeals having failed)…
4. The result of all that in my brain was to construct a formal letter asking four crucial questions, none of which have been acknowledged ‘verbatim’ as written by us, and none answered;
so I trust despite having to stretch beyond 250 words that this letter may be shown here, too:
Dear Sir,
We need to know sufficient detail about our incomes-entitlements to enable us to continually check and calculate their components, to life-budget our expenditures accordingly, and to communicate adequately with Central and Local Government and with other involved authorities and parties.
Would you therefore please provide us with full details of our respective entitlements showing:
1. What each entitlement, and component-amount within each entitlement, was/is thought
and calculated by the UN, the EU, the Government, or other authority, to be necessary expenditure for the individual to make and maintain her/himself healthy, citizenlike, and environmentallye-supportive
(we are not asking to be told what to expend our allowances upon once we have the money in our hands, but what the Government or other authority uses, and what we could use, as the Expenses model or template with which to regularly calculate, on a regular basis, what our Incomes and Entitlements should or need to be).
2. How the Government and specificly, we suppose, Centrelink, and the DWP and Local Authorities, calculate each such amount.
3 A sources appendix thereto, including inclusory/exclusory reasoning e.g. for/against
a) Any Economic, and Human-Lifesupport/Individual-Human-Development, Theories;
b) Method III (Gordon);
c) Perceptual Control (Powers); Self Theory (Dweck);
d) (i) Sustainworthiness (A. Hamlyn, D.Smith, J.Stone in Australian Environmental Studies 26 weeks TV university course); and appropriately similar Others, and including
e) JSD Miles via his two holistic-living models (1) Sevenfold holistic living (PhEmMfEnSpSaJb domains see footnote) (2) Palmate Budgeting; and via his democratic-citizen’s contributions
to http://lordsoftheblog.net ; and possibly shortly via his own up-dated website http://www.lifefresh.co.uk or http://www.75l25w.com ;
i.e. showing what knowledge, formal-argumentation, moral-reasoning, and life-experience is included in and what excluded from the designing, deciding and administering of such entitlements/welfare; and why.
4 Any other factors that may be taken into consideration.
————–
Please highlight the words
“What does the government think to be necessary expenditure, by the citizen, in order to make and maintain herself healthy, citizenlike, and environmentally-supportive, lifelong ?”
Shazzyrm
You couldn’t have expressed the thoughts of hundreds of thousands of people any better, well said.
I was accused by the Baroness of exagerating the circumstances of disabled people who have had benefits wrongly removed from them, I was accused of name calling, I was told disabled people deserved a better website than mine, who’s name calling?
Unlike the Baroness I have hundreds of emails sent to me each and every day, it may take me a long time but I do have the decency to reply.
Maybe If she really took the time to look into what’s happening in this country with regard to Welfare Reforms she would be better able to see why so many thousands of disabled people fear what’s going on?
Defending such a company as Unum shows the inherent gap that people like Baroness Murphy and others have in relation to disabled people, no one who truly understands the aims of such a company as Unum would come out and defend it’s practices.
[...] SEE WHAT SHE SAYS HERE [...]
Atos do not just “get it wrong sometimes”. In Hastings, my area, disabled people who access (under-funded, charity-run) representation at their appeals against Atos decisions win over 95% cases.
Please also look at the distress and ill-health caused by Atos “assessments”, delays, appeals and the length of time people spend without their benefits while these things are resolved. Some spend months trying to live on dla or have to borrow from loan sharks because Atos has taken away their income.
Hear hear shazzyrm!
Re the WCA, With your experience Madam ,what other medical examination of people who are known to be sick and or disabled asks them climb onto a fixed height couch via a box.?
Why would such a procedure be deemed necessary?
How can such a procedure be claimed to be safe?
This is just ONE of MANY procedures Atos use in the WCA, which is far from a fair assessment,and far from any medical procedure which has any value.
If you can give one good reason why this should be allowed in such an assessment, I would be amazed.
I could list many more parts of the assessment that are in fact worthless, however I presume you really are aware of them.
Welfare Reform may well be needed,this process however is really a disgusting abuse of the sick and disabled.
Well said Ellen…
The present Welfare Reform Bll is an unsafe Bill, it has been hurridly put toigether by the Tory led Government and is designed to take away the rights of those in reciept of any kind of Wlfare Benefit. The hardest hit will be those who are claiming sickness and disability Benefits, many will find themnselves living below the poverty line, lose thier homes, or lives because of the actions of this cruel and uncaring coalition. It is not possible for a millionaire to imagine what it is like to try to scrape by onthe megre Benefits we have to survive on, most MP’s do not have the foggiest idea how hard it is to live under these circumstances. I not you ask us not to mention ATOS as you know they get it wrong sometimes! well let me tell you this, ATOS get it wrong 70% of the time, thats 70 out of every 100 decisions which are reversed at Tribunals. Waiting times for Tribunalks vary across the country, however, the average is aroung 6 to 9 months. This is unacceptable and will get worse if this abysmal Bill is passed by the Lords. Please take a long hard look at the figures and you will see that the system is doing more harm than good.
rights of those in reciept of any kind of Wlfare Benefit
==========
And what rights are they? Reference to the Human Rights Act or something else would be appreciated.
==========
ATOS as you know they get it wrong sometimes! well let me tell you this, ATOS get it wrong 70% of the time, thats 70 out of every 100 decisions which are reversed at Tribunals.
===========
False. First the figure for reversals is 40%. However your big error is assuming that everyone appeals. They don’t. A small set of people who are border line appeal, and you would expect 50% to win anyway.
Do you have a reference for the 70%?
The Harrington report says it all. I have posted further on and responded to your request. As for what right, well I and millions of other workers made an agreement with the Government when we started work in our teens. We agreed to pay our taxes and NI contributions on time and without argument. We agreed to this on the premis that support for our health and social care would be available at the time and point of need.
Dear Baroness Murphy,
Thank you for at least joining the debate.
PLEASE if you do nothing else, PLEASE ask in the Chamber of the House of Lords…
WHY?
WHY HAVE 12 DISABLED PEOPLE AND CHILDREN SO FAR DIED BECAUSE OF THE CURRENT WELFARE REFORM SYSTEMIC MESS?
http://dwpexaminations.blacktrianglecampaign.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1158
Thank you.
Calum
why will people who have an indefinite award for DLA have to be reviewed, I have MS not relapsing remitting kind, it is progressive so unless ATOS can work miracles I will lose out as will thousands of others who have unpredictable incurable progressive conditions. None of us have any confidence in a system set up to save money.
That’s nothing, Atos HCP believe Amputees can grow back lost limbs…
Really?
Not only do ATOS make massive errors but the tribunals do as they ask questions relating to what can be done now (the day of the tribunal) not the time the assessment took place and the judge at these tribunals allows it.
The HCPs at the assessments often change the wording of what the claimant says so where it says claimants states any alteration in what is said should be denied by the claimant as soon as they spot the alteration.
The last government as well as the present one are doing no more than a cost cutting exercise on those that can least afford it and see the sick & disabled as an easy target, while those who could manage with cuts are not seeing any cuts to their payments (MPs spring to mind )
Terminator, I too found that the tribunal doctor was focused on my capacity ‘today’. I found this approach mirrored that of the WCA in insinuating that my attendence at the respective events was proof of fitness. I did try to convey that my condition (COPD) varied within a day, and according to activity as much as anything, but as other of my comments I don’t think this was welcomed.
My appeal was disallowed (I can’t believe that they can do this without giving any reasons). I have asked for a Statement of Reasons, which apparently ‘is only prepared when requested’. So what goes down as a legal record of the case if you don’t request it? A simple one sentence judgement, without supporting reasons? This is our law, is it?
Baroness Murphy: now you are aware of the strength of feeling about ATOS and the WCA – may i remind you of the upcoming PIP farago – as this will be another cause of stress and dispair for those on DLA – particually IF atos are employed to do that too
what is the POINT of getting rid of a system that WORKS – IS a fair assessment – takes into account medical EVIDENCE – and whilst not perfect – is a LOT cheaper than paying out millions to private companies to foul up , and then cost MORE millions in appeals costs ??
it does not make sense to us out here – it does not make sense to the tax payer – but it seems that those in “the other place ” are hell bent on bringing in ANOTHER system of assessments that will be a bigger mess than the WCA / ESA
most of us on DLA are NEVER going to get any better ( only worse with age ) – have BEEN fully assessed and are capable of notifiying any changes – and don’t NEED more hassle in their lives !!
DLA WORKS -why change it ???
@muffie02:
But who owns these private companies? And who has shares in them? That is the big issue.
Politicians are very keen on handing out public money to friends, colleagues and those who run the hedge funds.
I bet if you do some research into who is benefiting from these concerns, you will find why they are so keen on keeping this going.
Billions are made from the taxpayer by buying from the companies colluded with. Usually bad investments, on the whole, so the treasury loses in every way. Or, we do. It’s a game and one that has been played for a very long time.
The Americans gave Tony Blair a crash course in how to make millions from the electorate. And now they have become masters at it.
Personal accountability is the only answer.
I can guarantee legal challenges to this bill, but this is what you get with David Freud in charge
I find it hard to believe that all this is just coming to the surface, atos have been getting it wrong MOST of the time for a long time, doh.
If you think that Unum is a reputable company and Atos is doing a good job Baroness Murphy can I suggest that you pull your eyes down from gazing at the beautiful ceilings and read the book “Insult to Injury – Insurance, Fraud & The Big Business of Bad Faith” By Ray Bourhis which is all about Unum and the fraud that they carried out in the US.
What is worse Baroness is that anybody reading this book, (which was recommended to me personally by Prof Dan Feldman, the New York DA’s office special prosecutor who negotiated the legal settlement with Unum on behalf of 38 US States), will recognise while reading the first 30 pages that the methods currently being used by Atos to assess the disabled in the UK as to their fitness to work are exactly the same methods that Unum were using when they were dragged through the courts in the US and fined millions of $’s for running what was described as “Disability Denial Factories”
Where is the redress for all the sick and disabled who are being abused by our government Baroness, it is abuse and nothing else and to know that and not do anything about it is to be complicit in it.
So, if you know Atos get it wrong even sometimes. What are you going to do about it?
The appeals need to deal with how the person was at the time of claim and assessment, not just how they are on the day of the hearing. The process needs to be fast, simple, efficient and just. In my experience it is none of these and on top of that, they do not like to question Atos even when they claim rediculous things such as maximum dose codeine is available over the counter and therefore the claimant cannot be in very much pain!
I would like to suggest the House of Lords spends a couple of hours reading the ESA Training manual.
It will soon become clear claimants are seen as untrustworthy liars from the outset by Atos Healthcare.
Perhaps another couple of hours reading the contract between the DWP and Atos.
This would soon show where Atos were failing to meet the terms of the contract in many ways.
Then look at the cost £100 million to Atos to undertake the work and then £50 million to the Tribunal Service to put right all the unnecessary errors caused by Atos.
Finally go back to the selection of Atos for the work, look what Atos PROMISED the Government of the day to get the contract, a promise to remove 1 million people from benefits.
Prove you are worth a seat in this House of Lords.
I’ve read it. I’ve asked people to say which part of section 3, which is the part about the tests is wrong. No one has posted a link yet.
Where does you 100 million come from? The last figure posted here was that it 60 million with the claim that this was large. However, in the context of 12,500 million handed out, its small.
As for the 40% who win on appeal, I’m not surprised because those appealing are not representative of those who were getting ICB, and they aren’t representative of those who carry on receiving ICB. (None of the latter appeal). It’s just those that are marginal who will appeal.
So given the test is to determine if claimants are capable of ‘some sort of work’, not necessarily the job they were doing before, what tests would you apply to claimants to determine that fact?
If you wish to see what people have to go through please read some of the stories here, maybe then you will see the problem Lord Blagger?
http://registerofshame2.wordpress.com/
If you really don’t understand what disabled/sick people in this country are worried/frightened about then I suppose there is no way of pursueding you, a lost soul maybe?
Lets hope you never ever have to rely on the state for your very existence, let’s hope If you have children they too never have to suffer like disabled people do now in the UK
http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2011/09/09/will-the-house-of-lords-really-help-us/
http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2011/08/23/important-read-circulate/
These references will help Lord Blagger
I’ll certainly read them.
How are you getting on reading the link to the peer reviewed research?
ie. I presume you accept that black triangle is an advocacy group pointing a certain point of view, rather than being independent.
I met someone who came in to regular contact with claimants, who also recognised that ME is a syndrome and not a disease per se. Her wages were not high, only just above the level of Benefit payments.
She decided that, in view of persistent tiredness which is one of the many,many, problems represented as ME syndrome, that she would retire from daily work and claim instead.
The ME diagnosis was made, such as it was, and now she claims permanently with DLA.
Pathology does not have the highest of reputations and at the time of the discovery of “ME” the Royal college of Pathology came in to being in about 1955.
Since then millions of people have become victims of this terrible “Disease” (it is not a disease as such at all) and vast numbers claim DLA with all the other benefits on account of it.
I am very much in favour of a proper system of negative income tax, namely tax credits for everybody, but to confuse it with disability benefits is a mistake.
Tax credits are “catch all” providing everybody, able or non-able, with what is necessary, £60 per week.
Dear Twm O’r Nant,
Your ‘friend of a friend’ who has a view via ‘hearsay’ doesn’t exactly base an opinion on peer reviewed or verifiable facts. So your post doesn’t take the debate that much further forward?
If you want facts, please check out the 12 deaths…..
http://dwpexaminations.blacktrianglecampaign.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1158
Do you have a view on that? Maybe think about the berieved families of this appalling mess. Or is this more of your ‘imagined’ type of disease? They aren’t actually dead. It’s just a long term comatose ‘syndrome’ !
You may need to write to HM Coroners for fact based opinion on what constitutes disease or death!
Maybe you need a little more humanity, a little more FACT and a little less hyperbole, and amateur diagnosis of what is, and what is not a ‘disease’.
I have a lot more faith in Baroness Murphy who is an eminent professor, and a qualified doctor with relevant specialist qualifications. Baroness Murphy also has the guts to put her real name and contact details, rather than rely on a strange anonymous and clearly bias fictional ‘Twm O’r Nant’ character.
Regards,
Calum McLean
My real name.
From the Lords of the Blog Twitter account (http://twitter.com/#!/mentions) if you haven’t already seen it from DrGrumble:
@lordsoftheblog Your Lordships, please read this: http://t.co/Zvl77acd
Beccy
So, at last we get the truth here. Privatisation of the NHS by the back door.
And how many of the companies picking up the contracts will be American? Will anyone tell us?
This will be the end of the health service for Britain. And the beginning of the chaos they have in the USA. The poor will have no health cover at all. Unless of course, you get shot in the war zones being created here. As there. Then you will have cover to save your life, and that’s it. No ongoing cover to keep you alive.
And those who believe they have health cover because they have what is termed ‘Health Insurance’ better sit up and take notice. You also will have no health cover as, the so called insurace, will only last until the next years increase in payments,, if you become long term sick. Your fees will more than double overnight and finally you will not be able to afford it, unles, you have the profits of Phillip Green that is. Comapny health cover lasts only whilst you are with the company. And that is temprary if you become long term ill. They cut you off instantly if they can get away with it.
And don’t forget the kids. If you have a child born with a disability you will never be able to get insurance for him/her. Ever. And your child will only be covered by the states low standard of so called ‘care.’ Which also has a time limit.
If this doesn’t force the electorate to call for a no confidence vote and push for a gerneral election, then we are in the ‘sh-t’ big time.
Maude Elwes
I’m affraid Maude that many people choose not to open their eyes to what’s happening, as you say we are seeing the end of the NHS.
Companies like Unum must be licking their lips with exitement, especially when members of the House of Lords calls them a LEGITIMATE company???
@atosvictimsgroup:
Yes, indeed.
However, the Baroness who opened this thread freely admits the job is overwhelming her as so many of the public wrote in email of their oppostion to it. So, even though she is incapable of representing the population on this matter, she has no intention of relinquishing her ‘state benefits’ of being a Baroness, when duty calls her to do so as her ability as spokesman is in question. This dictates her comforts must depend on it and this small test to her sensitivity is clearly uncomfortable and distressing to her. Yet, she fails to grasp the devastation of those who are perpetually disabled having to submit to constant and humiliating reevalution of their condition? Enlightening.
How does the old saying go, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
I am always surprised that permanent disability payments for an adult includes the right to a car, which must mean that it is considered a “need” or “necessity”, whereas it should always in reality be considered a luxury.
A car costs £5000 a year to use and maintain.
a motorized wheel chair is one thing; a car quite another.
You tell me that when you rely on a car to do pretty much anything outside your house because walking leaves you in so much agony sometimes you cant even make it to the car to be driven somewhere. the mobility car system is needed by thousands who face the above every single day.
It is. That’s why I’ve said that the rest of us should pay for the extra costs.
One problem with the current car scheme is that you’re allowed to have other drivers, and this part can easily be abused.
‘the right to a car’ Not remotely.
A person in receipt of DLA Higher Rate Mobility may sacrifice their benefit to lease a car via Motability. The likelihood for many is that their disability will mean the basic models are not suitable and they will need to lease a larger automatic model, and will have to pay extra out of their own pocket on a weekly basis. At the end of three years Motability take the car away and they have the option to throw their money away on a new lease. Compared to purchasing a car Motability actually works out to be a pretty bad deal in financial terms, but if you can’t afford to purchase a suitable car, then it’s the only game in town.
Nor does every person with a disability receive DLA HRM, not even every person with a severe mobility impairment. I walk with crutches, I struggled to walk just 5m just a couple of hours ago, but I can’t demonstrate I clearly meet the HRM guidelines.
ATOS get it wrong? how about “My uncle committed suicide. he was declared fot to work by ATOS, won at appeal and then a few weeks later they started to re-test him all over again. Once more he scored zero points and when the second set of tribunal papers arrived he couldn’t take it anymore so hanged himself.” yes ATOS get it wrong lots of times and the consequences are dead disabled people.
Two points well made. First about the uselessness of Peers.
Second, on the assessment.
1. My take is all new applicants have to be assessed. As a priority
2. As part of the assessment, the time to the next assessment should be determined. For those with conditions that will not improve, a long period should elapse.
3. For those where there is a probability that the condition improves, a shorter probability.
Now I think that leaves one group that is more difficult. Any condition where the condition is intermittent.
@Lord Blagger:
It appears you have little or no knowledge of the proceedure required to obtain DLA.
So here we go. The form that is a perpheral start to the journey is 38 pages long. And in it they repeat over and over again, the requirement for the same information. These questions cover the aids you need, the medication you take, the amount of steps you can take and the need for care. How often you need to be cleaned up when you have incontinence. How many hours in the day and in the night you need this care and when, how long and what your prognosis is.
At the end of that exhausting episode you have to have it witnessed by your GP, your cunsultant, your nurses and your social workers, as well as a nieghbour, etc. They also check those who gave you the aids to assist your daily routine. Just to make sure you have them. Or, do not, as they didn’t supply them because they have run out.
They don’t simply telephone these referees, they write to them, threatening retribution should they give wrongful information. In the meantime, they check with all the other computers they hold your information on, and this process takes months and sometimes years, as one assessment after another is obtained.
Should the members of either the lower and upper chambers have to undergo such scrutiny, prior to being offered to the public as likely candidates for their office, not many of them would pass the necessary criteria.
To then ask for this lunacy to be repeated, every twelve weeks, in peretuity is degrading, insulting humiliating and traumatic. Not to mantion hugely expensive to the tax payer. And that is something you care do about.
What is being hidden from view, is, the amount of claims for disability has risen at an alarming rate as a direct result of mass immigration.
For, it isn’t simply those who come to the country, legally or otherwise, that has overwhelmed the entire system, it is the application for all the old, sick and distant relatives they insist on joining them as it is all free in the UK and a human right to have your family with you.
I was speaking to a really nice Morrocan woman this afternoon and she told me she had first gone to Paris and lived there a year, but, the French were not as kind to her as she heard the British were and her living conditions were cramped there in northern Paris. So she came to the UK where, to her utter surprise, she was placed first in a small studio in central London. Within five months, and without her havingi to make a further request for it, they sent her a letter offering her the opportunity of a nice one bedroom flat on the first floor of a Regency house in a conservation area where she has remained happy for the last five years since. The woman was single, but not a single mother, she had no dependants and walked with a limp. Her English was impeccable, and she was highly intelligent. She though, had not done a days work in her time here, yet she was able to claim and receive DLA.
No British person would ever be treated as humanely as this women. And they certainly would not be housed like that within a five month period. If ever.
This, along with the thieving bankers, pilfering Lords and MP’s on the fiddle, the selling of our assets at knock down prices to those in the know and any and all other proflagacy connected to our irresponsible government workers, is why we are now having to face the real facts of our starving and uncared for sick and disabled.
As an above poster voiced, many of whom have paid enormous taxes throughout their lives until disablity fell on them.
PS: in no way do I blame this above lady for the situation she found herself in. I hold our governments totally and absolutely responsible for what they have bestowed on their hard working countrymen. Whom they obviously abhor.
And the EU is not to blame either. This woman was not given this kind of luxurious welcome under a French government, who is another EU member. So, it is no pan Europe policy the way they keep pushing at you. Only in ludicrous Britain where the population do not make those in power pay personally for abuse of their money.
So LB, turn your wrath on those who brought this situation to us, not those who are suffering under it so badly and resulting in many, many cases of death through suicide or some other grossly unacceptable situation, like a heart attack or stroke brought on as a result of continual abuse and harrassment.
And why isn’t the Labour party fiercely opposing this? Could it be because they collude in the abuse of the sick with the Tories?
It appears you have little or no knowledge of the proceedure required to obtain DLA.
==========
You keep repeating that. However, I have read the manual, section 3, which is about the tests.
The form that is a perpheral start to the journey is 38 pages long. And in it they repeat over and over again, the requirement for the same information. These questions cover the aids you need, the medication you take, the amount of steps you can take and the need for care. How often you need to be cleaned up when you have incontinence. How many hours in the day and in the night you need this care and when, how long and what your prognosis is.
And what’s the problem here? Aren’t these reasonable questions to ask about someone’s disability?
@LB:
You are being deliberately obtuse. And not to mention turning a blind eye to the fact that hundreds of thousands of immigrants are receiving benefits you and your fellow citizens have paid to cover themselves and their families if and when sickness or old age arrives for them. Which, don’t forget, is going to happen to you. I can’t wait to here your call for justice when the social worker comes to your home and forces you to be taken into a so called ‘care’ home. Where you will be starved and left without water to drink whilst they smack your face and pull your hair.
To have to go through that questionaire and have the proof needed, your GP, your Consultant, your nurses or carers or whoever else you put up as back up, is enough just once. Why should they in essence accuse the medics of being liars and cheats. Because that is exactly what they are saying.
It is an abuse to do this in the first place, when all our peronal documentation is already at hand in their computers at a touch of a button. And they have been doing this for years, not just today. They have more information than you have any idea of, and so this game they are playing is simply an abuse of the sick and the disabled because they, and I mean they, the goverment workers including MP’s of all levels, allowed our siocial fund to be stolen and taken for private gain. They conned us all out of our tax pool. They gambled and threw it away. Why hasn’t that got you on fire. Could it be because you gained from it in some way. And would like it to continue in order to let you get fatter and more rotund from the pool you don’t have a right to plunder. Just as they had no right to plunder. It’s called fraud and that is a jailable offence. And it’s time the public collectively called for that crime to be put to justice.
This really must go to the European Court on Human Rights grounds, and a new law that requires those who collude in this, those who gave the word to do it, must be found guilty of gross negligence toward the sick and disabled and made to forfeit their own money to compensate for the intense cruelty they have created. As well as sent to jail if found to have been cruel beyond expectation of a civilised people.
No getting out of it by saying the government told me to do this. My boss told me to do it, I had no alternative. Oh, yes they do/did, just as Hitler and his Nazi soldiers did. All you need to do is say ‘no’ I will not do this inhumane act as it is against the law of conscience to abuse sick people in this outrageous way.
Then make all those who stole our social fund relinquish their entire assets to refund the people post haste.
Want to se how quick change takes place should we get as nasty as they are.
Obtuse about migration? nope. It’s a major disaster. We have the wrong sort of migrant.
Migration should be limited to those that pay more tax that the average government spend per year. Per migrant, not per migrant worker.
So long as they stay above that threshold they can stay. Drop below, and they have to leave.
No benefits for migrants either, and a very long period before you can be naturalised.
Yet another reason why you can’t have your payments. They are going to other people, and there isn’t any money left.
Why should they in essence accuse the medics of being liars and cheats. Because that is exactly what they are saying.
Or they are saying that all these medics haven’t been on the right courses to train them to make the assessments in line with the law. It’s not cost effective to train all these people to make assessments, since that would really put the cost through the roof. Why not have fewer doctors making the assessment on a consistent basis. Same rules for all, across the board?
It is an abuse to do this in the first place, when all our peronal documentation is already at hand in their computers at a touch of a button
No its not. Your doctor is concerned with your treatment. He is not there to assess your fitness for a particular type of work.
This really must go to the European Court on Human Rights grounds,
Which article is your grounds for appeal?
I mean they, the goverment workers including MP’s of all levels, allowed our siocial fund to be stolen and taken for private gain.
There is no social fund. Period. Politicians have taken all the money and spent it. It’s not the private sector. It’s the public sector that has spent the lot.
Ignoring any incapacity payments, they have run up debts of 7,000 bn (rising with inflation). That ignores paying any future incapacity payments. Government income 550 bn. Now work out what mortgage multiple they are on.
That’s the point and you are slowly working it out for yourself. They’ve stolen the money. That money should have been earmarked for those that really need it. It’s gone. End result is that they are having to make drastic cuts and that hurts people.
You’re persisting in shooting the messenger, not the criminals.
Now, to get your money as you see its a right, who are you going to get to pay it? People who committed the fraud, or people who are also the victims of the fraud.
Don’t forget too, that if you want victims of the fraud to pay, then it pays to be nice to them, rather than attacking them. You might want my money.
At the end of that exhausting episode you have to have it witnessed by your GP, your cunsultant, your nurses and your social workers, as well as a nieghbour, etc. They also check those who gave you the aids to assist your daily routine. Just to make sure you have them. Or, do not, as they didn’t supply them because they have run out.
Hit the button too soon.
So why wouldn’t you want your GP and consultant signing it? People have been saying it should just be down to them as they know best. You seem to be now saying that you don’t want the GP and consultant to know.
Social workers? If you go with the joined up service idea, shouldn’t they be in the loop?
What percentage of people have nursing care?
They don’t simply telephone these referees, they write to them, threatening retribution should they give wrongful information. In the meantime, they check with all the other computers they hold your information on, and this process takes months and sometimes years, as one assessment after another is obtained.
It’s called bureaucracy. After all there are lots of people working for the state that need to be employed, and what better to have them organise this, get their 30K a year, plus pension, office, etc. About 100K per person in total.
After all, what do they care about getting money to people who need it when they have a mortgage to pay.
No British person would ever be treated as humanely as this women. And they certainly would not be housed like that within a five month period. If ever.
So you’re all going to lose as a result. Labour’s legacy. There is no money. It’s been spent. It’s also gone on huge number of non-migrants to keep them off the unemployment figures.
This, along with the thieving bankers, pilfering Lords and MP’s on the fiddle, the selling of our assets at knock down prices to those in the know and any and all other proflagacy connected to our irresponsible government workers, is why we are now having to face the real facts of our starving and uncared for sick and disabled.
Exactly. And that also includes those above. The migrant you refer to, plus the hidden unemployed.
So back to the real question that you still can’t seem to answer.
So LB, turn your wrath on those who brought this situation
You haven’t been reading my posts on this blog. I’ve already had one peer arrested and jailed for his frauds – Lord Taylor.
I’ve a lot more in my sights.
What have you done about dealing with the fraudsters?
What should the rules be to separate out this woman and the indigenous who are also claiming when they shouldn’t be from those that are?
You haven’t answered this question. Instead you’ve gone on the attack along the lines of, we can’t test people because its too stressful. The implication of that is all the people who are claiming such as your example will continue to get the money.
@LB:
You can start with article 14
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-human-rights-act/the-convention-rights/article-14-prohibition-on-discrimination.html
I am sure others will follow.
@LB:
Well what a clever boy you are! How did you do it? I refer to Taylor. Are you a policeman?
And your implication that I can do something should I choose to, is not only the sign of a mind lacking content, but, also lacking a certain aptitude of spirit.
Add to that, I am never nice to the undeserving punter.
—>I am always surprised that permanent disability payments for an adult includes the right to a car, which must mean that it is considered a “need” or “necessity”, whereas it should always in reality be considered a luxury<—
Care to look at that troll-like comment and verify it. At what rates of what benefits/allowances would you claim your statement is based? Or do you think all people claiming all disability related benefits/allowances include the right to a car? (then go and look up the eligiblity for the motorbility scheme and post your apology here please)
If by some chance I should suffer a permanent disability, a car would be wholly useless as whilst I can drive – I passed my test at 16 nearly half a century ago – I only have one eye and very slight cataract in the other, so feel it safer – as others might too = that I do not drive. It seems foolish therefore, if true, that “permanent disability payments for an adult includes the right to a car, which must mean that it is considered a “need’ or ‘necessity’”
Research commissions not taken here;all done and dusted many years ago, and it always surprises me.
Twm O’r Nant ( you can get some funny anagrams out of that name ) opined : “a motorized wheel chair is one thing; a car quite another.”
and one supposes that like many, you think that the government pays for them too ?? – the majority of people who need wheelchairs or mobility scooters PAY FOR THEM and the maintainance costs THEMSELVES as they are an individual item
THERE ARE NO “RIGHTS ” To either cars or other aids you get what you can afford -or are lucky enough to be offered ( some people cant afford to run cars – shock ) and other disabled people are not allowed to drive owing to their disabilities
but , as some of us KNOW , the public perception is that we disabled are lavished with all these things at “THEIR” EXPENSE – and when you disavow them of this opinion they are frequently surprised
so once again we are getting “outraged taxpayer syndrome ” -HELLO – DISABLED PEOPLE PAY TAXES TOO !! – NEVER HEARD OF INCOME TAX AND VAT ?? – AND MANY OF US HAVE PAID LOTS AND LOTS OF TAX AND NATIONAL INSURANCE – AND RESENT BEING CLASSED AS SCROUNGERS ……..
(yes i was shouting there ) – and how pray is a car a “luxury ” ?? we dont all live in cities you know – so what of the disabled person who lives say in the middle of DARTMOOR , where i KNOW the bus service is virtually non existant and without a car you might as well be in the famous prison there
and before you quote me the mythical “support group ” we ALL allegedly have – ER NOT !! – or say take taxi’s – to go from the moorland villages to say hospital in plymouth by taxi will cost upwards of £ 20 each way – ( kinda screws up that generous DLA payment we get each month in one foul swoop ) and as the hospital car scheme is running down owing to cutbacks ………..in fact to go one way in a taxi from plymouth city center to the local hospital is +£6 and rising
so mr Twm O’r Nant – you are spouting about a subject you plainly know nothing about – you obviouly know NOTHING of the problems of mobility for many disabled people – and care even less one suspects
oh and we must not “forget” FREE bus passes for the disabled – great if you can walk to the stop and at the other end – ( have YOU tried getting on a bus in a wheelchair ?? )
and trains – don’t even get me started on them ….
so cars a luxury ?? – wot you – having a laugh ??
@muffie:
That is the deprived British mentality. From the days when they were surfs and the mentality of the underserving poor was poured onto them like waste bucket contents thrown from windows as they walk beneath.
For goodness sake, we still regard a fridge as a luxury and don’t mention the phone, you know that regal thing that stands in the hall, only to be lifted by the master.
Of course, it comes from the aristocrats and serious old money who reject central heating in favour of a burning fire. As well as interior decoration for fear if they give the place a paint job and a cushion lift they are betraying the heritage of their ancestry and Grandpapa will put a curse on the estate in turn for their bad behaviour.
So, when the help can afford a dog they go into a tantrum, as they know, ‘pendulum swung too far t’other way.’ Which means they will be out of cheap labour come Christmas. And they will have to light that fire themselves and chop and carry the logs.
Twim and twat is clearly sub normal and it is times like these that I wish, with all my heart that he suffers from a disability as like Me and many others it can hit you when you least expect it..as im sure he will take EVERY penny that he felt he deserved with no guilt or regret. So Mr Twot.. I put you in amoungst the ill informed, ignorant, and obviously bored enough to get your kicks out of rile.
By the way I have MS, I worked very hard for my Mortgage up until I could no longer work. Depression (a symptom not a cause) of MS.. I have needed the system on many levels in the last 3 yrs ..I have needed legal aid to apply to the council after struggling with my mortgage due to lack of help.. and then the suicide of a partner in my home led to PTSD and s long stay in the local mental health unit.
Im Thanks to the amazing help of Shelter, CAB and people of absolute kindness I am now In housing association, im on DLA and I have a car on motibility of which I can now afford to give up the allowance I would have recieved otherwise to pay for getting to A2B.
Now I will never have dreams.. I cannot make things better. I am now for the rest of my life dependant on the government in some way.
So to the Baroness .. I can promise you whomever is in government if I EVER have to go to an ‘assesment’ again I would rather die first. I have pride and honesty and anyone who continually punishes me for getting this chronic lifelong condition is just making me feel like a begger, l feel I have no voice anymore..and yet im probably THE most qualified to comment on the WRB and every part of it worst of all I feel a scourge on society.
Baroness Murphy
Something you said shows that you have no understanding of the assessment process whatsoever otherwise you wouldn’t of said what you did, and I quote you?
“How are you to be assessed for the more help you might later need if you won’t agree to be properly assessed? It’s this refusal to see the possible benefits of a regular assessment which I don’t understand. An assessment isn’t a punishment; it’s trying to find out what you really need and the best way to supply it.”
The assessment process is NOT about finding out what help one requires Baroness, politicians and spin doctors for the political parties are brilliant at spinning that message but in reality it is a complete lie.
The Atos HCP doesn’t ask you questions like,
“What could we do to improve your everyday life”
Baroness, when you say properly assessed what do you mean?
I also find your words here very amusing?
“It’s this refusal to see the possible benefits of a regular assessment which I don’t understand. An assessment isn’t a punishment”
You cannot see why people are not up for regular assessments? When you say regular how many is regular? I know people who have been to an Atos assessment 3 times in a year, they have conditions which will never improve, please do tell me what the purpose could possibly be to continually assess those people?
And as for you stating that an assessment isn’t a punishment, well the majority of people undergoing the Atos assessment process would disagree with you, it’s a punishment for being disabled and that’s a fact, there can be no reason for recalling people who have severe lifelong conditions which will never get better, it’s a vindictive process which all the political parties have a hand in.
When someone has to fight so hard just to get what they are rightfully entitled to, then an Atos HCP comes along and produces an assessment that looks like a script from “Fantasy Island”, and then you say you can’t understand why people are averse to being assessed?
I doubt it will be long before all disabled people have to wear a golden cloth badge with a wheelchair emblem attached, just so society can pinpoint who’s disabled or not? Didn’t that happen in 1930s Germany with another group?
As a DLA recipient I would like to understand why a computerised tick-box exercise carried out by someone who is not an expert in their field carries more weight than the medical opinion given by professional doctors and consultants?
Given that the NHS proposals by Andrew Lansley will deem GP’s capable of having responsibility for much of the total NHS accounts, I wonder why they are deemed incapable of deciding whether their patient is ill/disabled or not.
It makes no sense & it is making people like me feel very scared for the near future. Without my DLA, I am unable to pay for my care & will end up taking a hospital bed & eventually will cost the state far far more than now.
Is this really what you want?
Baroness Murphy I’d like to make a comment. My wife is severely disabled, I’m her full-time (government exploited) carer and I’d like to let you know what she told me about the possibility of being tested on a regular basis baring in mind she is so bad as to have been awarded DLA indefinitely.
She has said to me she would rather take an overdose than be subjected to constant retests on conditions she has, one being so rare that less than a hundred people in England have it. My wife has to take in excess of 25 tablets a day, she isn’t faking anything. Her mental health team has dwindled to a once a month appointment over 20 miles away (cutbacks mean no home visits now and the staff that have left/been removed have not been replaced) She cannot take the stress and upset of these tests from a corrupt organisation like Atos nor should she have too, nor should others who are so disabled as to be awarded DLA indefinitely.
You said somewhere that a lot of the concern is “hyperbole”, I’d call your comment something much cruder having been a carer for almost 20 years now and having seen past-present (and no doubt future) governments treat disabled people as dirt. There is no other way to put it, well there is but I’m doing my best not to swear.
The blatant benefit cuts (it isn’t welfare reform as everyone knows) should not be allowed to happen. DLA actually works, it has fraud set at below 1%. The rise in numbers of people receiving DLA was built in at it’s inception due to the aging community and I’d hazard a guess that Attendance Allowance has dropped as older disabled people have died. There is an annual underspend on benefits of around £15 billion a year, where has that gone if there has been such a huge rise in claimants?
P.I.P is going to cause deaths, again this isn’t “hyperbole” this will actually happen.
Disabled people already find it hard to cope with the increases in fuel/heating/food prices and then throw in Housing Benefit cuts. How do you think they are going to cope with this vicious Tory attack on the benefits they rely on to exist?
DLA isn’t easily gotten and it could be improved BUT P.I.P will be worse, harder to get, harder to keep. Services for disabled people have been cut back savagely, if this bill goes through then the Tories ideologically drive CUTS will leave a legacy of deaths, attempted suicides and homelessness, but as long as a few quid is saved it’s worth it eh?
I issue you with a challenge, personally meet any or all of the disabled people posting here and speak to them in person about their concerns, this ‘medium’ won’t let you see the real concern of disabled people that are being targeted and portrayed as dole-scrounging layabouts draining the country of money’.
DLA actually works, it has fraud set at below 1%.
==============
That’s not the case.
1. Vast numbers of people were moved from unemployment benefits to incapacity benefits.
That has been admitted. So the 1% figure isn’t correct.
2. Why has there been a huge rise in claimants?
3. Tory cuts? It’s a direct legacy of Labour’s profligate spending. End result there is no more money.
Who is going to provide the billions you want?
So I’ll ask you the question that others can’t answer.
What are the tests that should be applied to get disability benefits?
@Lord Blagger:
Hospital and GP’s records. Of which there is a hundred weight on every person in the land. Including you. Just as they do when they want to catch the fraudulent now, the ones you regularly crow about. But you would know that wouldn’t you. As you are in a position of catching fraudulent MP’s and Lords and setting about making them face the music.
Lord Blagger,
It’s unclear whether you are posting deliberate misinformation, or are simply utterly clueless about the benefit system. DLA is not an out-of-work benefit and may be received in addition to IB or ESA, by pensioners, people who are working, and by children. Moving or not moving people onto IB or ESA has no effect on DLA claims and your argument depends on a linkage which does not exist. If you aren’t aware that that linkage does not exist, then you don’t know enough to comment. Research has clearly demonstrated that while peope may have been moved onto IB by past Conservative governments to ‘massage’ the unemployment figures this is no longer the case, that cohort having since retired. The rate of disability benefit fraud is confirmed at 0.5%, lower than the rate of DWP error.
Equally DWP have (quietly and belatedly – the figures were delayed by 3 months to ensure the WRB cleared the commons) admitted that there is no massive increase in DLA claims, that they had forgotten that pensioners could receive DLA, that children could receive DLA, that the population is increasing, and that once these figures are taken into account DLA is rising precisely as it was predicted to do when it was introduced (the rise being largely because previous benefits did not allow pensioners to claim).
Cold comfort, perhaps, but strongly self-blame-relieving I do nonetheless submit:
(1)”We humans have become a plague on Earth”
(Prof Jonathan Stone, Australian Environmental Studies TV course) -
so you have no need to feel or think yourself “a scourge” or suchlike;
and this is further strengthened by
(2) Premise #1: Any-one making ends meet upon <£300 per week and remaining 'happy'
(i.e. healthy, citizenlike, and environmentally-supportive)
must surely be personally life-efficient (regardless of their Workplace costs and skills);
(Sub-conclusion so far): Therefore any-one having-to-have twice that weekly income (=£600) is only 50% personally efficient at living (again, in their 75% lifeplace timeframe, distinctly separate from their 25% Workplace timeframe).
I count Vanessa and many thousands of others disabled, impaired, disadvantaged, or 'normal', among such 100% personally-efficient 'livers';
and I'm guessing that so do Earth's Lifesupports,
and doubtless that God does too.
Vanessa Wigmore, Thank you for telling us your story, no-one will doubt you have a need for all the help you are getting and perhaps in the future you will need more. How are you to be assessed for the more help you might later need if you won’t agree to be properly assessed? It’s this refusal to see the possible benefits of a regular assessment which I don’t understand. An assessment isn’t a punishment; it’s trying to find out what you really need and the best way to supply it. It is this aspect of the Bill which has the greatest potential to enhance the help which people like you get. I don’t understand why you feel assessment is a punishment, truly I don’t comprehend why you should think that it is. I hope very much you will see any future assent as an honest attempt to assess your real needs.
Thanks to Muffie02 for pointing out that mostly people with disabilities pay for their own transport and other aids and in this day and age a care is more or less essential for out of town dwellers to lead any sort of life.
What I want is DLA (or the new PIP) to be allocated more generously and fairly to properly assessed and regularly reassessed individuals with disability needs. A tighter fairer system is in their best interests.
@baroness murphy – i think the perception that these assessment are a “punishment ” may be because of the way which the WCA is being carried out by ATOS – and what people on DLA FEAR is that the new PIP will be the same
we disabled do not mind being reassessed PROVIDED the assessment is FAIR – ACCURATE – TAKES INTO ACCOUNT MEDICAL EVIDENCE – AND for those who have long term disabilities that are NOT going to improve – NOT TOO FREQUENT – or at least sensibly so
we have evidence of people failing WCA – appealing and the award changed onlY to be summonsed BACK to atos for re assessement with in a few weeks – plainly a ridiculus system – and costly to the taxpayer .
THIS i think is where the “punishment ” bit comes in – people want to have a FAIR assessment and then be allowed to get on with their lives – NOT be dreading the next time the “brown envelope ” drops through the door in a matter of weeks
the PROBLEM as i see it is this – from the initial discriptors in the draft regulations – i note that there are many things that are NOT taken into account – for intance the effects of chronic pain on ability to do things – the omission of the fact that many disabled (and frequently elderly ) people live TOTALLY ALONE – they do not HAVE the option of assistance and help in any of the fields the draft regs show – what of them ??
you see baroness – what we have here is another system for the disabled -designed by the able – oh shure the “charities ” all got consulted – but where ANY individual disabled people asked to review the proposals ?? – i read everything that comes out about PIP and can poke large holes in the current ideas – and thats just an ordinery joe who is disabled – and on the strength of what i have seen so far – i have little confidence in either a lot of the “experts ” ( of whom – how many are disabled BTW ?? ) NOR THE GOVERNMENTS ABILITY TO DELIVER AN ASSESSMENT CRITERIA THAT IS “FIT FOR PURPOSE ”
thank you for listening to the views of the ordinery folk affected by this – its just a pity those in the “other place ” seem to have terminal deafness when it comes to our viewpoint .
So, given you are making the rules.
What are the tests that should be applied to determine who gets the money and who doesn’t?
Dear Baroness Murphy,
If I need any help I go to my MS Nurse, I can access medical help through social services, my Neurologist and my GP..
If I need help financially I go to a marvelous site called Gov.uk which tells me what and how to access the benefits I need.
It is my understanding that Atos are contracted by the Govt purely to determine who is genuine and who is not by covert observation as well as a tick system. I have experience of an assesment before Atos which was very very similar..
To meet a complete stranger and speak of sometimes very personnal struggles is, I feel completely unfair when My GP, Neurologist can give you the info you need.
There is no doubt in my mind that this test IS to get people off benefits.. but is done in such a way as you are a scrounger unless proved otherwise.
Is it too much to ask that common sense prevail and in cases like mine which is a chronic life limiting condition that repeat assessment is unhelpful.
Yes I want to work and indeed did find myself a lovely little job..but when I couldnt work again and had to reclaim my so called fast track to benefits left me to lose my mortgage as it took a yr too sort and with debts im still paying today.. The bailiffs employed from the local council came round and listed goods if I didnt pay.. £400 then and there and it cost me £141 for the pleasure of the visit. and every consequent visit if im even a day late next time…
I would like allowance to those whos conditions fluctuate and vary and never improve overall. Somedays my eyes dont even want to open and nor does my brain or body. Other days I can manage but only in my own time with my own space to do so. But unfortunately I cannot dictate each day.. so how do you think anyone else can?
Im asking for to be allowed to deal with my MS and be a mum with some quality of life.
I am proud as are many, and I dont understand why I have to go to a test which is demoralising and would feel more probing than helpful to someone I have no trust in and do not know at least professionally
Imagine, god forbid, you are ever accused of something you didnt do and had to stand in front of a jury and try to articulate your innocence knowing the jury is bias!? thats how it feels.. imagine when you retire you have to go for an assesment to see if you are infact too old to work still?
The uncertainty of future that is decided by those who don’t understand or possibly care is the most frightening thing ive endured.
Right now not only do I have Atos to worry about, im scared by the rate im seeing the NHS fail. The Social Services dire need for staff, The DLA changes. The worry that there will be nowhere to turn if I need advice or help to fight decisions Thats before ive even mentioned my 16 yr old and his prospects.
Most in positions of power only have to worry about the higher tax threshold
Treat me as an individual who knows what she needs rather than a guilty scrounger who maybe milking the system dry.
Its that simple.
Also do you think it is fair that cancer sufferers undergoing chemo are classed fit for work? This is what DWP told my dear friend whilst she was tryimg to claim some help while getting treatment.. Hospital visits alone where taking all her money in parking.
She has worked all of her life, she has a mortgage, and two boys of 13 and 15 and has never claimed.
All she was worried about was her boys should she become terminal.
I think she deserved a pat on the back and all the time she needed until her GP claimed her fit for work?
This used to be Great Britain what has happened? its all gone wrong?
I feel that this welfare reform bill is completely going backwards. its actual persecution!
I am the first to agree we now live in a ‘something for nothing’ society. But thats not on the benefits side. That is a product of credit card culture and debt!
As you know I now live in social housing, in a close of social housing and there is only one other that stays home. Every single other home goes to work and they all work hard. This does not tally with the perception?
Why not look into the winter fuel repayments? Expats livng in warm climates get it as do the rich?
why not look at capping child benefit on incomes over a certain amount?
And im still reeling from the £450b Super fire centre fiasco.. The centre here stands empty since 2007.. the Govt rejecting Devon and Somersets fire brigade offer to occupy, expecting £750.000 rent per yr which they cant afford?. so who is paying that now?
So you see my anxiety as it seems the ill and disabled may be just classed as ‘collatoral damage’ in the whole scheme of things and the future looks very very bleak for those on low incomes relying on this country to support them in times of need.
If I could see into the future I see suicides a plenty and brushed under the carpet. I see people filling the mental health system that is cracking up..I see a huge rise in homelessness and despair.
Oh hang on.. is that America ..?
Never in my 43 yrs did I feel so so worried about the way we are going as a country.
Thanks to all who acknowledged me. And to everyone relying on the support of the system, stay strong. keep talking and changing attitudes..We are not scroungers. We need understanding and a realisation that ignorance is in fact a condition from our past times and the uneducated.
We are all human beings irrespective of colour, disability, race and ability to work. And each one of us law abiding quiet citizens deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.
So you see my anxiety as it seems the ill and disabled may be just classed as ‘collatoral damage’ in the whole scheme of things and the future looks very very bleak for those on low incomes relying on this country to support them in times of need.
I agree. This is a direct consequence of the mess ups and outright fraud. Because government tolerates fraud, because in many cases they are up to the necks committing fraud themselves, they have allowed it to go on.
Look at ministers who’ve been sacked next popping up working for the people who just a short time prior to this they were buying from. No need to get value for money, because you will get your pay off in a year.
You’re right to be worried. That’s the reason why it is vitally important that those who can work are removed from ICB and its variants. If they aren’t it will definitely go wrong. I happen to think we are already passed that point.
Thanks to Muffie02 for pointing out that mostly people with disabilities pay for their own transport and other aids and in this day and age a care is more or less essential for out of town dwellers to lead any sort of life.
And they shouldn’t.
The fact that we all don’t pay for it is because the money is being diverted to those that don’t need it, and the disability industry whose livelihood depends on making it complex.
Baroness
You just don’t get it do you? Vanessa you say just exactly what I feel, clive you are also on the same wavelength. I would much rather end my life than carry on with this torture, the baroness clearly doesn’t understand the added stress this is causing, and she doesn’t realise the test is about REMOVING us from benefits and not helping us get what we need. If that was the case I would not have failed my IB assessment would I? I won outright on appeal, this proves that the test was not fit for purpose.
Some of you people who constantly wine about us on benefits may one day be in the same situation and god help you then, because at the rate things are going there may be no benefits for the sick whatsoever.
So out of interest, why was it denied in the first place, and what changed on appeal?
Lord Blagger
The reason most people fail the initial assessment is because the Atos HCP doesn’t bother or they refuse to look at or read all the other evidence produced by the claimant, then when you go to appeal they see the evidence you originally showed in the first place.
Atos HCP are meant to read any evidence that the claimant produces at the time of the assessment, (Consultants letter’s/reports- x-rays, scan reports) They are just not doing this.
One must ask oneself why they refuse to look at evidence which would help them make a correct decision? The reason is that they want you to go away, they fail you at your initial assessment and hope your too ill to fight at appeal or tribunal stage, the whole idea is to wear you down, If you die in the process all the better…
“what changed on appeal”
The ‘Midwife’ that assessed me was incompetent, Simple!
I am sure the thousands of people facing the Atos assessment process, would wish all they had to worry about is that their email box was jammed. Instead they have additional stress impacting their existing health problems,wondering whether they will be able to hang on to their only means of existence, and if they can manage to keep a roof above their head. We are talking basic needs of food, warmth and shelter, which no-one should be without.Governments look after themselves,and make decisions to line the pockets of private companies like Atos.They are not interested in the rest of the population, who have been left to rot.
@Baroness Murphy, how do you arrive at the opinion that an assessment isn’t a punishment; it’s trying to find out what you really need and the best way to supply it?
That is what an assessment should be but you are ignoring all the evidence of what Atos/DWP assessments really are: A sham for disability denial.
Everybody has condemned this process including Professor Harrington, as you know up to 70% are overturned on appeal yet Atos suffer no financial penalties whatsoever and their contract is extended. How on earth can this be trying to find out what you really need and the best way to supply it? their are 11,000 people a week put through this torment and that has been going on for ages whilst people like you are in denial and tinkering around the edges.
Even if the Assessment was changed today to make it completely fair and honest, what of the hundreds of thousands of people that have already suffered this disability denial?
Baroness Murphy and Lord Blagger just don’t get it, they don’t understand because they are not disabled or sick themselves, they have closed minds and will never have their views altered…
They also have too much money coming in for it to be of any interest to the Atos Victims Group, how many disabled people would love the luxury of in excess of a £300 a day allowance to pontificate about issues that they clearly have no knowledge about while gazing upwards at beautiful artwork on the ceilings.
I wonder if they would find the artwork as beautiful and be there to gaze at it as often if their “allowance” was less than £20 a day and that was all they had to survive on.
Considering that successful appeals are at 40% (and 70% with representation), does Baroness Murphy not consider that any company who is only successful 30 – 60% of the time has serious questions to answer about its ability to perform their role?
Do these high numbers of successful appeals mean nothing to you?
The government last year promised to reduce working age expenditure on this benefit by 20% on the forecast expenditure for 2015/16, triggering suspicion among campaigners that the changes are motivated by the need to cut costs rather than to improve the way the benefit is distributed.
As Richard Hawkes, CEO of Scope said “How can you decide that [a reform] is going to save 20% in advance? I would think that this is driven by cost reductions, and that they have come up with a way of assessing people that will result in the cost savings they want to make”
Doesn’t the fact that so many charities that help the disabled, have major concerns about the WCA & PIP not ring alarm bells?
Your trite remarks “How are you to be assessed for the more help you might later need if you won’t agree to be properly assessed? It’s this refusal to see the possible benefits of a regular assessment which I don’t understand.” are almost beneath contempt.
Do you think we have a choice about being assessed? Really??
Can we refuse to be assessed? You know we can’t!
What we want is for that assessment to be fair and to take into consideration all our evidence from qualified medics.
We want to not be recalled for testing 3 months after winning an appeal – an appeal that should never have been necessary in the first place.
What we want is for Ms Miller/Mr Grayling to cease their poisonous press releases to the right-wing media alleging that DLA/ESA is a benefit that requires only self-certification with no evidence by medics necessary.
Does that help clarify things for you?
My Dad had terminal cancer of the liver, and these stupid fools wrote on his report he could return to work in 6 months. Not one person picked up the fact that he was DYING.
You can shove all the reforms and all the bills through parliament you want to, but nothing can replace the stupidity of someone who is meant to be qualified deciding that someone who has weeks to live will be able to return to work.
The rest of the population has over the years paid 400 bn to people who no longer qualify for ICB.
Yep, they have been left to rot.
Still no one able to say what rules are.
Everybody has condemned this process including Professor Harrington, as you know up to 70% are overturned on appeal yet Atos suffer no financial penalties whatsoever and their contract is extended.
It’s a distortion to say, up to 70%. The actual figure is 40%.
Nice try at imply that 70% of all assessments are wrong. They aren’t. It’s only the borderline ones that appeal.
Lord Blagger –
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/26/work-assessments-incapacity-benefits-system?INTCMP=SRCH
“The work and pensions committee report also notes that 40% of decisions go to appeal, with up to 70% of those being overturned at tribunal.”
I think you’re getting a little mixed up Lord Blagger or misunderstanding what people are trying to tell you.
And if Lord Troll had bothered reading what he quoted I actually said ‘up to 70%’
Go the other stats that you’re missing?
How many people have
1. taken the tests
2. failed the tests
3. passed the tests
4. appealed the tests
5. won the tests
Numbers, not percentages.
Can also to comment on the number of people on benefits and why it has tripled?
Thought not. Bit difficult to explain that one away isn’t it.
Laird Blogger,
It seems that every forum or weblog has someone like you.
Asks questions that suits their hidden agenda.
DECLINES to answer or IGNORES what doesn’t suit them.
If you want the information, go do the work yourself. Make your own Freedom of Information request. Maybe a better use of your valuable time, instead of being a disability-denier or taunting sick people.
You should be barred from this forum until you answer this….
is it right for 12 people, including a five month old child and an unborn baby to die at the hands of the welfare system – at your altar of saving money at all costs?
Lets hope and pray you never sustain a lifelong disability serving your country like many of us did.
Regards,
Calum.
You’re misreading it.
How many people were claiming ICB?
What percentage were rejected? 93% <–
How many people appealed the decisions?
How many people win the appeals?
Never feed a troll, so I wont
Lord Blagger,
Nice try to write: It’s only the borderline ones that appeal.
That is utter rot.
Tens of thousands have to appeal as the system is NOT fit-for-purpose. NOT because they are borderline, but because the LiMA computer system is useless, as are the DWP with their culpably dangerous policy.
Why do you think that Baroness Murphy is attracting so many comments on her welfare reform thread???
May I ask you a question?
Is it right for welfare reform to be so systemically defective that it causes people to kill themselves for a meagre £30 a week saving to the state…..
http://www.wandsworthguardian.co.uk/news/9215292.Dad_committed_suicide_after_housing_benefit_cut/
….. when politicians spend thousands of taxpayer pounds on moat cleaning, free plasma tvs, home-flipping and general expense fiddling which was rife?
There are too many examples of these reforms killing people to list.
Lastly, what is your interest in this subject? There is a counter argument to be made, but the general tenor of your debate is less than objective.
Regards,
Calum.
Objective? I’ve repeatedly asked those are complaining to come up with an objective set of rules to test if people are fit for some sort of work.
Can you provide this?
What’s my interest?
It goes back a long way. People were moved from unemployment benefit to ICB for political reasons. To hide unemployment.
You know that, I know that, politicians know that. The cost over the times its been running is 400 bn pounds. That money has gone. Its been wasted.
Now if you think that 400 bn pissed away on people who didn’t need it isn’t a problem, think again.
The consequences now is that even people who are marginal, on the boundary, will lose. Rather than set a lower standard, to give people a bit of benefit of the doubt, the government has no choice because there is no money. It has been spent. It is gone. I could go into a whole dead parrot equivalent. Your not addressing this at all.
You think the money has to be provided, but you’ve a complete disconnect. Some abstract body, the government provides the cash with no side effects. It doesn’t, it takes it from other people, a lot of whom are in poverty.
The total cost for a single person on incapacity is far more than any extra payments they get. Add on free health care, free pensions, free housing (not in all cases but in huge numbers). It’s not thousands, its lottery win money.
So let me ask you a question. Should you ask individual taxpayers for the money? Cut out the government?
And at the end of the day, what about saying thank you?
That’s your problem. You’re so engrossed in rights, entitlements, human rights, that you’ve forgotten its real people, working hard, that you are taking the money from.
Now I’m prepared to give that money, but the conditions are that people are tested as to there abilities.
Hardly imposing. Wake up. It’s not going to change.
it’s trying to find out what you really need and the best way to supply it?
==============
No its not. It is to find out if you have cross the borderline and receive support. That’s the purpose.
You can either say why that borderline is drawn in the wrong place. Or you can say what changes should be made to the testing of which side people lie.
If you want something else, you need to propose a new law.
Baroness Murphy said: “It’s this refusal to see the possible benefits of a regular assessment which I don’t understand.”
Because as someone who has gone through this assessment, I am telling you that nothing to benefit me came out of that assessment.
I suffered from Cervical cancer in 2005. I underwent treatment of radiotherapy every day for 7 weeks, chemotherapy and at the end of it all, brachytherapy which is metal rods attached to radiotheraphy equipment which is shoved up your doodah for 24 hours whilst lying on your back. It saved my life but as you can imagine I have problems now. I suffer from continence problems, anxiety, social phobia, Hidradenitis_suppurativa and depression.
Having had an asessment which lasted about 20 minutes if that and answering all the questions to my discomfort to someone who clearly had no idea what I was talking about and barely looked at me, imagine my surprise when the report came back and I could barely read it as it was in such a messy handwriting and of what I could read, it was a pile of rubbish. 0 points I scored and quite naturally I appealed and complained to ATOS. I received an apology letter from ATOS apologising because the HCP hadn’t taken my cancer and treatment into consideration. After receiving information from ATOS about my case and the fact that the HCP was reprimanded and information sent on to DWP about my case, DWP ignored it and went on with the appeal. It took a whole year before I got a hearing and meanwhile I had £65 a week to live on. My depression got worse and quite often I felt like ending it all.
My appeal went well. The doctor and judge asked me questions and the result was 15 points with hardly any proof because being there in person showed that I was panicing, was clearly unhappy and in pain and even then I was put in the WRAG group EVEN THOUGH I should be in the support group due to my continence problems.
Please tell me, why would I want to go through that again? The stress, the humiliation and the hopelessness? I hope what I’ve just written actually opens your eyes as to what actually goes on in these assessments and not the fairytale you clearly think is happening.
[...] who hasn’t read these comments by Shazzyrm on “Lord of the Blogs” should do so ASAP, this is the sort of thing disabled people are having to endure each and everyday [...]
Listen to what Shazzyrm is saying and wake up. I would like to write of my own narrow escape from suicide following my farce of an assessment, but my mind is too foggy today. If the assessment can kill, how can that be remotely justifiable, let alone a good thing?
1 million people on icb. reassessed and for the sake of argument, 0.5 million its a no. 50,000 appeal. 40% successful on appeal.
error rate is 50,000 x 40% / 1,000,000 or 2%
The one thing you can say for certain from all this post is that if you can possibly avoid getting disabled, do so; eh Blagger?
And yet the number of people seriously and permanently injured, or killed from road accidents is around 3000 per year.
If you are killed all you need is the death grant but you can’t arrange your own funeral which in other circumstances would be possible and preferable, especially if you are a good organizer. You can apply for the funeral grant for yourself £700, and that apart from about £300 is enough for a basic funeral otherwise the NHS has you even in death.Quite how is best not discussed.
Blagger says nearly everything here.
Didn’t ATOS win the DWP contract because they promised to get a million people off Incapacity Benefit?
Lord Blagger. You are wrong about the appeal statistics. The figures quoted by CAB are; 40% for unrepresented appellants & 70% for appellants with representation. In Hastings & Oxfordshire it’s 95% so there may be other areas with similar figures.
And what percentage of the people who were on ICB, are appealing?
Obviously the figures of 40% and 70% are in relation to the people who appealed to Tribunal. It isn’t possible for the Tribunal overturn cases that had been taken to Tribunal so only those figures are relevant.
You’re getting there.
And only a small percentage of the people who were on ICB, have gone to the tribunal.
The implication that people are trying to make and failing is that up to 70% of all assessments are wrong, or that up to 70% of people on ICB are wrongly being denied ICB.
It doesn’t work that way.
No not at all, it is only you that is choosing to appear confused, you are playing devils advocate to provoke a reaction in an attempt to deflect from the issues.
The figures are clear, up to 70% of appeals to the Tribunal are overturned because they are wrong. But not everyone who is victim of the state sponsored disability denial has the strength to face the ordeal of the Tribunal.
The perpetrators of this evil are aware that is the case, these are vulnerable people whose well being is being gambled with in the pursuit of corporate greed and collaboration. As the committee of MP’s have stated Atos/DWP and the WCA are causing fear and anxiety to vulnerable people. People are feeling trapped, cornered without hope by a system designed to demonise them and then deny them their disabilities. This is a dangerous game with people lives and it is a very bad idea to make people feel cornered.
No, people are saying that around 40% are wrong and that IF a person has proper legal representation, that figure rises to 70%.
You also ask what percentage of people on Incapacity benefit are appealing.
Well, the governments own figures say that
actually since April 2011 – when the huge numbers of people started to be moved off Incapacity benefit – not 40%, but 49% of decisions which go to appeal are upheld in favour of the appelant. There is no breakdown of what the percentage is when people get legal help – but the figure of 70% came from the Citizens Advice Bureau research and I hardly think they are going to lie!!
So, let’s go back to that figure – 49% – close as damn it to half of decisions made are found to be wrong.
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/mojstats/sscs-stats-notice-april2011.pdf
Did you realise that there is only 1 month allowed from the date of a decision for a person to lodge an appeal? We are talking about very ill people whose lives have been thrown into chaos – less money, stress, anxiety – all of which will make their condition worse – trying to find the time, energy and stamina to actually go through that process.
I heve no doubt that more would appeal if they were well enough to cope with it and din’t have such a short deadline looming over them at atime of great difficulty.
I’m beggining to wonder If Lord Blagger might be a mole?
So, let’s go back to that figure – 49% – close as damn it to half of decisions made are found to be wrong.
=============
No. That is for the decision that are appealed. This is not the same as the total number decisions made.
However, if you want to exagerate a case, its the one to use.
So, there I was answering comments by Lord Blagger so decided it was time to register on the site, only to find myself on a different blog with different people, still fighting the same uphill battle with the Baroness and with Lord Blagger…. There is none so bling as those who WILL NOT see…
I’ll make it easy for them both: NO able bodied layperson, who are not medically qualified, can possibly comprehend permanent illness or disability. Lord Freud is a classic example as he has confirmed in public that he failed to comprehend why anyone could be offered a disability benefit for life…. How about because they can’t EVER get any better, just like Baroness Campbell.
The ATOS assessment tests are BOGUS. Medically they are incomprehensible, administratively incompetant and financially cannot be justified. Be advised please that ALL profound illness and disabilities are variable conditions; with clients speaking about having ‘a good day’ or having one of their ‘bad days.’ QED ANY test is simply a snapshot into a day in the life of that chronically sick or disabled person. Add this to the fact that the assessors are using a totally discredited computer evaluation system, with the possible limited answers to the questions as far away as possible as to the required possible answers for given conditions or disabilities and you have the bigest gvt scam since Churchill.
Add to this the fact that the so called ‘assessment’ is a verbatum copy from UNUM Insurance, who’ve been consultants to the DWP since Prof Ansel Maylward introduced them in 1994, and Unum continue to fund the Prof at the Unum Centre in Cardiff, and you realise that this has been a long term goal by successive UK gvts since Thatcher, and is the pre-requisit to another step on the road to a US healthcare system funded by insurance.
IF you really want to know more about the assessments then I suggest you consider: Atos Healthcare or Disability Denial Factories at: http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosveterans.html or check out the Black Triangle website as the research summary report is highlighted on the site. Then again, you should already be aware of Unum Insurance as the recent research report: Welfare Reform: Redress for the Disabled was distributed to 360 members of the House of Lords in advance of the Welfare Reform debate, 2 members quoted from it during their speeches and I wrote it.
Mo Stewart – Retired, QUALIFIED healthcare profesional.
How about because they can’t EVER get any better, just like Baroness Campbell.
===============
Hold on. We’ve just had other posts where people have said, look they passed on the day, and then on another day they didn’t. Their conditions vary over time.
So there are people whose condition changes.
What about all those on disability for
a) Stress
b) Obesity
Permanent or variable conditions?
Note before you start on another one of your attacks. I’ve said that part of the assessment must be the time to the next test. If its a condition that clearly won’t improve, set it at a long time.
Barroness Campbell. Working in the Lords or not? Point made. She is clearly able to work.
Baroness Campbell might have a word or two to say about your perceptions Lord Blagger.
Do you have any idea of how she is the day after she has worked in the Lords? The cost to her health and energy levels?
No, thought not.
Hold on a second. She is working. So she clearly passes the test that she is able to work.
Now you’re implying that because she is able to work (and get paid for it by the way), that she should also get extra payments because she is not able to work?
Make your mind up.
Are incapacity benefits payments for people who can’t work?
Are they a general top up?
Or are they for the extra costs?
If its the latter, should people with no extra costs get incapacity benefits?
If incapacity benefits don’t cover the extra costs, then what is wrong with me saying that society should pay all the extra costs?
Or is that you don’t want these costs paid by society.
I was wondering when someone would pick out certain members of society and target them?
Stress and obesity kills, there are reasons for people suffering with either, some very complicated reasons?
It’s nice to see empathy is alive and kicking in the UK, maybe those who seem so anti are dunfounded by the headlines they read in the “Daily Mail”???
Following Mo Stewart’s excellent post:
And who is going to be making the money they are slavering at the mouth to get their clammy hands on? Why, Cherie Blair and her American friend. With, you know who, in the background, hiding his sick face in case it puts you off falling for this scam. The woman climbing on Blairs back is a failed businesswoman from that place across the big pond and feels, with the Blair dummy grappling for attention, she can surely win over here.
How is this friend allowed to set up business in this country? As her ability and background has a scent to it that should be followed before the simple folk, who buy in Sainsbury’s, get fleeced.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/8795717/Cherie-Blair-stands-to-gain-from-NHS-privatisation.html
They keep the USA so close to hand don’t they. It doesn’t make them anything other than ‘hurry come ups’ though and never will do. No matter how much they steal from the tax payer.
Thanks Maud. Mo
If any of us are truly serious about improving the surrounding Field of Human Needs and How-best-and-most-affordably-to-meet-these Needs, and thereby improving Britain’s Welfare Needs in general, within which this Welfare Reform Bill and its currently highly contentious “atos victims”, “DWP Assessments”, “WCA, DLA and PIP” matters sit, then we need to be listing and priority-ordering our various Needs – & Hows – – all of them.
THAT (please, this is not ‘shouting’, simply and seriously emphasising) needs to be appended to the Welfare Reform Bill;
and included therein should be similar submissions from any and all Others;
and should not overlook such necessary material as the 4-questions, already put to Government and made available to the Public but still being ignored evidently by both, submitted above at 1020PM last Tuesday 20/09/2011 and rightly allowed by Baroness Murphy to be published.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmworpen/401/40104.htm
Between 1979 and 2002 the numbers of people on incapacity benefits more then trebled to 2.7 million. That is greater than the combined total of lone parents and unemployed people on benefit. Nearly half of those on incapacity benefits have been receiving benefit for over five years, compared with less than 5 per cent of the unemployed and 35 per cent of lone parents. Once a claimant has been on incapacity benefits for a year, the average duration of their claim is eight years.
Can those who think I’m wrong explain why disability had trebled, but vast amounts had been spent on the NHS, and the working environment has lost lots of the heavy and dangerous industries from the past? Cars have got much safer and the number of injuries are down.
ie, Why isn’t the obvious conclusion that many of these people are able to work, but it was politically expedient to hide them away and right them off.
@Lord Blagger:
The answer to your question is a pretty easy one to understand.
During the years you cite the indigenous British population grew older, the baby boomers began to collect their pension as well as face various maladies as a result of age and accidents at work. Growing cancer diseases, aids and all toonumerous to mention other illnesses. Add to this the almighty influx into the country from immigration. Have you any idea how many people entered the UK and settled during that period. It’s kept very quiet by government, but, it must be there somewhere if you look.
As more and more people came here, the NHS began to bend under the weight. The entrants brought the sick and elderly their extended familiesto be treated freely as that benefit did not exist in their countries of origin.
Once here, they settled, not wanting to return home as they had a better standard of living and their families were now part of the UK population.
You only have to go into our hospitals and to each of the clinics and you will see the streams of individuals sick and infirm all being treated at the British tax payers largesse. To the detriment of their own infirm people.
I’m not sure migration is the cause of all the people on incapacity. That’s not saying migration isn’t a problem. Particularly low skilled migration, and illegal migration. A million in London alone, and influxes of 250,000 a year is a problem.
With Europe getting to the debt crisis before the UK, (we are as deep in it as Greece – consider that when you want more spending), more people will be arriving.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmworpen/401/40104.htm
However is the evidence that I’m talking about.
Let me pick some bits out.
Look at table 3, the top twenty places to claim ICB. I don’t see hot spots of migration amongst them. Which of these areas have large migrant populations on ICB?
No the basic problem with ICB isn’t migration.
This is the real problem
Between 1979 and 2002 the numbers of people on incapacity benefits more then trebled to 2.7 million.
Unless you can explain where the 2/3rds came from, and its not migration, then you don’t realise what the problem is.
There are not 2.7 million people in the UK incapable of some sort of work, to the extent they need vast sums of money from other people. That is blatently obvious to all bar a few here who won’t address that.
The biggest cause of that is political and its to do with hiding unemployment and relabelling it as disability.
The consequences are now starting to become clear of that decision.
1. People know that’s the game.
2. The money has run out.
3. Benefits are going to be slashed, particularly for those who didn’t deserve it and there are a lot.
4. The knock on is that those who do deserve/need it, are going to be caught up. That’s the bit I feel is wrong, but inevitable.
Lastly, if you think its bad now, just wait until the real cutbacks kick in.
After all, spending was up last year.
Dear Baroness.
DLA enables me and many other people to live there lives. For instance the money I received for mobility I use to purchase a Disabled Persons Railcard. This gives me freedom in that I can get around.
The DWP’s own figures and rationale for the scrapping of DLA are fundamentally flawed. http://wheresthebenefit.blogspot.com/2011/08/dwp-dodgy-figures-come-home-to-roost.html
The Way I am currently being treated by the DWP stinks and it worries me that If i am stripped of my DLA that I will no longer be able to continue in my career.
Clause 52 Of the welfare reform bill is dsown right evil and is meant to inflict a life of poverty on any disabled child and their parents. ?
@Baroness Murphy:
How can any lord let this welfare bill through? How can Cameron have said – And I want to say to British people clearly and frankly this; if you are elderly, if you are frail, if you are poor, if you are needy, a Conservative government will always look after you” – When it was all a lie.
Why are disabled people being made to pay for the crimes they have not done? The4 Lords KNOW the fraud rate of DLA is 0.5% – So why change it? It wont make the fraud rate any less! It is just throwing money away on Camerons silly ideas.
ESA = Why is this even there – It is NOT supporting anybody. It is vilifying and attacking disabled people. As we all know – a ‘faker’ would know all the get through tricks, a normal truly disabled pereson would NOT know this – as we just tell it how it is!
I am disagusted by this ConDem govt. I am ashamed to say I am British at this time – This @mother country’ who is attacking its own children????? This is terrible and in years to come Cameron will be remembered for the terrible MESS he has made of this country in such a short time!
Why are ATOS even needed? My Gp or my Nurse ot myu Specialist consultant know more about my condition than some bod sat at a desk clicking buttons on a computer! It is a ridiculous waste of money to pay ATOS when the NHS consultants are already being paid!
The whole welfare ‘reform’ is a complete mess. WHO would employ somebody who is so disabled they pee every five mins (if lucky enbough to get to the loo) who is fatigued so much they have trouble concentrating. I would be a liability to any company as when fatigue hits me I cannot concentrate on anything!
And now fatigue hits me i can say no more – but I BEG yo uLords to find HUMANITY within you and to not let this bill through until it shows some care and humanity within it.
I did NOT ask to get disabled! I dopnt want to be disabled! But being told I am fine and go to work will make me ten times worse than i am now!
Why do the govt let people who owe so much tax OFF and attack the poor? A country i carried on the poor people – Yet the rich do nothing to help fix things. Make the bankers pay – Get 02 to pay back the 6bn in tax they owe
Go after these negligent parents who dont pay for their children
START TO CARE FOR THE PEOPLE LIKE YOU PROMISED CAMERON
Ivan would be ashamed of your attack on the disabled had he live (RIP Ivan)
Sarah
DECLINES to answer or IGNORES what doesn’t suit them.
If you want the information, go do the work yourself. Make your own Freedom of Information request. Maybe a better use of your valuable time, instead of being a disability-denier or taunting sick people.
============
I have done. I’ve posted several links on this very set of posts, and yet you ignore them. Far from me ignore what has been posted, I’ve posted to the evidence that contradicts a lot of what has been said.
For example, I’ll post it so you can comment.
Why did the number of people on incapacity triple when amount of money spent on the NHS rocketed, and the old heavy industries died out?
One argument, and its perhaps part of the answer is that they are all migrants. Given that 80,000 a year were added, and the level of migration in was 250,000 a year, its unlikely.
Further evidence against this is that the very high levels of male ICB claimants are not in areas where their has been high levels of migration.
Lets take one. Liverpool. Why should 20% of males from Liverpool be incapacitated?
As for the deaths. That’s why it has to be sorted out. It’s the failure to sort this out in the past, combined with the basic fact that you can’t wish away, there is no money. There is just debt.
So do you want no cuts now, but Greek style default in a short while? Do you think the disabled are protected in Greece from the effects? They aren’t. They are being hit hard. We need to do everything to avoid that disaster.
@LB:
What you wrote above is utter nonsense. Migration is almost entirely the cause. The work dried up as the people came in to take all the posts offered. They are cheap labour, and you know it, but, have a problem admitting it for PC stigma.
2.7m collecting benefit. Migration from 1979 to present at 250,000 per annum and some. That is a minimum, on your figures, of 7.5m. Plus all the extended families and the high birthrate. And don’t mention illegals.
Then the jobs for the indiginous? What happens to them? Just in case those who are long term disabled are found to be suddenly fit to work. Where are these bloody jobs? Do you see them? All those advertised are government positions and they are looking for diversity. So, no whites need apply as they are wasting their time. It’s discrimination against white kids. Who, should be sueing the Councils for having such an offensive advert in the first place.
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/story/3781/over_98_of_new_jobs_under_labour_gone_to_foreign_workers.html
This is a mild projection of the true size of the population that is expected. So those in the seat of ppower better make provision.
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/what-is-the-problem
And you mentioned London. When was the last time you found an English person there to speak to?
I know foreign tourists make London their last place to stop off. I have Japanese and Canadians in my family and they won’t consider coming to the UK for fear of attack and disappointment. And most of all, can’t find any English people to try out their English on. They complain all they meet are worse at it than they are.
The NHS is collapsing at a rate that is simply unacceptable. For Gods/ sake it’s as dangerous in child birth here as it is in the third world. And who is taking up those obstric ward places? Those who come here with the intention of staying through the child birth clause.
Apologies for the rant and bad grammer, t When I was told it was MS my biggest fear was what my future held fighting this condition.. Never once did I think, stupidly, That my biggest fear should have been my future stability.
I am NOT refusing to go to assesment im simply terrified of the prospect and thats not fair.
Dear Baroness Murphy,
‘Please don’t tell me that ATOS gets it wrong sometimes’.
Tell me, in what industry is a demonstrated failure rate (as shown by the Tribunal statistics) of 1 in 8 anything less than catastrophic?
I passed my WCA, and ATOS still got it wrong. The first WCA was cancelled, ATOS had failed to supply the necessary reasonable adjustment ‘The Regional Manager has told us to make do with what we have’. ATOS then told the DWP that I had failed to attend, leading to them cancelling my benefit. The stress this caused left me unable to function for months (my disability is physical, and worsened markedly by stress – so yes, regular assessments are a punishment, in my case quite literally corporal punishment). When I was finally able to bring myself to overcome the stress and challenge what had happened, DWP’s attitude was ‘Oh, not again’. At the second attempt ATOS had clearly been spoken too and I was met at the door with the reasonable adjustment, however their doctor’s attitude was contemptible. Despite the ESA50 form clearly stating that I was unable to sit for extended periods, he failed to ask me about that and I had to force the information into the assessment over his objection, and over his criticism of me for daring to know how critical a point it was, being then worth 15 points and an automatic award of ESA in its own right. Even after I had reached the point of being unable to sit and having to hang from the back of the chair perched on one leg because I was unable to weight-bear on the other (something he’d previously criticized my description of), he criticized me for being unable to bend my leg in order for him to test my reactions. As a professional in a different sphere it is my opinion that the assessment aspired to a level of competence that would have embarrassed the Keystone Kops and that completely failed to reach the level of duty of care expected of him under the law.
And remember, this is a WCA that passed.
hiding unemployment and relabelling it as disability.
It has been labelled thus since the mid 80s, Thatcher’s shift on to the GPs at the time.
What is more it seems to me that all developed countries now do the same.
When you consider the vast numbers of people earning big money in parasitic industries
(ins, bank etc) and not earning their basic needs from any physical work at all,(nobody does), is it surprising that excuses are made for nobody working in a country which is basically a PWE(Protestant work ethic) country? Is it surprising either that, when the trade cycle dips badly, those who survive on generous hand outs for doing “that nothing”(which is deemed as working for the government), are the loudest to complain about their theoretical illnesses?
I grow my own fruit and veggies. I don’t get them from Kenya, or Ghana, along WITH the immigrants, without whom the veggies would not a arrive here at all.
Ant-globalism is very close to home in all these matters.
If you’ve done any statistics, its what called a confounding variable. ie. A is correlated with B, but there is a hidden C.
Here it turns out that incapacity benefit is highly correlated with living in areas of high unemployment.
It is sad to still have to read the misinformed and inaccurate comments from people like Lord Blagger. I am not in a position to say whether he is a troll or actually believes what he writes but it is clear that he is not very well versed or knowledgeable about these issues.
Everything he posts is from an anti-disability standpoint with very little or no credible evidence whatsoever to back up what he says.
If he bothered to check the facts he would see that the rise in IB claimants came between 1975 (when the figure was 600,000) and 1995 (when it was 2.5 million). Given the increase in population, the numbers have stayed the same since 1995.
It is a common misconception from those who have not researched the issue that this increase was purely down to a cynical attempt to manipulate the unemployment figures, and therefore the people on IB didn’t deserve to be on it. However, the credible research and evidence shows that this is not the case.
Leading welfare expert, Professor Richard Berthoud’s research shows that:
“Benefit rules have not been responsible for the trend, and the general assumption that these are people with trivial conditions is not supported by the evidence. It is people with more severely disadvantaging conditions that have been more affected by the trend.”
http://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/publications/working-papers/iser/2011-03.pdf
The principal data analysed by Berthoud is the annual General Household Survey, in which people are asked to declare any “limiting long-standing illness”. He finds not only a clear rising trend until the mid-1990s, but also that most of the rise was accounted for by people with more severe impediments – suggesting that the growth in IB claims reflected a genuine increase in numbers of people with disabilities in the population as a whole.
The simplistic argument put forward by Lord Blagger is not supported by the evidence as there is no simple answer.
However, Berthoud notes that the trend corresponded with a rapid increase in numbers of well-qualified women entering the labour market. For all the growing emphasis on disability rights, it is possible that employers became less motivated to hire or retain people with poor health and low skill levels. “It is even possible,” Berthoud concludes, “that there is now a glut of skilled women on the labour market, acting to the disadvantage of disabled people.”
Nick Bason, acting policy director at the Employers’ Forum on Disability, accepts that disabled people might have been disadvantaged in this way in the 1980s and early 1990s, but thinks that things changed in 1995 when, in addition to IB’s introduction, there was another significant reform.
“The introduction of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 marked a turning point in attitudes and behaviour,” says Bason. “The law helped employers to see that disabled people had talents and skills to offer their organisations.”
The OECD’s social expenditure figures also show that Lord Blagger’s assertion is lazy and not based on the facts. In 1980 the UK’s incapacity related expenditure was nearly 60% below even the OECD average which shows that much of the increase to 1995 was simply the UK catching up with the other OECD countries from a position where the disabled were not receiving the help that they deserved. We hve now settled into a position where our incapacity related expenditure is just above the average, but significantly far behind many other countries.
If he bothered to check the facts he would see that the rise in IB claimants came between 1975 (when the figure was 600,000) and 1995 (when it was 2.5 million). Given the increase in population, the numbers have stayed the same since 1995.
So the population tripled over 20 years?
Really you need to come up with something better than that claim.
As for international comparisons. Has the risk of being disabled increased 300% over 20 years?
New drugs, better treatment, all that money spent on the NHS. People no longer working in dangerous industries.
You’ve not said what has caused this increase.
Let me tell you what it is. It’s political. It was to hide people off the unemployment figure.
Please have the common courtesy to stop telling lies and actually read what I wrote! I said that the tiny increase in IB claimants since 1995 is not a real increase as the UK population has increased by about 4 million over that period. Where exactly did I say or even infer that the population had tripled over 20 years?
You are spouting uninformed rubbish and you cannot back any of your trolling with actual evidence.
Try reading my post and Professor Berthoud’s research as they show that the evidence does not support what you say.
All politicians fiddle figures but to say that the increase in IB claimants is solely down to manipulating figures is total rubbish. You are therefore inferring that most IB claimants are not genuine, which is a vicious, prejudiced and ignorant, and not supported by the facts.
Such prejudice and ignorance towards so many genuine disabled people is disgusting and needs to be challenged. The evidence is clearly there showing that the vast majority of this increase is due to people with serious conditions and that we were starting from an unacceptably low point where our spending on incapacity related benefits (in 1980) was nearly 60% lower than the OECD average and then reached a point where it is slightly above the average.
You really have to question the motives of people who cannot accept the facts that our spending on sickness/disability benefits has never been particularly generous.
Before you start your trolling abuse of the disabled yet again, I would respectfully ask you (just for once) to provide some actual evidence, as you provided none so far. Deliberately misrepresenting what other posters have written does not constitute evidence! Such people have zero credibility.
Please have the common courtesy to stop telling lies and actually read what I wrote! I said that the tiny increase in IB claimants since 1995 is not a real increase as the UK population has increased by about 4 million over that period
===============
So 4 million increase from 56 million to 60.
A 7% increase.
Guardian – nice left wing paper.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/13/women-incapacity-benefit-rise
300% increase in the number of women on ICB.
7% more women in the UK. 300% more on ICB. Overall health of the UK constant.
You really have to question the motives of people who cannot accept the facts that our spending on sickness/disability benefits has never been particularly generous.
And why is this? The reason is that lots of money has been going to people who didn’t need or should not have qualified for help.
End result, now there is no money, people are being hurt.
So when you attack me, think for a second. Did I cause any of this mess? No.
I’ve repeatedly warned that the UK is insolvent, and that far from being bad now its going to get worse. Did I cause that? No. So you want to shoot the messenger.
Trolling abuse? Not one iota.
I’ve said that all additional costs of anyone with a disability should be met in full by all of us. However that also means people with no such extra costs get nothing. Is that abuse of the disabled? Not one bit.
So sit back, read what I have written, rather than what you think I’ve written.
As for credibility, how do you get the Frank Gallagers of this world of ICB? You can’t tell me and neither can anyone else who has attacked me.
Plan the ball and not the man.
What total claptrap. Where is your evidence that lots of money has been going to people who don’t need help and who should not have qualified? Again, you have no evidence. The only credible evidence is the estimated 0.3% IB and 0.5% DLA fraud rates. It is obvious to any reasonable person that the overwhelming majority of claimants are genuine. They have been through stringent medical tests and, with the exception of a tiny percentage of frauds, genuinely et the tough criteria. The fact that you cannot accept that is very revealing and totally abhorrent.
The current reforms are not about helping the disabled with their extra expenses. How exactly will the the 12 month limit on CBSESA help the disabled? How will stopping the lower rate care component of DLA help the disabled? How will stopping the mobility component to council funded care home residents help the disabled?
Our welfare spending is not particularly generous compared to other countries so again I question the motives of someone who pretends that there is no money left and the country is insolvent. That is quite obviously a lie given that we can seemingly afford not to collect £35 billion in tax (ie 9 times the amount of these vicious cuts!) not to mention the tens of billions on irrelevant nuclear weapons and wars. We can also seemingly waste £150 million pa on Atos and their appeal costs. We can also quite happily waste £675 million on the new PIP assessments. There are, I am sure, plenty of other aress where money can be saved if our politicians wanted to get their priorities right.
If you were being truthful about wanting all the extra costs of disability to be met then not only would you condemn this vile Bill but you would be campaigning for significant extra funds. Current levels of DLA are nowhere near sufficient to cover most people’s extra costs and yet this Bill will take away a whole level of DLA. That is why it is so obvious that this is about saving money and saving money only. Why else did the government lie about the increase in DLA claimant numbers (it was actually less than half of their figure), and not correcting this lie when the Bill was debated in the Commons even though they had been corrected on the issue?
Why have so many government ministers misrepresented the fraud figures? To scapegoat people for their failings…and yet some gullible fools fall for it!
You give yourself away by comparing claimants to Shameless characters. That applies to a tiny minority. Do you think a chronically disabled person, whom an often unqualified Atos “professional” thinks can self propel a wheelchair just 60 metres on level ground (which does not exist in the real world) is really “fit for work”? Are they a Frank Gallagher? Seeing as less than 1 in 12 employers would employ someone on IB who has been deemed fit for work, are these employers prejudiced bigots or do they merely recognise an unfair assessment process, as any reasonale person would?
I have read what you have written. All your posts ignore the actual facts and are posted with an anti-disability angle. I know full well where you stand on this.
http://www.shu.ac.uk/_assets/pdf/cresr-woib-report-2010.pdf
See this report for details.
Factual. Peer reviewed. Not made up by me. Recent.
Just one bit for you to consider just ot show that you’re numbers are wrong.
This part of the research identifies four main contributory factors to the increase in the number of
women on IB since the early 1980s:
• Hidden unemployment. These are the women who could be expected to have been in
employment in a genuinely fully employed economy – an estimated 430,000 in all.
• Rising labour force participation. This has led to a commensurate increase in the number of
women on IB of around 125,000.
• An ageing population. This has increased the number of IB claims by women by an estimated
35,000, since the likelihood of claiming IB rises with age.
• A diversion of lone parents from Income Support. This accounts for around 125,000 women
on IB.6
There is little evidence that any deterioration in the underlying health of the working age population
has contributed to the increase in IB claims among women.
There is clear statistical evidence of a link between the local and sub-regional demand for labour
and female IB claims. There is also clear evidence of a link between the male and female sides of
the labour market. In simple terms, job loss and unemployment among men is being transmitted, via
competition in the labour market, to higher IB claims among women in the same places.
My figures are not wrong and the evidence that I have used is from work published this year by an acknowledged expert in this field.
Your evidence is sourced from 3629 people. Mine is from nearly 100 times as many people and is, therefore, obviously far more compelling!
The study analysed 28 years of the General Household Survey, using data collected between 1974 and 2005. Information was available from about 360,000 people aged 20-59. The analysis compared the employment rates of people who reported a limiting long-standing illness with the prospects of other people with no health problem, taking account also of their age, family position, educational background and so on. “LLI” is a loose definition of disability, but the research was also able to compare the outcomes for people with more or less disadvantaging sets of health conditions, available in some years of the sequence.
Amongst his findings were:
•There is little sign that the growth in the numbers out of work over the years has mainly been associated with minor sets of impairments.
•There is little sign that disabled people are especially sensitive to the ups and downs of the business cycle.
•Although there was a substantial shift in the ratio of incapacity-related benefit payments to disability-disadvantage up to about 1990, there is little sign that this ratio was influenced by major changes in the rules governing eligibility for benefits.
He also points out:
•The prevalence of disability (the proportion of working age adults who report a limiting long-standing illness) rose from 14% in 1975 to 18% in 1996, before falling back again to 16% in 2004.
•The ‘disability employment penalty’ is a measure of the extent to which disabled people are less likely to have a job than otherwise similar non-disabled people. It increased from 17% in 1987 to 28% in 2000 – but has not reduced since then.
•These figures refer to all people with limiting health conditions. It is commonly assumed that most of the changes in prevalence and in employment prospects have affected people with relatively minor impairments – but the research shows, on the contrary, that people with severely disadvantaging sets of health conditions have been more, not less, affected by the trends.
•Payments of the main social security benefits (Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disability Allowance) lagged behind the number of disadvantaged disabled people in the 1970s and early 1980s, especially for women. But they had caught up by 1990.
•The detailed analysis made possible by the series of surveys suggests that changes in disabled peoples’ employment rates or in benefit payments have not coincided with major changes in the social security rules and procedures.
•Disabled people are very sensitive to long-term geographical variations in the health of regional labour markets; while non-disabled people have similar prospects, wherever they live.
•But disabled people’s employment is hardly affected by booms or busts in the national economy.
•People without educational qualifications are more likely to be disabled, and their employment rates are more affected by disability, than (at the other extreme) people with degrees. Both of these tendencies have increased in intensity over time, so that the current generation of unqualified people has very high rates of disability, and the disabled members of the group have very low rates of employment. But the number of poorly educated people in Britain has been declining over the decades, so very little of the overall growth in the number of disabled people without work can be explained by the skills effect.
•The fact that well-educated people are relatively less affected by disability helps to show that it is not disability, on its own, that determines outcomes, but the interaction between disability and opportunities. Disability nevertheless has a substantial effect across the spectrum.
•The research helps to counter the idea that some disabled people are unequivocally capable of work, while others are wholly incapable. It supports instead the concept of disadvantage – a sliding scale of employment probabilities affected both by the nature and severity of people’s impairments, and by the willingness of employers to hire them.
That, together with the factual evidence that I provided from the OECD incapacity related expenditure figures (ie nearly 60% below the OECD average in 1980 and only just above average now) proves that I am correct.
Typically with your agenda you have been highly selective in what you use from that report. Just a few quotes here from your report which show that you are twisting what it says to support your anti-disability agenda:
“None of this is intended to suggest that the heath problems and disabilities affecting the women (and men) who claim IB are anything less than real, or that the older industrial areas where IB claimant rates are highest do not have higher underlying levels of ill health.”
“once an individual has lost their job because of ill health or disability, in a difficult local labour market they are less likely to find a way back into work. Employers have the option of taking on the fit and healthy instead.”
“In a weaker labour market, even a modest degree of ill health or disability is likely to prejudice an individual’s chances of gaining and holding down employment.”
“even modest incapacities can
prove to be a formidable obstacle, especially if an individual has no special qualifications or training
to offer.”
So your report confirms that I was right by firstly that IB claimants are overwhelmingly genuine as their illnesses and disabilities are real. It also confirms that I was right in highlighting the extreme difficulties that such people face with respect to employment.
The credible evidence from numerous sources backs up my view that the overwhelming majority of IB claimants are totally genuine. The minimal evidence provided by you is not compelling and you have had to be very selective in what you quote as part of the report also fully backs up my view.
If you still keep maintaining your abhorrent stance, in the face of the credible evidence, that many genuine claimants (ie the 99.7% who correctly met the assessment criteria) somehow are not genuine then there is no point in continuing this.
Re some of Lord Blagger’s other very spurious and inaccurate claims, here is the credible evidence.
Firstly, the evidence shows that the overwhelming majority of claimants are totally genuine. It is very ignorant therefore to wildly proclaim that a lot of claimants are not deserving. Estimated IB fraud is 0.3% and estimated DLA fraud is 0.5%. Those figures are based on 95% confidence limits (ie for DLA fraud, the DWP are 95% certain that the actual figure is between 0.2% and 0.8%)….ie compelling evidence that the figure is very low.
http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/fem/fem_oct09_sep10.pdf
Re our welfare spending, our spending is not generous. The most up to date OECD tables have us 15th out of 34 countries for total welfare spending, or 18th out of 34 if you exclude health spending.
http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?datasetcode=SOCX_AGG
Also, if you look at UK public spending figures you will see that our total welfare spending is significantly less now than it was in the 1980′s so is not the huge problem that some people try and make out. Sadly some ignorant people need a scapegoat and the disabled are the easiest to pick on.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1980_2015&state=UK&view=1&expand=40&units=p&fy=2011&chart=40-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&color=c&title=Welfare Spending Chart
Re Atos, the number of successful appeals show that they are not fit for purpose. The actual figures for successful appeals for the year 2010/11 were:
DLA 19400 of 50900
ESA 47600 of 127100
IB 15600 of 31200
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/tribs-stats/quarterly-tribs-stats-q4-2010-11.pdf
That makes 82600 successful appeals in just one 12 month period. As Atos took over the contract when they bought Sema in 2004 it is obviously safe to assume that the total number of successful appellants has reached hundreds of thousands by now, which cannot be acceptable.
Add to that the fact that Atos fail to provide even the most basic access and facilities for the disabled at its assessment centres and it beggars belief how they have managed to secure such a lucrative contract worth many hundreds of millions of pounds.
Details published on the Atos website reveals that more than 20% of its 141 medical assessment centres, used primarily for employment and support allowance medicals, do not have wheelchair access.
In addition, out of all 141 Atos centres, only around 50 have dedicated parking on site and just one centre –Wrexham – is listed as having disabled parking. And even then it’s only one single space. Other centres rely on public car parks, which may be five or ten minutes walk away.
31 of Atos’ medical examination centres are not even on the ground floor, with Chesterfield actually perched on the 5th floor.
16 centres have no chairs with arms, vital where claimants have problems with rising from sitting. Others are listed as having just a single chair with arms.
Twenty seven centres do not even supply drinking water for claimants, who may be kept waiting a very long time for their assessment.
Very worryingly, in spite of the many thousands of claimants with continence problems, no details of whether the centres have toilets – let alone disabled toilets – are given.
http://www.atoshealthcare.com/UserFiles/File/fact-sheets/2011/Assessment%20Centre%20Location%20List.xls
Re the WCA, the criticism of this tick box health assessment has been so wide and from so many sources that any reasonable person would acknowledge that it is not fit for purpose and is there purely to save money. Just looking at the first descriptor, how exactly is it fair to deem someone who an often unqualified health care “professional” thinks would be able to self-propel a wheelchair just 60 metres on level ground as “fit for work” given that no outside ground or pavement is level and how many people live within 60 metres of work or public transport? You can apply the same thing to many other descriptors.
Also, given that the vast majority (less than 1 in 12) of employers will not take on someone who has been deemed fit for work,
http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/hro/news/1018801/employers-ill-prepared-incapacity-benefit-review
then either these employers are actively discriminating against the disabled or they believe that they are not actually “fit for work”. I would suggest that the latter is the case and more conclusive evidence that the WCA is purely there to save money and is not fit for purpose.
As for the 12 month time limited on contribution based ESA for those in the WRAG, that has to be one of the most obscene proposals that I have seen. You can contribute for many years then lose all your support (an estimated 300-400,000) just because a partner takes home more than £140 per week or you have a small amount of savings. And at the same time there are strong rumours that the Child Benefit changes for high earners will be watered down! You choose to have a child but you don’t choose to have a disability.
On DLA, the government stated that it wants to save 20% from the DLA bill before they had even devised the new medical. Given that the estimated fraud rate is just 0.5% this is clearly about setting an arbitrary target to save money rather than actually helping people. The fact that the PIP proposals will have only 2 care components (instead of the 3 under DLA) means that hundreds of thousands of genuine claimants will lose vital support.
Also, if the government were genuinely interested in helping the disable, wouldn’t they be doing something to help those who don’t claim for what they are entitled to (an estimated £10bn+ pa)?!
Another point to bear in mind is that it is a total fallacy to claim that we cannot afford to support the disabled. The arbitrary targets set for DLA and ESA cuts will save around £4bn pa and yet the uncollected tax amounts to an estimated £35bn. Add in the tens of billions of pounds wasted on the likes of Trident and the war in Afghanistan and we could easily afford to support the disabled if we had our priorities right.
It is also a fallacy to claim that or sickness benefits are generous. Even right wing think tank Demos acknowledges that such benefits are ” not only low but also insufficient for most people’s financial needs.” and ” relatively ungenerous at the individual and household level.”
Before the election, David Cameron promised to protect the vulnerable. His Welfare Reform Bill proves that he was not telling the truth. Many hundreds of thousands of genuine people in need will lose vital support and these vicious cuts should not be allowed to become law.
Dear Baroness Murphy,
Please don’t respond to legitimate criticism and concern with a patronising wave of your hand.
I DON’T have disabilities or a long term health problem, but I can see that Atos doesn’t get it wrong “sometimes” but the majority of the time.
I can see that your government is promoting a message that people on benefits are workshy freeloaders.
I’m begging you & your civil servants to actually take the time to listen to the people who really know what it’s like to wake in the morning and realise this is going to be a day when it’s too painful to get out of bed. Or the people who have to weigh up if they spend their money on heating or food in the winter.
We should judge a civilisation by the way it treats its most vulnerable citizens. On this evidence we are failing badly.
I don’t deny that unemployment figures were hidden as something else, which is hardly the fault of the claimants today who have to suffer the indignities of these assessments. Also during those years you mention, people were ill more with heart disease and cancers that were incurable. I know this because my grandmother died without any hope of the very same cancer I was cured of, as did my father of heart disease. (although you could call it obesity if you want to be mean about it, fact is he was still very ill) They came from a time that food was sparce when they were younguns and weren’t brought up on a wholesome diet therefore suffered the consequences. I can’t speak for others but only for my own family but it is blaringly obvious to me why people would be ill and on benefits.
Also count in the millions of miners who went down our pits in so called hot spots and got extremely ill in the process. Maybe they weren’t written off unjustly on benefits, they actually had long term health problems and that’s what’s being covered over with these assessments.
You can’t gloss over the fact that thousands of genuine ill and disabled people are going to suffer the consequences of not just bad policy but downright irresponsible behaviour of politicians who sit in the comfort and luxury of their houses surrounded by furniture tax payers paid for, traveling at the expense of the tax payer and then creaming off the top of their experience later in life when they’re thrown out of office, as Tony Blair is doing right now.
Life time of benefits? I think you MP’s are getting more out of that than we, don’t you think?
Please open your eyes Lord Blagger because we, the people who are the ones suffering, are trying to tell you exactly how it is but I can see that it just isn’t sinking in.
That would explain Merthy Tydfel, but not similar levels of ICB in Liverpool.
You can’t gloss over the fact that thousands of genuine ill and disabled people are going to suffer the consequences of not just bad policy but downright irresponsible behaviour of politicians who sit in the comfort and luxury of their houses surrounded by furniture tax payers paid for, traveling at the expense of the tax payer and then creaming off the top of their experience later in life when they’re thrown out of office, as Tony Blair is doing right now.
Exactly. You are coming round to the real reason. They have kept vast numbers of people on ICB, for political reasons and run up vast debts. They have committed huge amounts of personal fraud as well.
Now the reality is here. There is no money. They spent it. So what happens now?
1. Those who were on ICB for political reasons won’t get it. As a result, they have no choice to implement testing and change the line at which ICB is paid.
2. As a direct result of this government mess, there will be collateral damage.
That’s why I said my preferred route was to set the threshold higher and accept that there will be some that shouldn’t get that end up with ICB. The government hasn’t done that.
As for frequent testing, if the condition is one that won’t improve – test infrequently. If its one that does improve, test frequently.
I think its you who need to open your eyes, and it does seem you are getting there.
It’s not me who has made the rules. It’s me you need. You need me to pay lots of money so that people can be on ICB, and to pay the governments debts. If you don’t have me, and others like me, you won’t get anything.
PS. Periodically, a thank you would be appreciated.
lol it seems troll are given free reign on this forum although people who challenge them have their comments deleted.
What Lord Troll is doing is pathetic really as the Internet wised up, not to mention got bored, of such silly games a decade ago.
Delete away.
I want some of you to imagine going to a dentist, having complex root canal work done, which goes wrong because the person performing the procedure has had 6 weeks training. Prior to that they were a midwife. The root canal work prevents you from eating, causes you immense pain, and as a result you have to have your tooth out. Most people would sue the pants of the dental practice that allowed this to happen.
Everyday, someone somewhere is being assessed by an ATOS employee, who has no prior knowledge of their ailment, but after sitting a very short course, is now an *expert*. Their observations and interpretations are then inaccurately recorded, as they do not understand the complex needs of the claimant. The DWP then decide that the claimant is fit to work, when the claimant in fact is mentally ill and unable to think clearly from one day to the next. Pride and shame have made that person try and pretend to be normal. As a result, they are forced to claim JSA, and try to look for work. But it doesnt work, and they forget to renew their housing benefit, and end up homeless. It happens, all the time, all over the country. Who can they sue? No one.
WCA were brought in for one reason, and that was to save the government money. They have done that, and cost people their lives, homes, and dignity in the process.
I hope that you never have to see someone cope with mental illness. It is the most debilitating thing to witness.
@TWN Or nant ” you opined ( that means gave opinion ) quote : “You can apply for the funeral grant for yourself £700, and that apart from about £300 is enough for a basic funeral otherwise the NHS has you even in death.Quite how is best not discussed.”
pretty obvious that YOU have not arranged a funural lately , a “basic ” one including all duties and a reasonable headstone will cost you £4+k ( maybe a bit less for cremation ) this i know as i had to bury my wife some years back and everything has gone up since then – sooooooo like much you have written, you are spouting bo*****s – at least ways blagger is more articulate – even if he is wrong about much of what he says ( imo of course )
why dont you leave this to people who CAN debate with facts – not idiotic c**P like you are coming out with ??
my apologies for needing to say the above baroness murphy – but you see what we are up against even trying to have a reasonable discussion with some people ( rolls eyes skywards )
Dear Baroness Murphy, In reply to your question below
“How are you to be assessed for the more help you might later need if you won’t agree to be properly assessed? It’s this refusal to see the possible benefits of a regular assessment which I don’t understand. An assessment isn’t a punishment; it’s trying to find out what you really need and the best way to supply it. It is this aspect of the Bill which has the greatest potential to enhance the help which people like you get. I don’t understand why you feel assessment is a punishment, truly I don’t comprehend why you should think that it is. I hope very much you will see any future assent as an honest attempt to assess your real needs. ”
Speaking personally, I find it not a punishment, but a form of harrassment and torture.
What else would you describe having to, year after year undergo an assessment, in which the report produced is akin to a work of fiction? Where your benefits are messed around (rememeber the knock on effect of housing benefit etc also stopping and having to be re-instated).
When you have to appeal, and wait on average a year for the appeal?
Where sometimes, you even have to go to a upper tribunal (and in my case, not get paid whilst appealing at that stage).
Where, each and every time, you successfully win at tribunal?
Where after winning, quite often benefits take time to get sorted back out, and sometimes are messed up yet again?
Where a short time period (3 months now) later, you are called back in for another assessment and the process starts again.
And so the process continues, year after year.
The process is damaging to mental health, its damaging to relationships, its damaging to finances, its hindering recovery.
Even the process of having to fill in the forms over and over, becomes like a form of torture, not least because you have to concentrate on the negative aspects of your condition, which aggravates mental health, but because you just know (and each time your proven right) that what you put on the form will be ignored or altered by the assessor when they come to compiling the report.
Its not nice reading a medical report full of lies, innacuracies or contradictions either.
And then to top it all off, you have all the major political parties, and the media engaging on a all out war against the sick and disabled with massive amounts of propaganda, combined with a reluctance to print the truth.
If you think its torture to fill in a form, don’t do it.
INPUT FROM THE OTHER SITE IN ANSWER TO LORD BLAGGER:
I have answered your question at least three times now Lord Blagger so would refer you to my last blog timed at 2.09 on 30th Sept above.
CONSULTANT MEDICAL OPINION is considered to be EXPERT testimony in every court in the land and the only people who won’t accept it is gvt. With respect, you are the one claiming there isn’t enough cash but people in receipt of long term disability benefits paid for that security, in good faith, when well enough to work – or that was the story told to us by successive gvts. We didn’t cause this financial crisis but do seem to be the focus of a lot of blame… If there really is such a lack of cash then I suggest you tell the bankers, who created the crisis, to refund their bonuses….
GPs are now required to run their practises as a business as a gvt requirement. They don’t like it but do it. Therefore, it could also be a gvt requirement to incentivise every Consultant to pass a MEDICALLY QUALIFIED EXPERT OPINION as to if their patients were fit enough to consider some form of employment. That way we could remove the £100 million per anum costs of the highly discredited Atos assessments, and save on the £50 million per anum and rising costs of the appeal tribunals, so that’s an immiediate saving of £150 million per anum.
As for your previous blogs, your comments about voluntary work were both predictable and lamentable and that is why the chronically sick and disabled population are living in fear. A group of able bodied and medically unqualified politicans sitting in judgement and demonstrating, virtually every time they speak, that they already have a bias set in stone. Are you going to tell Baroness Jane Campbell to get a job too I wonder? Before you reply, may I refer you to Jane’s comments during the debate in the noble House, that can be found at:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?gid=2011-09-13a.658.0
The chronically sick and disabled people of the UK didn’t demand anything more before gvt decided to introduce tyranny and fear into welfare.
It was a previous gvt who now freely admit that SOME people previously on unemployment benefit were moved to ICB in the distant past to manipulate the unemployment figues! What an admission of GUILT. Shame on gvt for doing that, and shame on whomsoever accepted that offer but, if destined to sudden onset poverty with the loss of a job and no hope of finding another full time job soon, I guess I could understand the temptation. BUT, the blame lies at the door of gvt for introducing that unacceptable scheme and for applying it.
NOW we are to believe that such a bogus system was introduced but NO-ONE thought to keep any list as to who was removed from the unemployment register and placed onto ICB,as bogus claimants, so now everyone on ICB is suspect… Yet another example of a catastrophic administration INCOMPETENCE by the DWP… and then you acuse me of being bogus because I have dedicated any good days to actively persuing a quality of life by using my skills to help charities. Would you prefer me to watch daytime TV perhaps as, clearly, you seem to have a lot of presumptions about ‘the disabled’ and, if we put in enormous effort and determination to pretend we have some sort of quality of life, along comes an able bodied Lord to tell us to get a job. I suggest you try my life for a week your Lordship. Some days I can’t actually breath, other days I can’t physically walk and I use Morphine as limited pain relief.
Given the contents of the damning evidence within the research report: Welfare Reform – Redress for the Disabled, as distributed to 360 members of the House of Lords in advance of the welfare reform debate, identifying Unum Privident Insurance as the 2nd worst insurance company in the US, confirmed by the American Ass for Justice, it is amazing that you presume to advise me to:
Forget the US giant. It was introduced by the UK government. It is UK policy.
That’s just NOT good enough Lord Blagger and now I’ve finally had it confirmed that all this distress was planned long ago, and we are on the road to US style health funding using insurance, I’ll be sure to pass on that information. I suggest you take a look at the following website:
http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2011/09/15/unums-game-plan/
With reference to your blog on 26th Sept, claiming there is no evidence against Atos, I refer you to a selection of detailed reports by frontline charities and to the very detailed research report: Atos Healthcare or Disability Denial Factories and that can be found at:
http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosveterans.html
It is part of a much larger website, by a man known as Mike Bach, and his disturbing evidence can be found at:
http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatos.html.
Mike had a brain tumour covering 75% of his brain and you think it’s reasonable to force him to have constant assessments to PROVE he isn’t fit enough for work? When dealing with the sudden onset of 3 x Grand Mal epileptic fits per day he retained some quality of life, and the all important independance, by creating his website. Are you going to tell him to get a job too?
You see the problem here? I can also refer you to 10 consecutive annual reports by His Honour Judge Robert Martin, as President of the Appeal Tribunals, who condems Atos medicals each and every year – and he’s already got a job, or don’t you believe him either?
This one size fits all mentality is dangerous and the additional stress endured by people already so vulnerable is a national disgrace.
Your claims that I should be in paid employment because I refused to end my quality of life when profound illness ended my medical career is typical of the problems found when able bodied and medically unqualified people presume to judge people with chronic illness and disablities. FORGET the Atos manual Lord Blagger and start reading the very detailed reports by frontline charities such as MacMillan, Citizens Advice and the Disability Alliance because they all read my reports and they all agree that the WCA, as conducted by Atos, is totally and emphatically unfit for purpose. They are in the front line of this gvt imposed medical tyranny, meeting desperately ill and profoundly disabled people every day, so I urge you to believe them if not me.
You don’t give me anything Lord Blagger and, as for my War Pension that includes an UNEMPLOYABILITY SUPPLEMENT because I am too ill to enjoy paid employment I believe, as do millions of others, that I funded my pension – that IS NOT A BENEFIT – in advance due to contributions made during many years of paid professional employment. Is that not what national insurance was meant to be for?
Mo Stewart
Reply
There’s no dispute that people not entitled to a benefit should not receive it, and I would hope there is no dispute that there should be appropriate, vigilant, cost-effective and proportionate means of detecting those who have been granted a benefit incorrectly or fraudulently or were once entitled to it but whose circumstances have changed.
The problem is that almost any investigation will require some form of intrusiveness, whether it is corresponding with doctors or requiring applicants to undergo tests.
I mention the words appropriate, vigilant, cost-effective and proportionate – the word vigilant speaks for itself, but cost-effective must mean some measure of intelligent risk-analysis (for example, a double amputee is unlikely to be faking it and some alleged disabilities are anecdotally often claimed fraudulently); proportionate ties in with cost-effectiveness and is essentially about not overdoing the process to make the process itself part of the means by which applicants are deterred from claiming; and appropriate means that the tests should be tailored to the age and type of disability being reviewed, and have regard to the pain, stress or suffering the applicant may suffer when attempting the test. It would greatly help if people who knew the applicant could be used to assess their suitability for benefit instead of regarding their testimony as essentially worthless. I really doubt the wisdom of entrusting this exercise to one colossus of a company. It’s the “contract it to Capita to solve all the problems of the world” syndrome. which experts can tell you is contagious between parties.
I suspect the workers for this company are on some form of bonus based on the number of claimants ceasing to claim and the value of money so saved. There’s something a little sick in that.
@Dan Filson:
If the people receiving DLA were not entitled to it, they woudn’t be getting it. So what government has done, is, put the fox in charge of the chickens. So it is not an objective assessment as the outcome is planned prior to examination.
What is happening here is, the identical situation as you have with Greece being found financially viable to be part of the Euro. Duncan Smith and his cohorts decided that they had all made a big dent in the treasury funds we gave them to run our country. And low and behold, they played roulette with it. So, rather than attack those with whom they colluded in the robbery, Bankers, et al,, they decided to attack the poverty stricken, disabled and working poor. There are more of those but they have no voice.
So, what they are teling us is, they have no money left. Except, that is, to fight in Afghanistan, Libya and anywhere else they can gang together and sell arms to, making huge profits for self as they do. Also, we have to worry about those people in countries with despots who fly their own jets and send these luxurious rides to collect our politicians who have betrayed us. Oh, and don’t forget, those funds of International Aid are ring fenced, so, we can’t touch that. The people of the world outside our own defenceless are seen as more equal than our deserving in every way. Can’t touch the murderers we are paying off either, as they may end up shopping our political brockers, just as Gadaffi’s paper work shows how Blair is the blood sucker of the world.
Then, we mustn’t forget the pay off to friends, the developers and financial hedge fund dinner pals, after all, they coughed up the money to put them into power didn’t they? They are looking for their portion and will get nasty if the deal is reneged on.
Then we come down to the 12 billion they spent on a useless NHS computer they have to put in the dump. Who got paid for that piece of crap I wonder. Any of them? We also mustn’t forget the giant expense fiddlers in the business. As well as all the corruption money we read so much about in the papers. Letting off expenses cheats with a doleful cry of, ‘there but for the grace of God, go I dear.’
Add it all together with quango fiascos and our balloned immigration debt, and you find these will all take precedence above those who have paid for the welfare benefits in perpetuity.
The sick, the old and the poor have no leverage because they hold no asset. Which is not entirely true, as the little they may have invested in their home is snatched away from them at a drop of the hat, in order to let in the carpet baggers who can make up a nice little property portfolio out of it. Remember how the Duke of Westminster’s family did very nicely out of that little lark over the centuries. The old Tory saying is, buy low sell high. That’s the way to do it.
And guess what, as your asset value falls, theirs increases. Look at the price those places in Kensignton Palace Road go for now. Climbing at a rate unseen world wide they are.
So, what I am saying is, they have so many of their needy friends on the look out for benefits, they just can’t get around to those who deserve the soup in the pot.
Time for a pro bono lawyer to apply to the European Courts on Human Rights grounds on behalf of the disabled sick of the UK, under the discrimnation act, so they can claw back what is rightfully theirs. Those lawyers could do it on a no win no fee basis. Which should see a healthy profit at the end of it. If they play their cards right, that is.
‘If the people receiving DLA were not entitled to it, they woudn’t be getting it.’ Sadly this is not always the case. How many inappropriate payments are made can be argued but nobody can argue in all seriousness that 100.00% of all awards are correct and still applicable after a passage of time.
Therefore there is a need for periodic review of claimants. But such reviews should be appropriate, vigilant, cost-effective and proportionate. So I would risk-review the claimants before plunging in, and certainly would hesitate before authorising an enormously costly 100% review. It cannot make sense to review a case where doctors have certified a man is dying of liver cancer or is a double amputee. Either will, if they feel capable, seek work if well enough. The employer would have to make ‘appropriate adjustments’. Perhaps the state should fund reasonable adjustments. But to spend valuable resources bullying the severely disabled or chronically sick back into work and off benefits is a misuse of scarce resources. I know all about the platform speech by the man who had lost both legs and sought employment. Many amputees will do so. But amputees are a small minority of the DLA population, as for that matter are those dying of cancer. Proper targetting, which I would have thought the coalition supported, would go for appropriate, vigilant, cost-effective and proportionate investigation, not a 100% one-size-fits-all approach.
muffie02 – when you’ve finished rolling your eyes to the sky, I respectfully suggest you check out the report on this website:
http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/WELFARE-REFORM-Exec-Summary-Revised-final.pdf
It was quoted during the recent lengthy debate on welfare reform in the Lords and it’s as bad as it gets…
Dear Baroness Murphy,
THANK YOU for setting up this website thread.
Since you started the thread on exactly seven days ago on 24th September 2011 you have achieved……
119 POSTS
….. so far (and excepting Trolls).
HOPEFULLY the very fact that (please forgive me) a relatively obscure website with a very new and not well signposted thread can attract around ten dozen posts PROVES that this subject is IMPORTANT?
Last but not least, PLEASE can you bring the issue of the dangerous nature and consequences of the current welfare reforms, and that these really do need making FIT-FOR-PURPOSE to the debating chamner of the House of Lords?
Many thanks,
Calum McLean.
RichieVilla says that Britain scores low in support, even lower if (“)health payments are excluded(“)
by which is doubtless meant “illnesses” payments (?)
because Britain still has no health-support, maintenance, and further-building service, despite the reasonably-successful National Illnesses, Hospitals and Pharmacological Service misleadingly, and thereby arguably ‘corruptly’, titled National Health Service.
This NHS’s ‘Remit’ exludes all health-building education, alternative and complementary health and remediation preactices, and self-helping intentions and needs such as help to pursue one’s health-maingtenance and improvement through such published works as
“Awareness Through Movement” (Feldenkrais);
(and Self-Awareness Heals by Shafarman);
“The New Rules of Posture” (Mary Bond); and
“How To Win Every Argument” (Petrie).
We get nowhere because our minds are being definitively corrupted, “verballed”; and both our workplace and our lifeplace are stifled against specific self-healthing, and against effectively-supportive and mutual self-help, and self-education.
So the Welfare Reform Bill needs to positively reform all of that, and ‘positivisingly’ so.
Parliament, the People, and Professions in all Sectors, need to create a working link with bigger legislation positivising the Health-Building of the whole Nation, most importantly in the Lifeplace because the employers who own the Workplace are responsible for worker-health and fitness and because the Lifeplace envelops us for 75% of our time, whereas the Workplace owns us for only 25%.
And the whole world’s health, and welfare, is also desperately awaiting such a leadership.
I fear, Baroness Murphy, that you have missed the point in many of the comments. Some of your comments were, frankly, very concerning.
Regarding assessments, for example, and the concerns and reluctance disabled or ill people express, you have simply dismissed their concerns. For example, you say above:
“How are you to be assessed for the more help you might later need if you won’t agree to be properly assessed? It’s this refusal to see the possible benefits of a regular assessment which I don’t understand.”
If you do not understand why people are so reluctant or fearful, perhaps it might be an idea to find out why?
Ask disabled people, listen to what they say and take it on board. Do not simply dismiss it because you do not agree. You do not have their perspective; you do not live their lives.
Much of the Welfare Reform Bill looks to cut money that is very much needed and essential by and for disabled people and the long-term ill.
The notion that those on benefits are living like kings is nonsense – and stories highlighted in the media do NOT reflect real life for most disabled people who are unable to work.
Many disabled people unable to work I know simply cannot afford to pay their bills each month. However, they cannot get extra hours, take a second job or get an overdraft or payday loan. As a result, debts just mounts up.
As another example, families with a disabled parent and disabled child (and there are many) often require an extra bedroom, as it can be impossible for the child to share or as, in some cases, for husband and wife to share a bed.
Families like this are now being told they will have to move under the changes to Housing Benefit and Local Housing Allowance. This is disgraceful behaviour by policy makers.
At the same time, Councils are saying that they have no suitable properties. What are such families to do? What do they do? Where do they go? The policy needs refining.
If you cut benefits to disabled people, it does not negate or remove their needs. These people do not somehow just get better or vanish. Ultimately, costs are merely transferred: to the NHS, nursing homes, state support etc. This cost does not get removed.
In the past when this has happened, it put great stress on the NHS and did push costs up. The very policies the Govt is planning to save money is going to do exactly the opposite. I can remember when cuts led to people and families having to live in guest houses and B&Bs. That mistake cost taxpayers a fortune, not to mention putting people into a rut many never escaped.
With high rents (which is the real problem in that domain), we could see this happen again, especially in areas that do not have suitable properties on the 30th percentile.
Regarding assessments, it is all too easy to make assumptions or generalisations but you will not help disabled or ill people unless you listen to them. Concepts for policy should involve disabled people and be based on facts and conclusions, rather than assumptions and misinterpretations.
With respect, some of your comments seem to show a lack of insight and understanding. There is little to indicate that you relate to people’s situations, let alone have a deep understanding.
It takes months or years for GPs, specialists, clinicians, nurses and others to get to grips with patients.
Conditions and disabilities are often complex and patient-specific. Only a doctor or specialist who knows both the condition/disability AND the patient could be qualified to assess needs. Quite often, people with the same disability/condition have very different needs.
Some disabilities/conditions and the patient’s needs change daily or more frequently. What if you assess someone on a ‘good day’?
Some are subjective and some rare. Some conditions can have other problems if connected to another disability or condition a patient/person might have. One needs expert knowledge and experience for assessing this.
It is ludicrous to suggest that an assessment of any value or credibility could be made by someone unfamiliar with a patient and/or unfamiliar with the intricacies of a disability/condition. One needs the quality of expertise and familiarity; the combination of knowledge, qualifications, training AND the experience of both patient and disability/condition in order to assess.
RichieVilla says that Britain scores low in support, even lower (“)if health payments are excluded(“)
by which is doubtless meant if “illnesses” costs payments are excluded (?)
This distinction is by no means “hair splitting”, because Britain still has no health-support, maintenance, and further-health-building service, despite the reasonably-successful National Illnesses, Hospitals and Pharmacological Service called the NHS
i.e. misleadingly and ‘corruptingly’ titled National Health Service.
This NHS’s ‘Remit’ exludes all health-building education, alternative and complementary health and remediation preactices, and self-helping intentions and needs such as help to pursue one’s health-maingtenance and improvement through such published works as
“Awareness Through Movement” (Feldenkrais);
(and Self-Awareness Heals by Shafarman);
“The New Rules of Posture” (Mary Bond); and
“How To Win Every Argument” (Petrie).
We get nowhere because our minds are being definitively corrupted, “verballed”;
and both our workplace and our lifeplace are stifled against specific self-healthing, and against effectively-supportive and mutual self-help, and self-education.
So the Welfare Reform Bill needs to positively reform all of that, and ‘positivisingly’ do so.
Parliament, the People, and Professions in all Sectors, need to create a working link with bigger legislation positivising the Health-Building of the whole Nation,
most importantly in the Lifeplace
because the employers who own the Workplace are responsible for worker-health and fitness,
and because the Lifeplace envelops us for 75% of our time, whereas the Workplace owns us for only 25%.
———————
And the whole world’s health, and welfare, is also desperately awaiting such a leadership.
Again, to Baroness Murphy.
With regards to “And please don’t tell me that Atos gets it wrong sometimes, I already know!
This entry was written at 10:55 ”
I can state, that in my particular case, on each and every occassion, atos has got it wrong.
Not just sometimes, every single time.
If we cannot trust the Lords to help us – Then who can we turn to – Cameron has proven he hates us (Being that he promised to care before election and once elected proved he will attack the disabled continually)
We have put our faith in you – The Lords – To make this man see sense!
ATOS = They are not doing their job right and millions is being wasted because of them – Use the NHS specialists and save billions!
Defecit = Go after the right people ! – Bankers, and people who do not pay their taxes as they are too busy spending this tax money on themselves! I know a man like this – He spends all his tax money on his ‘wants’ and then when tax bill comes in whines he has no money. Go after the companies who owe this country BILLIONS in unpaid tax – Dont let them off – get them to PAY
NHS = Stop breaking it apart and putting so much pressure on the doctors and nurses and start paying them properly.
Immigration = Why are all our jobs going to people out of this country (yes i know they tak less pay) If you let people from elsewhere have all the jobs – Dont say you are amazed when there are no jobs left for ENGLISH PEOPLE
And personally – I would say that any govt who gets voted in – If they do this on lies – Then they should get out! Cameron made promises he had no intention at all to keep to – These were words that he knew owuld win votes and he knew he would not be sticking to them – Therefore this whole govt is a lie, a farce. NOT the Govt many people thought they were voting for
Why are the disabled being treated in this way? The proven fraud figures being 0.5% (DLA) yet this govt will axe 20% off DLA meaning 19.5% of people thrown off ARE TRULY DISABLED
Why are you letting them throw us away like we are nothing? Why?
I am awaiting my call to ATOS – Who will tell me i am fine (Not that they will know anything about me or my condition – And will write off the doctors ive seen for the last 9yrs as know-nothigns as ATOS know more somehow
Thanks for all those comments, especially from people who managed to do so without being unmannerly. This is my final response to the comments on this blog but of course you are welcome to add more comments if you wish. The main complaint here is about the skilfulness and accuracy of Atos assessment process and I have already indicated that I agree with those comments: it is clearly not yet fit for purpose. But work continues and there is no reason in principle why it should not improve to become a suitable and professional process. Is anyone saying that a person seeking financial support for daily life on the grounds of extra needs caused through disability should NOT be properly assessed? Surely not. There has always been an assessment; it just hasn’t been very rigorous or accurate. I shall be pressing for the implementation to be improved but not for a reversal of the policy.
It is important to distinguish between a medical assessment which is carried out by a doctor for diagnostic purposes and an assessment process designed to assess capabilities in daily living. The former is helpful but it is the overall picture of capacities which is important. So I disagree with the view that a specialist assessment is all that the DWP need; every individual case is different.
The web site reports of suicides need examining with an eye to the complete picture every individual case is different and newspaper reports are notoriously inaccurate ,…they tend to report what others attribute the cause to but obviously do not record what the individual was thinking or feeling or the full circumstance, which may well be unrelated to benefit issues. I regret I find the web site Black Triangle Campaign to be nasty and inaccurate tosh and I am surprised that people should be taken in by it. The campaign to frighten people with disabilities is a disgrace. No wonder people are frightened, of something, remember, which hasn’t happened yet!
Many of you have given moving vignettes of the difficulties people with disabilities experience and how little in reality the State provides in the way of help. It is surely crucial that we concentrate what support the State can give on those who need it and distinguish between them and those who could with support return to work after a period of disability. People have a right to campaign for the all-inclusive status quo but like many other people in this country who are dissatisfied with the appalling cultural impact of the current system I have a right to express a view that the system is rotten and needs change.
Baroness Murphy, I am reading your last submission with great sadness as you have not taken onboard any of the genuine concerns and have not actually countered any of the evidence put to you with any credible evidence of your own.
That confirms to me that you know the real reason for this vicious Welfare Reform Bill….to save money with no consideration for the actual needs of the disabled. People are not stupid….there is no extra help for anybody, just huge cuts for hundreds of thousands of genuine people in need.
You ask whether anyone is saying that we should not be properly assessed. Sadly, yes there are such people….ie those who support the Welfare Reform Bill!
The current assessment process is clearly unfair. That is partly due to Atos incompetence and, in some cases, blatant lies, but it is also down to the unfair descriptors.
Being deemed able to self propel a chair 60 metres on level ground does not make you fit for work. Also, if the government were actually serious about helping disabled people back into work then why are they doing nothing to address the issue of less than 1 in 12 employers being willing to employ someone who has been deemed “fit for work”? The clear purpose of this vicious Bill is to shunt people onto JSA, or to leave people with no support at all.
Your point about having a different person assess you for daily living activities makes no sense. My condition is neurological. My neurologist is not there solely for diagnosis as you try to make out. I think that my neurologist would be rather alarmed and angry that you think he is just there to diagnose. He understands my condition, how it affects my daily activities both now and how it is likely to affect me in the future, and gives advice on managing the condition. Having someone without the required specialist knowledge of either you or the condition assess you after one short meeting via a series of tick boxes is clearly unfair. My condition is progressive so surely it is a waste of money to continually call back such people when they cannot get any better.
I think you are also clutching at straws re the suicides. I have looked at those cases and the evidence is pretty compelling. I would say that it is far more likely that these tragic cases will be just the tip of the iceberg.
Re the Black Triangle campaign, I don’t agree with some of their views but they also make plenty of valid points. I think that most of us are sensible enough to make our own minds up based on our research.
I would say that stopping contribution based ESA after 12 months for the WRAG is nasty….I would say that scrapping the lower rate care component of DLA, via the PIP reforms is nasty……I would say that the scrapping of the mobility allowance for those in council funded care homes is nasty…..I would say that a clearly unfair assessment process is nasty…..I would say that a policy designed purely to take money from the most likely group to already live in poverty (essential money, not money for luxuries) is nasty, and even more so when you consider the huge amounts of tax that are not collected and the huge amounts wasted on nuclear weapons and wars.
You say that we should not be worried by something that has not happened yet. You again are being rather dismissive as for many people it has already happened, via the unfair WCA assessment…over 82000 successful and highly stressful appeals last year alone! Many of these were then summoned back by Atos just a few weeks later!
Also, if we only worry about this unfair and vindictive Bill after it has been passed then obviously it will be too late to stop its vicious provisions.
Apart from the deeply immoral aspects of this Bill, the practicalities of it are of serious concern. The Treasury has warned that the reforms are in serious danger of arriving late and being billions of pounds over budget, or even failing altogether. How exactly is that going to help people?
Your dismissive comment about people wanting to “campaign for the all-inclusive status quo” again misses the point completely. Nobody is asking for that! We want a fair assessment process. We want genuine claimants to not be punished by huge arbitrary cuts. If a fair assessment process finds us “fit for work” then we want a fair chance of being considered by employers. That is not campaigning for a status quo.
While these consultations with politicians are better than nothing, this has sadly just confirmed how out of touch all our politicians are with the reality for millions of people. While I thank you for taking the time to post on here it is very sad to see how few of people’s genuine concerns that you have taken on board.
After being continually vilified and scapegoated by the media and some politicians with inaccurate figures and information, it would be nice if we finally were treated fairly.
If the government actually admitted what we all know…ie this Bill is purely designed to save money…then at least I could respect their honesty, if not their decency and lack of morals. However, by treating us like fools by expecting us to believe that this is about helping the genuinely disabled then it just reinforces the view of many that politicians of all parties are not fit for purpose. Cameron promised to protect the vulnerable. Cameron lied.
When this vile Bill becomes law it will be a very sad day for decency and compassion. Shame on all those who are responsible for making this happen!
Baroness Murphy, May I begin by saying I thank you for your concern regarding the accuracy of ATOS Healthcare assessments. I and many other disabled people have been forced into action by the current unfair deionisation of the disabled by the press and the Tory Led Government we have today. I draw your attention to George Osborne the Chancellor who informed the electorate he was going to crack down on Welfare Benefit Scroungers, his Party Leader David Cameron who added his assertion to this by calling those in receipt of Welfare Benefits Benefit scroungers, followed by Benefit fraudsters followed by Benefit cheats.
The press have been fed misleading information from Government sources and then allowed to “manufacture” stories of Benefit fraud around the statistics fed to them. This and other unnecessary attacks on the disabled of Great Britain, has resulted in the build-up of hatred against those of us whop are unfortunate enough to be able to work because of sickness and disability.
You wonder why web sites, blogs and forums dedicated to fighting the Government and ATOS Healthcare have arisen. The above is only the beginning of a long list of reasons why. If it was not for these web sites the general public would have gone like lambs to the slaughter and had their Benefits illegally suspended by supplying the Jobcentreplus Decision Makers with badly written, bogus reports which makes the claimant look like a liar.
Disability can strike anyone, including you or your family, if you were in our position you would have to resort to claiming Benefits, when you then had them removed by a few deftly aimed clicks of a mouse or keyboard, you would do as we are. But you will sadly never understand our plight because you are so far removed from our lifestyles you just couldn’t grasp it.
If you take a clo9se look at the history of the Black Triangle campaign and the other forums you will see ATOS have attacked each and every one. They did not do this by contacting the forum or blog owners directly; instead they did it in their usual cowardly manner and attacked the host companies. This caused many sites to be brought down over night. Why did they do this? Well they felt we were misusing their Logo or giving them a bad name and reputation. Well I ask you this, how come so many people are complaining about ATOS and the abuse they are raining down upon those of us who are disabled in the name of this cruel Government and on the wishes of a few millionaires?
In answer to a vquestion posed to my last post, 40% (unrepresented) of decisions are overturned at Tribunal. 70% (represented) are overturned at Tribunal stage. Source the Harrington Report. If this is not screaming that something is drastically wrong with what ATOS are doing then I don’t know what is. I personally take offence at the cavalier manner in which you admit ATOS do get it wrong ”sometimes” and yet stand by and watch a devastating bill like this go through the Lords without challenge? You should be doing all you can to stop this atrocity being forced upon those who contributed to your current position in Parliament, not idly standing by at the wish of a few corrupt men.
We are not going to stand by and watch our rights to Benefits we have pre paid for taken away at the whim of a Political Party who have no empathy with most of the electorate. We will fight this all the way, just so you understand clearly where I at least stand.
Dear Baroness Murphy,
Thank you for the decency to reply and engage. You refer to the Black Triangle site. As a disabled person, this doesn’t scare me. In fact it has stopped me going to Dignitas in Switzerland. I thank Black Triangle for keeping me alive.
You tell me not to be frightened of things that HAVEN’T happened yet. Sorry Baroness they HAVE. I am losing my home because you and your colleagues were UNABLE or unwilling to sort out this morally wrong and faulty Welfare Reform Bill at the second reading in the House of Lords. Yes? No?
I now have to go to hospital at a cost of well over £100 per day instead of living independently at less than £9 per day. I am sure you will pass the Welfare Reform Bill at third reading and this mess will get a magnitude worse.
By the way how can you say things haven’t happened yet? The Black Triange site was set up in the memory of Paul Reekie. He committed suicide because of the legislation the House of Lords were complicity in passing.
What about Richard Sanderson? He killed himself and left suicide notes explaining, and directing CULPABILITY at your enactments. What more compelling evidence do you need?
Worse, you have our trust as you are a qualified doctor and professor with expertise in these fields.
As a scientist how can you call the deaths of people ‘Tosh’. That is unmannerly. I am truly sorry that you find some comments offensive. But you now have 140 on your thread alone. Does that not inform you of the size of this mess? Does the strength of feeling not impact upon your human decency?
With respect Baroness, by your penultimate statement, you are now leaving and refusing to continue this debate with disabled people, you have abroggated what respect you had earnt. You have also lost the moral authority to sit in the House of Lords.
I shall now join the campaign to abolish your right to sit, and that of the other unelected Lords and Ladies at the House of Lords.
At least that is one piece of legislation this nightmare of a Coalition has gotten right. I wonder if the honorouble members may be a little more powerful in their views at self-preservation of their titles and seats, than they have been in defending the most vulnerable in society? It will be hard I know for those retired people earning £300 a day as a member of the wondeful debating chamber that is the House of Lords.
However, I now look forward to the day when the House of Lords has removed the titles of those who are unelected, and removed their right to sit in the House of Lords and pass legislation when, with respect Baroness, you have no elected mandate to do so, and will, with your honourable colleagues be permanently removed from your seat in the House of Lords.
Sadly for you and your colleagues, you do NEED to worry about losing your title, or at least your seat in the Lords. The Bill to remove you will shortly be on its way from the House of Commons, and ultimately you have as much chance of surviving as we disabled people do.
Irony! A marvellous thing.
Regards and best of luck without the £300 a day job.
Calum.
Thankyou Baroness Murphy for taking our comments and concerns on board.
Baroness Murhphy, I hope you will truly consider the points made above – including my own – and also look into the issues and problems raised. These are being experienced by some of the most vulnerable people in the country.
Regarding the ‘unmannerly’ comment you made, I would agree.
However, it also has to be considered that the experiences many people have had or are having has left them feeling as though the system treats them as though they are liars, and has also left them feeling like 3rd class cizitens.
This is bound to create a deep distrust of Government, immense frustration, deep resentment and extreme anger. People are, after all, only human and I do believe Govt & agencies, their systems, policies and procedures need to uphold people’s dignity and treat people with far more respect.
Thank you.
No one is complaining about being assessed Baroness Murphy, but every single person is complaining about being assessed unfairly.
And that’s the problem. the unfair assessments, the lies, the ESA 85 medical report fabrications,it’s a national scandal, and when the people of Britain find out in the future what’s really happening, (And they will sooner or later) heads will roll.
Because we are not going to give up Baroness Murphy, and the real truth will out in the end, and the Lord Blaggers will finally see the truth (Although i strongly suspect he is in denial and knows the truth) but I can assure you Lord Blagger will be nowhere to be seen, but skulking red faced under some rock.
I’ll end by saying since Oct 2008 Iv’e seen lots and lots of footprints going in to the ATOS centres, but I don’t see very many coming back out.
Oh and by the way, the scottish CAB wrote a report stating strongly that the ATOS assessments are not fit for purpose so go straight to the cabinet and ask Danny Alexander why ?.
Go on, he won’t hurt you, be bold go straight right up to him and ask him why ?.
So let me ask you.
Design a system that is fair.
1. That means those that need benefits get them
2. That those who can do some sort of work don’t get benefit.
3. Absolutely insures that the Frank Gallagers of claimants are denied.
4. Is fair to the people paying for it all.
@Lord Blagger:
‘Your little addition of ‘those who can do some work must not get benefits’ is a real eye opener.
So, where are all these jobs you feel these people can do going to come from? What are they? Where are they? And how much do they pay? Will it allow them to eat, pay their rent as well as look after their medical needs? Not if the minimum wage is anything to go by.
Then who will assist these disabled people once in these fabulous life changing jobs, if one can be found that is? I mean who is going to help them use the toilet and deal with their daily incontinence? As well as perhaps help them to eat a meal, or, remember their medication times and be sure they take it?
Next, which company is going to want to employ those who cannot do the hours expected today? Or, want to invest in people they know will always be out sick? Is it you? Are you going to be the braveheart and take them on?
Maybe you feel they should be left to starve in some remote attic where they won’t be seen? As they are a little too much to throw off when they line the streets with the begging bowls aren’t they?
But, they do allow that in the great place of eternal dreams, the USA. Children there spend their lives on the streets pulling their one toy behind them, as they walk, head down, behind the mother who is on crutches.
This is why we have to remain part of the EU because what the Tories want is to be rid of the EU social legislation that presently prevents them from doing it.
This proverbial daily rag performance about being unable to deport 100 criminals because of ‘Human Rights’ issues is a smokescreen to hide from us all their intention to bring the poor, homeless and disbled back to the alleyways of the Victorian era. And you can see it already taking place.
What they fail to grasp is, the people of this country pay the taxes they are playing around with, and that is what keeps them so healthily in officee. If they cut that off, they are cutting off their own heads.
The workers could, however, simultaneously, stop paying, couldn’t they? On the grounds of fraudulent use of our money by the State. And then what would they do?
Leave their jobs?
‘Your little addition of ‘those who can do some work must not get benefits’ is a real eye opener.
So, where are all these jobs you feel these people can do going to come from? What are they? Where are they? And how much do they pay? Will it allow them to eat, pay their rent as well as look after their medical needs? Not if the minimum wage is anything to go by.
================
Well, not my rules but the government’s rules.
What it does mean is this. If you are not incapacitated, then you are unemployed. You get the same help and support as anyone else who is unemployed.
It also means that you are obliged to look for work just like any other unemployed person.
Q1. Why should people be allowed not to look to work if they are unemployed and want money from other people?
their intention to bring the poor, homeless and disbled back to the alleyways of the Victorian era. And you can see it already taking place.
I’d dispute that. I don’t think it is the intention. However, I do think its inevitable. It’s inevitable because governments have run up massive debts and hidden them just like Bernie Maddoff.
Next, which company is going to want to employ those who cannot do the hours expected today? Or, want to invest in people they know will always be out sick? Is it you? Are you going to be the braveheart and take them on?
Here’s the deal. It’s not about incapacity, its about employing people in general.
1. If you employ someone, they have to generate as much income as they cost. Otherwise you lose money on the deal.
So if you want more people employed, you need to make sure that as a government you make the costs of employing them as low as possible. Regulation, taxes on jobs, flexibility.
Secondly, comes the question of business. It’s risky. If you put 100K into a business where there is a 50% chance you lose the lot, you need a lot of after tax return to make that work. So you need to reduce the risks to the people prepared to put that money and effort in. Taking 50% of the gain, for no work, and none of the losses really is a something for nothing problem. End result, you don’t get employment.
The workers could, however, simultaneously, stop paying, couldn’t they? On the grounds of fraudulent use of our money by the State. And then what would they do?
They would be up the creek, and rightly. Now, I’m in favour of this. I think, just like workers have the right to strike for conditions of work and pay, taxpayers should also have the right to strike. For example, if taxpayers are against the Iraq war, why shouldn’t they be allowed to withhold that percentage of their tax? If local government changes from weekly to twice weekly bin collection, but carries on charging the same, then taxpayers should be allowed to strike over that payment, and organise their own collection.
So yes you are right, it’s government that is at the root cause of these problems, ICB included.
It’s also at the root cause of unemployment. Now you may think that victorian style poverty is wrong. I do too. Just because its bad doesn’t mean its not going to happen. The reason is quite Victorian too.
My other piece of advice, Copperfield, said Mr. Micawber, you know. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery. The blossom is blighted, the leaf is withered, the god of day goes down upon the dreary scene, andand, in short, you are for ever floored. As I am!
Rather apt.
Now its not me that has caused it. It’s government.
@LB:
Mr Macawber was talking of personal budgeting. This government debt is a result of evil disregard of the people who supplied the treasury. Abuse of the public purse by consecutive profligate governments is the crime here.
Where you are off line is, you are blaming those who are needy. If they were all flung onto the street and left to die as there are no jobs, there is no benefit, and no more money in the kitty, then, those who created this situation deserve to also be on the street and without an income to support themselves. They threw our funds away. No one else. No fraudsters on benefit, no liars and cheats of the state funds. That is chicken feed in the treasury budget. And the claims are not anywhere as high as they should be, so there is an excess of money in the kitty, not a shortfall.
Along with that, these managers of the State assets should be raided by the bailiffs as they abused their position of power, and therefore it is only ‘fair’ that they too should be brought to the gutter with the rest of us. Justice must be seen to be done.
However, I repeat, if they can afford overseas aid, and the profligate spending they continue with, whilst telling us all, the tax payers of this country, that what we are paying for no longer exists for us, then they must stop taking it at once. For to continue to do so is taking money under false pretenses. And that is fraud.
When they stop paying for all the wars they have decided to run, and stop purchasing billions of pounds of unnecessary equipment that is filling their pockets with profit, put an end to overseas aid and shut the doors to more dependents, send all their chums in the two Houses who steal via expense claims to jail, turn off the tap to the European Union who cannot settle an audit of their finances in thirteen years, stop paying huge pensions to same chums, and on and on and on, then and only then will I feel the sick and disabled people of our country should accept we are financially crippled and they can no longer draw their payments that support them. I too will then accept, we are, in truth, broke.
Until then, I shall fight for what my family throughout their lives, and all of those who are paying today, on the grounds they were covered in the event of malady or any other matter they are rightfully insured to expect, as told to them by this and all previous governments.
So, Blagger, you are on the wrong side of the equation. Because you are being taken in just the same way as all these poor people throughout our country are.
This government is not broke whilst it goes on paying for the frills it wants to keep.
So the sick and poor deserve their just deserts. And this abuse of their person must be brought to an end. And quickly.
What a sad state of affairs when the trust we put in Government and The Lords is so misplaced.
It is plain a fair and reasonable assessment is required , it is plain fraudulent claims must be somehow stopped.
It is also plain the ESA system and the use of Atos Healthcare to undertake WCA tests is not fair or reasonable way of doing either.
The Baroness knows, as do the Government and the DWP, the system is a farce.
It is because of the cost of changing it they continue with their pretence.
Common sense tells us this system will eventually implode.
The saddness is so many will have to suffer before common sense prevails.
It is senseless to continue to try to change the minds of the Baroness or Lord Blogger, leave them in their world and we will continue to fight in the real world.
Forget me, I didn’t design anything or nor did I spend so much money none is left.
However you are right about one thing Stan. The Lords are useless. They won’t lift a figure. Meanwhile they will continue to rake in the millions, and that’s a major cause of why people won’t be getting help.
My father died of liver cancer. What kind of person can look at medical evidence from 2 Doctors, one of which was an oncologist, and still declare he could return to work in 6 months. We had the opportunity to appeal, but we never did, our last remaining weeks with my father were going to be lived OUR way, and not be governed by a system thats so badly flawed it puts this country to shame.
His first appointment to see an advisor came 4 days after he died. My brother took great pleasure in taking the letter to our local jobcentre plus and telling them he wouldnt be attending. When asked why, he said that dead people can’t attend appointments. He handed them the letter and said next time someone has medical evidence from a cancer specialist, someone needs to read them. Then he walked out.
Who was there to protect my father? if the very people that were supposed to protect his welfare couldnt even read and understand he was dying. It breaks my heart everyday knowing that he was let down by the very system that was once built to help the needy. I fear for anyone having to attend these things because we lived 1st hand what it is like when they fail you.
So sorry to hear of your tragic loss Anne.
You will have to excuse the politicians as nought clouds the perception of the real world more than an excess of (other peoples) money
Well Baroness I believe you haven’t understood a word that has been written here. You clearly choose to believe the troll who has tried to stare up the forum. His is the kind of bigotry I have come across more and more lately. I worked for 30 years before needing to put a sick note in, and I am disgusted with people like this person, who has no morals and chooses to believe the spin put out by the likes of the daily mail.
‘Troll’ carry on posting all you like but remember one day it may be you or a family member who is in this terrible situation. You have no compassion and do not wish to read the truth, go back to the daily mail and enjoy your abusive life.
Every – body needs, as distinct from ‘wants’, Income and Expenditure assessment true to the individual’s real-life costs, circumstances, and potential.
Strict and limited-focus assessments by professionals such as Doctors, especially when Remit-limited by such authorities as the NHS, need to be supplemented by a thoroughgoing written appreciation of the individual’s other real-life needs, especially of their wish and potential for further and lifespan individual human development, life-education, or personal-fulfilment.
“Is anyone saying that a person seeking financial support for daily life on the grounds of extra needs caused through disability should NOT be properly assessed? Surely not. There has always been an assessment; it just hasn’t been very rigorous or accurate.”
Someone assessed as requiring help “indefinately” under DLA will need assessing yearly? Bi-annually? Every 6 months? Under DLA doctors reports and supporting evidence is needed.
[In case you were wondering about how "fair" past assessments were-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/4995078.stm
Jim Allison, a benefits adviser based in Cumbria, came across one case in which an applicant for Disability Living Allowance had had 20 alterations made to her medical report.
The corrections had the effect of invalidating her claim: only when she decided to appeal did the alterations come to light.
For example, the word "unsteady" had been altered to "steady" when describing her ability to walk.
In another part of the report, the doctor had originally said that she was able to walk 30 metres. The "3" had later been turned into an "8", thereby making it less likely that she would be awarded DLA.
"This particular case was the worst I'd seen," said Mr Allison. And this was from FIVE YEARS AGO!]
Atos use what amounts to a lottery/raffle and you say that DLA —>”hasn’t been very rigorous or accurate”<—
Out of touch with reality, it's something that the Lords and the government have always been guilty of.
Would David Cameron's son have been
'examined' on a regular basis? I think not.
Someone assessed as requiring help “indefinately” under DLA will need assessing yearly?
==========
I would have thought that a three year period was reasonable. On the basis that it was a condition that doesn’t improve over time, and that they were sufficiently passed the barrier for claiming.
As for the cases of DLA being modified, my view is that is a case for the police and a prosecution. It’s an attempt to defraud someone of benefits. Just as serious as the other way round.
“Cameron has proven he hates us (Being that he promised to care before election and once elected proved he will attack the disabled continually)”
Cameron actually stated to at least two carers that he would not scrap DLA. Shades of Nick Clegg pledges.
@Baroness
Do you not KNOW the actual TRUE Fraud rates?
Really – Fraud in DLA is 0.5% – Yes less than half a percenT! So why waste millions and millions of pounds to ”’fix”’ a system that is NOT FLAWED. This is ridiculous.
You want flaws and upset people – then do nothing – But if you want THE TRUTH – READ the stats! The true DWP stats.
If 0.5% is the fraud rate if YOU HELP this govt cut 20% then YOU are aiding the hurt of the other 19.5% W3HOA RE TRULY DISABLED and being thrown off for no reason as it will not make them well.
Same with ESA – ATOS stating you are fine – Wont make you well as they are being PAID to say that!
If you do not agree – Then you need to do some digging and find out the FACTS.
It is so wrong for you to believe the few who say ‘all is well’ without making youself KNOWLEDGEABLE about the FACTS.
If you only listen to the words of Osbourne then you need to truly do your own digging
WHY would so many people complain if all was well??????????????????
Ask yourself this
Or be a sheep and just let Cameron wreck another part of Britain. That is what he will go in history for – The DAMAGE he is doing and the UNCARING ATTITUDE and LIES he is showing.
Really – Fraud in DLA is 0.5% – Yes less than half a percenT! So why waste millions and millions of pounds to ”’fix”’ a system that is NOT FLAWED. This is ridiculous.
===============
The problem is that you cannot explain away why those claiming ICB tripled without fraud. Either by the claimants or the government.
The numbers tripled since the 1980s. Thatcher started it and Labour did nowt.
That the numbers have tripled shows that its is massively flawed.
I provided credible evidence to counter what you said (of course you provided zero evidence to back up your statement). You merely misrepresented what I said as you had nothing to counter my evidence. Your simplistic argument is both lazy and not supported by the facts.
The facts show that the overwhelming majority of the increase in claimants was from claimants with serious disabilities, not trivial conditions.
It is rather sad that you ignore the facts in order to continue your prejudice against the disabled.
Lets take it slowly.
1. Has the number on ICB tripled since the 1980s?
2. Has the health of the nation deteriorated to that extent?
3. Have people been move from unemployment to ICB for political reasons?
Three simple questions. If you answer to any is no, can you supply the evidence to the contrary.
They go to the heart of your assertion, that is wrong, that
The facts show that the overwhelming majority of the increase in claimants was from claimants with serious disabilities, not trivial conditions.
Lots are there for political expediency.
The increase in claimants finished in 1995. Evidence already provided.
No, the nation’s health has not deteriorated hugely. The evidence has already been provided by myself which shows that the increase was due to people with serious disabilities finally claiming rather than by people with trivial conditions. The OECD figures prove that our spending was ridiculously low compared to other OECD countries back in 1980 and that now, after the rise in claimants, our incapacity related spending is only just above average. I know these facts don’t fit in with your agenda but I will stick to these facts.
Some people have been on IB that shouldn’t have been, but the credible evidence has shown these numbers consistently to be less than 1%.
There is no evidence that your assertion has any basis in fact. I could come up with equally wild statements, such as you are genuinely interested in helping the disabled. Sadly I would have no evidence to back up my statement, just as you have no evidence for anything that you say. I will use credible evidence and facts to back up what I say. It would be nice if you adopted the same approach.
The increase in claimants finished in 1995. Evidence already provided.
==============
And you are trying to imply that this increase is made up of people who are all incacpacitated.
That isn’t the case.
There is no evidence that your assertion has any basis in fact.
Follow the links I’ve given. I’ll give ti again for you because you don’t seem to be able to follow them.
Research – peer reviewed – all the buzz words. Not left or right wing based research either.
http://www.shu.ac.uk/_assets/pdf/cresr-woib-report-2010.pdf
The relevant points are.
1. 2009 – so its recent.
2. Across Britain, the number of women of working age claiming incapacity benefits (IB) is now nearly
1.1 million, up from around 350,000 in the early 1980s. Moreover, whereas the number of men of
working age on incapacity benefits reached a plateau in the mid 1990s, the number of women
continued to increase well into the 2000s. Among the under 60s, there are now almost as many
women on incapacity benefits as men.
1.1 / 0.35 = 315% increase over the period for which you’ve claimed it is falling. Why have the number of women become incapacitated?
Page 5 has some of the reasons.
Hidden unemployment. These are the women who could be expected to have been in
employment in a genuinely fully employed economy – an estimated 430,000 in all.
That’s 430,000 who shouldn’t be on incapacity, but should be on unemployment benefits, with the obligation to look for work. They aren’t disabled. So much for the 1% figure. If one percent that you quote was correct that would imply 43 million women in the UK are incapacitated. That’s more than the female population of the UK.
A diversion of lone parents from Income Support. This accounts for around 125,000 women
on IB.
So there is another 125,000 that are on ICB, but shouldn’t be.
559,000 thousand women who should not be receiving incapacity because they aren’t disabled.
Next
There is little evidence that any deterioration in the underlying health of the working age population
has contributed to the increase in IB claims among women Page 6
Since there is no deterioration in women’s health, you would expect the numbers receiving ICB to be static unless.
1. More women are entitled to incapacity benefits. Well they have that covered.
Rising labour force participation. This has led to a commensurate increase in the number of women on IB of around 125,000
Doesn’t explain the rest.
So what is going on?
There is clear statistical evidence of a link between the local and sub-regional demand for labour
and female IB claims. There is also clear evidence of a link between the male and female sides of the labour market. In simple terms, job loss and unemployment among men is being transmitted, via competition in the labour market, to higher IB claims among women in the same places.
Or rather, there is a causal link between areas of high unemployment and incapacity. Just another way of saying that people are being taken off the unemployment figures to the ICB figures, because it is politically expedient.
SO lots of facts for you to digest. Referenced to research, so it makes it difficult for you to claim I’m making it up.
So where is your reference to the 1%, or is that made up?
My figures are not wrong and the evidence that I have used is from work published this year by an acknowledged expert in this field.
Your evidence is sourced from 3629 people. Mine is from nearly 100 times as many people and is, therefore, obviously far more compelling!
The study analysed 28 years of the General Household Survey, using data collected between 1974 and 2005. Information was available from about 360,000 people aged 20-59. The analysis compared the employment rates of people who reported a limiting long-standing illness with the prospects of other people with no health problem, taking account also of their age, family position, educational background and so on. “LLI” is a loose definition of disability, but the research was also able to compare the outcomes for people with more or less disadvantaging sets of health conditions, available in some years of the sequence.
Amongst his findings were:
•There is little sign that the growth in the numbers out of work over the years has mainly been associated with minor sets of impairments.
•There is little sign that disabled people are especially sensitive to the ups and downs of the business cycle.
•Although there was a substantial shift in the ratio of incapacity-related benefit payments to disability-disadvantage up to about 1990, there is little sign that this ratio was influenced by major changes in the rules governing eligibility for benefits.
He also points out:
•The prevalence of disability (the proportion of working age adults who report a limiting long-standing illness) rose from 14% in 1975 to 18% in 1996, before falling back again to 16% in 2004.
•The ‘disability employment penalty’ is a measure of the extent to which disabled people are less likely to have a job than otherwise similar non-disabled people. It increased from 17% in 1987 to 28% in 2000 – but has not reduced since then.
•These figures refer to all people with limiting health conditions. It is commonly assumed that most of the changes in prevalence and in employment prospects have affected people with relatively minor impairments – but the research shows, on the contrary, that people with severely disadvantaging sets of health conditions have been more, not less, affected by the trends.
•Payments of the main social security benefits (Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disability Allowance) lagged behind the number of disadvantaged disabled people in the 1970s and early 1980s, especially for women. But they had caught up by 1990.
•The detailed analysis made possible by the series of surveys suggests that changes in disabled peoples’ employment rates or in benefit payments have not coincided with major changes in the social security rules and procedures.
•Disabled people are very sensitive to long-term geographical variations in the health of regional labour markets; while non-disabled people have similar prospects, wherever they live.
•But disabled people’s employment is hardly affected by booms or busts in the national economy.
•People without educational qualifications are more likely to be disabled, and their employment rates are more affected by disability, than (at the other extreme) people with degrees. Both of these tendencies have increased in intensity over time, so that the current generation of unqualified people has very high rates of disability, and the disabled members of the group have very low rates of employment. But the number of poorly educated people in Britain has been declining over the decades, so very little of the overall growth in the number of disabled people without work can be explained by the skills effect.
•The fact that well-educated people are relatively less affected by disability helps to show that it is not disability, on its own, that determines outcomes, but the interaction between disability and opportunities. Disability nevertheless has a substantial effect across the spectrum.
•The research helps to counter the idea that some disabled people are unequivocally capable of work, while others are wholly incapable. It supports instead the concept of disadvantage – a sliding scale of employment probabilities affected both by the nature and severity of people’s impairments, and by the willingness of employers to hire them.
That, together with the factual evidence that I provided from the OECD incapacity related expenditure figures (ie nearly 60% below the OECD average in 1980 and only just above average now) proves that I am correct.
Typically with your agenda you have been highly selective in what you use from that report. Just a few quotes here from your report which show that you are twisting what it says to support your anti-disability agenda:
“None of this is intended to suggest that the heath problems and disabilities affecting the women (and men) who claim IB are anything less than real, or that the older industrial areas where IB claimant rates are highest do not have higher underlying levels of ill health.”
“once an individual has lost their job because of ill health or disability, in a difficult local labour market they are less likely to find a way back into work. Employers have the option of taking on the fit and healthy instead.”
“In a weaker labour market, even a modest degree of ill health or disability is likely to prejudice an individual’s chances of gaining and holding down employment.”
“even modest incapacities can
prove to be a formidable obstacle, especially if an individual has no special qualifications or training
to offer.”
So your report confirms that I was right by firstly that IB claimants are overwhelmingly genuine as their illnesses and disabilities are real. It also confirms that I was right in highlighting the extreme difficulties that such people face with respect to employment.
The credible evidence from numerous sources backs up my view that the overwhelming majority of IB claimants are totally genuine. The minimal evidence provided by you is not compelling and you have had to be very selective in what you quote as part of the report also fully backs up my view.
If you still keep maintaining your abhorrent stance, in the face of the credible evidence, that many genuine claimants (ie the 99.7% who correctly met the assessment criteria) somehow are not genuine then there is no point in continuing this.
My (less than) 1% figure comes from the DWP’s own figures for the number of claimants who are not genuine. The current figure is 0.3% but has been as high as 0.5%, but still clearly under 1%.
I don’t have to make up figures (eg making up and grossly exaggerating the amount paid out in IB or hugely underestimating the total costs due to Atos!) as the credible evidence and facts support what I say!
To anyone upset by Baroness Murphy’s inability to get it – that we disabled don’t mind being assessed, as long as the assessors STOP LYING to cheat us out of proper benefits for real disabilities in order to save billions by arbitrarily dumping disabled people onto the streets.
Leaving the Welfare Reform Bill, we have the House of Lords Reform Draft Bill.
Both the Prime Minister, and Deputy Prime Minister have invited us to submit our views on REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS to:
Deputy Prime Minister’s Office
70 Whitehall,
London,
SW1A 2AS.
So if you have been concerned at Baroness Murphy or any of her colleagues lack of understanding, this is your opportunity to help ease the lacklustre Lords and Ladies into a well deserved retirement.
Just email (via Google search under – Cabinet – Office – Email) or write to the above address.
Best regards,
Calum.
———————————
QUOTING THE PRIME MINISTER AND HIS DEPUTY…
We today publish this White Paper and Draft Bill for re-legislative scrutiny and we hope hat the two Houses will quickly establish joint committee to consider and report on he Draft Bill well before the end of the session. While the Joint Committee is responsible for the next steps, we today invite everyone’s comments on the draft Bill, whether made to he Cabinet Office or in evidence to the Joint Committee.
We look forward to the report from he Joint Committee Which we will consider with great care. We are both strongly persuaded that this is a unique opportunity for our country to instil greater democracy into our constitutions and are fully committed to holding the first elections o the reformed House of Lords in 2015.
SIGNED
Rt Hon David Cameron MP
Prime Minister
Rt Hon Nick Clegg MP
Deputy Prime Minister
well baroness – what more is there to say ?? as one of those who is a member of the site that posts the ” nasty and inaccurate tosh ” – i am deeply offended by that comment – i have tried to be reasonable in my comments here and indeed you have taken my points on occasions – and then you come out with this ?? – i can now but hope those words come back to haunt you
well i used to respect the lords as a place of the people – of decency – of common sense – BUT NO MORE !! – oh no – not any more
what a sad day for all the good folks of this land
and thats my last comment – as any more is obviously pointless
TTFN .
Notice Lord Blagger hasn’t come back, he’s probably been told by some Lord or other to…pack it in and stop making yourself look like an ignorant fool.
The Baroness wont be back either because she knows we speak the truth, she already knows it’s all a scam, it’s not a case of being her being ignorant, just a case of being found out for what she is.
She knows we know, and that’s what gets her goat.
I’ve been told she’s actually a Doctor, all I can say is GOD SAVE US.
In answer to a vquestion posed to my last post, 40% (unrepresented) of decisions are overturned at Tribunal. 70% (represented) are overturned at Tribunal stage. Source the Harrington Report
================
So how many people didn’t appeal, and as a consequence their assessment was correct?
Do you think over 82000 successful appeals in just 12 months (and hundreds of thousands of successful appeals since Atos took over the DWP contract) is the sign of a competent company?
Do you think that the accessibility problems, lack of parking and basic facilities at many of their assessment centres is the sign of a suitable company?
I will give you a clue…the answer to each question is NO!
That’s not the best question to ask.
1. 2.5 million on incapacity. What number would you expect to be successful on appeal?
2. 12.5 billion on ICB. Is 60 million cheap or expensive for assessing people?
3. Accessibility? yes – centers should be accessible. If they aren’t, that is wrong.
Now the question for you.
Given ICB claimants have tripled, but people haven’t become more unhealthy overall, its clear that lots of people on ICB shouldn’t be on ICB.
That’s the clue. They need to be removed from ICB.
Over 82000 successful appeals in just 12 months and hundreds of thousands in the 7 years since Atos took over says it all.
Grossly exaggerating the costs of IB and then hugely underestimating the total costs of Atos does you no favours. Until you can use the correct figures then there is no point carrying on with that.
I have provided the credible evidence that shows that the overwhelming majority of claimants are totally genuine. You repeating the same claptrap with no evidence whatsoever to back you up is not going to change the fact that it is clear to any reasonable person that only a tiny minority have been on IB when they shouldn’t have been.
The fact that the government has now moved the goalposts in order to make totally arbitrary savings does not alter the fact that the overwhelming majority have been on IB because they met the assessment criteria. Your insistence that they are not genuine is truly abhorrent. Bobby Charlton was a genuine goalscorer but if you moved the goalposts inwards then he wouldn’t have been a goalscorer any more! That is exactly what the government are doing with this Bill by turning genuine claimants into people deemed fit for work by the obviously unfair WCA. It is sad that you want to see hundreds of thousands of genuine people in need suffering due to this Bill.
How much does ICB cost each year? 12.5 billion.
I’ve posted other links as to the size of the hidden unemployment moved to ICB.
Are you claiming that the unemployed should all get ICB, irrespective of need?
Your continual insistence on making up these inflated figures is as tiresome as it is revealing about your agenda.
The DWP fraud report has the IB bill at £5.6 billion. Fullfact did a FOI request which confirms that “the total claimed by those on both IB/SDA and ESA in 2010/2011 was indeed £8.7 billion.”
http://fullfact.org/factchecks/Mail_incapacity_benefit_piles_dizziness_sleeping_disorder-2845
Your grossly inflated figure of £12.5bn is a lie.
As for your final desperate effort, since when have I even inferred that the unemployed should all get IB, irrespective of need?
You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel now! I say that every genuinely sick and disabled person should not only receive the help that they are entitled to, but that they should not be subject to vicious, arbitrary cuts where the assessment process is tailored to the desired level of cuts rather than the actual needs/disability of these genuine claimants. Your support for these vile reforms and continual misrepresentations of the facts and evidence prove that it is you that wants to stop as many people from getting vital support, irrespective of actual need.
Thankfully not every Baroness is so closed to the problems with this Bill.
Following my letter to Baroness Hayter I got this reply today:
Dear **********,
Thank you for writing to me to express your concerns about the Welfare Reform Bill. I thought you might be interested to see the speech I made at the second reading of the Bill in the House of Lords, which can be found here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/110913-0001.htm#110913102000436
In the speech I expressed my concerns about the amount of support that will be available for childcare, the potential penalties for people who are saving, the abolition of support through the Social Fund, the impact of reductions in the amount of Housing Benefit that will be payable, and of penalties for ‘under occupying’ a property in the social rented sector, the impact of the Benefit Cap, the proposed reforms to Disability Living Allowance, in particular the removal of the mobility component from those in residential care, and the impact of the changes to Employment and Support Allowance. The Labour front bench will be tabling amendments on all of these issues during the Committee stage of the Bill which begins tomorrow. I do hope we are able to make some changes to the Bill either then or in later stages, as the Bill is a real threat to the well being of so many of our fellow citizens.
Thank you again for writing,
Yours sincerely
Dianne Hayter
Baroness Hayter
House of Lords
London SW1A 0PW
There are some in the House of Lords who are willing and able to put aside their prejudices in the attempt to ensure fairness for those affected by this Bill.
@Baroness Murphy – I must admit to feeling sceptical about your reasons for inviting comments only to be totally closed-minded to those comments – as a former Doctor who claims to have a particular interest in Mental Health I find your willful refusal to engage with us, in any meaningful fashion, abhorrent. I hope you can at least try to understand why we feel crushed by your refusal to understand our concerns.
Lets hope the baroness didn’t slam the revolving door on the way out
Dear Baroness Murphy, with regard to your comment
“I regret I find the web site Black Triangle Campaign to be nasty and inaccurate tosh and I am surprised that people should be taken in by it. The campaign to frighten people with disabilities is a disgrace.”
Although you have said you will comment no further, could you not at least have the decency to inform us, the public, what exactly about the site or its content that you find to be nasty, and what you find to be innaccurate tosh? And what is both nasty and innacurate tosh?
Also, please explain what you refer to when you talk about the campaign to frighten people with disabilties? What campaign, where, which bit of whatever it is specifically is untrue?
I sincerely hope you can explain further, after all, would you like it, if someone said the your content was nasty and innacurate tosh, then refused to clarify just what they are talking about, and back it up with an explanation, and evidence?
To Blagger – you talk about there being no choice but to implement testing for incapacity benefit.
However, this shows a lack of awareness, on a level with Lord Freud.
People on incapacity benefit ARE ALREADY tested, by the same company (ATOS) who are doing the tests for ESA.
The assessments are very similar, even down to the software used.
People are regularily assessed even under IB, unless in an exempt category (such as a permanent vegatative state).
Problems existed under IB to – with many people winning at appeal, just like with ESA.
ESA is simply the same thing, but with stricter eligibilty rules, designed from the outset to meet the publicly declared target of failing 1 million people.
Remember, ESA came about due to lord Freud, whose paper on the topic was described by the SSAC as having ‘no evidence base’ and Freud even stated that people on Incapacity benefit were only ever assessed by their own doctors.
The Lords passed ESA through parliament to, I dont recall them picking up on the fact, it came about from evidence from a man who was incapable of understanding even the BASICS of the existing system.
Its a shame, the actual bill debate is not in a public forum, I am sure, many people on here, could easily tear what many will be claiming in the debate to shreds, as the people in the house of Lords often tend to be brushed of with simplistic or innacurate answers in my opinion.
People on incapacity benefit ARE ALREADY tested, by the same company (ATOS) who are doing the tests for ESA.
==============
1. Has the country become so crippled by illhealth that there is 300% rise over the last 30 years?
No. People are just as healthy on average as they were before. What’s happened is people who shouldn’t be on ICB have been moved onto ICB to hide unemployment.
So the existing testing regime hasn’t picked these people up has it? It has allowed them to claim billions.
So in part I haven’t had faith in the testing system in the past. I’ve more faith now, because the Frank Gallagers of this world no longer can claim ICB.
That’s the bit that people here can’t address. They complain, and in some cases quite rightly, about the testing. I’ve addressed those issues repeatedly. However, they won’t address how to get rid of the hidden unemployed on ICB. C
Can you?
There hasn’t been a 300% rise in 30 years. IB hasn’t been going that long and numbers on IB plateaued for the entire NuLabour administration (though I doubt because of it). Overall spending has gone up, but numbers claiming have not. Why is the interesting question.
To quote Danny Alexander in The Scotsman 18/09/10:
‘”When Labour came to office there were 2.6 million people on incapacity benefit and when they left office there were 2.6 million people on incapacity benefit. It is one of the most appalling parts of their record.”"
There has been a 30% rise. Links already posted to peer reviewed papers on the matter.
So how many people didn’t appeal, and as a consequence their assessment was correct?
Quote from Lord Blagger.
How about how many didn’t appeal because their assessment was incorrrect but didn’t have any strength left in them to fight the system, because of having to constantly having to jump throuth hoops.
Let’s start with the first con : Told by the DWP in a letter that they have failed the assessment, but in tiny letters at the bottom somewhere that ”You have a right to appeal” and when the appeal is sent of to the DWP decision maker, the reply comes back ”Your appeal has been considered, and you have been found fit for work, as I said that’s the first con.
But you didn’t know that did you Lord Blagger ? you didn’t know the DWP try to con one in to thinking that the consideration is their appeal and they have now been turned down, NO of course you didn’t.
Let’s move on to the second con : Meanwhile, your money to live on is deliberately witheld, sometimes without a letter of explanation and while all this is happening, the Housing association is informed you are no longer entitled to benefits and your rent rebate is stopped, and eviction looms.
Then you find that more hoops have to be jumped through, which is, finding money from somewhere to pay for a medical report from your consultant or GP (Mine was £150) some Doctors charge more.
Then it’s a long wait (for some people with no cash at all), sometimes for up to a year before they attend a tribunal, only to meet someone on the panel like yourself who is totally clueless on how the system works, but puts themself forward (Judging by your comments) as some kind of an expert.
Tell you what Lord Blagger, why don’t you meet me man o manos and I will tell you the rest, (I have a lot to tell), because you do a lot of talking for one guy, but I can assure you when we meet (That’s if you have the guts to face me, but I know you wont, but find some excuse to avoid me) I will be doing all the talking, and you will sit down, shut up, and listen and learn.
(PS) Make sure your wearing an Iron suit.
This part of the research identifies four main contributory factors to the increase in the number of
women on IB since the early 1980s:
• Hidden unemployment. These are the women who could be expected to have been in
employment in a genuinely fully employed economy – an estimated 430,000 in all.
• Rising labour force participation. This has led to a commensurate increase in the number of
women on IB of around 125,000.
• An ageing population. This has increased the number of IB claims by women by an estimated
35,000, since the likelihood of claiming IB rises with age.
• A diversion of lone parents from Income Support. This accounts for around 125,000 women
on IB.6
There is little evidence that any deterioration in the underlying health of the working age population
has contributed to the increase in IB claims among women.
There is clear statistical evidence of a link between the local and sub-regional demand for labour
and female IB claims. There is also clear evidence of a link between the male and female sides of
the labour market. In simple terms, job loss and unemployment among men is being transmitted, via
competition in the labour market, to higher IB claims among women in the same places
http://www.shu.ac.uk/_assets/pdf/cresr-woib-report-2010.pdf
Tell me about the 430,000 women who are under the disguised employment, or the 125,000 single mothers on ICB. All who shouldn’t be.
All intelligence and decisions and actions should be based on fact. That is the problem that everyone is getting away from. The fate and decisions on people’s lives have been based on ideology and fantastical ideas of disability and ability and layabouts and scroungers for centuries. I have the cds from Hansard of the 1832 and 1842 witness statements and testimonies to the House of Commons in those years from the hundreds of children who gave witness to their lives working down coal mines and in factories. It makes chilling but interesting reading.And it amazing how the same arguements and answers and fantasies and conjecture was given now. Their testimonies and truth of their worlds belied the fact that lead to the reform acts that no longer required a child to work down a coal mine or in a factory from infanthood and be damaged and handicapped before they were into their early adulthood. Yet even so, those who could not work, or were too poor or orphaned and abandoned ( a large percentage of poor households in 1840s and 1920s were abandoned my the male head) leaving children and mothers to fend for themselves, be in the gutter, lead into crime or prostitution ( and don’t forget the Lords argueed against the making illegal of sexual prostitution of young girls of 12/13 as they thought it their right.
Only the fact and the weight of moral conscience born of our great tradition of Christian mores and values made our great society what it is today. We have lost in in the space of a few decades or political laziness and indulgence and moral fibre of this country going down hill with the gangstar culture and every other one owning a knife, gun or dealing in drugs or prostitution and entering a criminal lifestyle as if that is the one with most credit.
The incidence of injury and severe assault has gone up. A child abused every few seconds and very young child sexually fully abused every few minutes a woman raped every few minutes a gun crime every few minutes a knie crime every few minutes. the acquired head injuries have gone up from 750,000pa to now over 1 million pa. a third totally incapaciated in a vegetative or severe spinal or head injury state. the other two third injured for life beyond return to normality. The facts are there, our country and it wellbeing and safety has gone up in the most devastating and abusive manner.
The only facts are the outcome of the Atos assessments and how they have affected the disabled and what disabilities have been written off as fit for work. And I assure you that in our little feedback from our respondents and confirmed by GPs and consultants the majority of cancer sufferers, parkinsons, MS, Strokes and heart conditions have been written off as fit for work. even if they are in a wheelchair and cannot communicate or write or feed themselves, I am very concerned that in the last few days I am aware or at least 3 very severe psychotic patients and a very mentally retarded woman being seen on their own and been fit for work. When they are still going on about Jesus Christ talking through their head and the CIA and Masons being in charge of their life and wanting to kill them and their neighborus being part of the plot.
I appeal to the Lords that the only facts that can lead to a conclusion on this is to get the feedback about what has happened tot he disabled and what types of disabilities have gone through the assessments and what the decisions and outcome and consequences were.
Only the fact will belie the outcome and give knowledge to the truth. So far th goverment have said that all knowlegde of Atos and such basic things as how many MS, Stroke or psychotic patients have been assessed is outside public right to know? Why is this? Surely the types of illness, the decisions and what happened is the right of every citizen to know about their fellow citizen and the most poor and vulnerable in the country.
Let this not be a holocaust of denial and ignorance that everyone making this decision will rue in the outcome and annals of future history.
Find out feedback and results at After Atos Assessment “Customer” Feedback Survey at afteratos.com
Your servant in the Lord and the Law
AA
I find it interesting that Baroness Murphy uses the term “people with disabilities” – it begs the question: ‘what are “disabilities’?
Since the 1960s there has been a challenge to the notion that an impairmentt which produces ‘functonal loss’ is the direct cause of “disability” – yet, both Houses of Partiament still main the crude, determinst view that: “the less someone functions like a ‘normal person’, the more ‘disabled’ they can be judged to be.”
This simplistic approach towards understanding “disability” has bedeviled social policy, including the benefit system for decades. The “medicalisation” of all aspects of people’s lives is an ideological platform which has proved a failure over and over again.
Baroness Murphy is just the latest in a long list of arrogant stooges who perpetuate the dominant values of “able-bodied ‘normality’” as a means of making judgemental assessments of disabled people’s lives. Atos is only the tool being used to protect the status quo.
Personally, I don;t think we should get het up about the use of particular words unless they are grossly offensive. I’m 100% blind in one eye. I think that is a disability, but it does not greatly reduce my functioning. DVLA thought, when I reported it in 1997, that I could still drive a car, though I chose to discontinue doing so, as it would not inspire confidence in others. It has revealed to me that my other eye, previously the lazier, actually had good long distance vision so I can see a bird at a mile. On the other hand I can no longer read recipes with ease and certainly cannot thread a needle any more. The starring due to minor cataract means driving at night is not safe. However I do not qualify to be registered disabled and when I retired before attaining age 65 last November it wasn’t owing to this disability.
I see little wrong, as a starting-point, with the definition “the less someone functions like a ‘normal person’, the more ‘disabled’ they can be judged to be.” But this excludes the will to work factor. For some it has to be recognised that a disability affects self-esteem and motivation. For others it provides a challenge to which to rise. Whilst I am all in favour of those in the latter category being assisted in finding suitable work and in favour of helping those with low self-esteem and motivation look at things again with fresh eyes, there’s a world of difference from that to bluntly declaring that someone is fit for work and benefits should therefore be withdrawn. In a civilised society this should not be done in such a way. That does not mean some borderline cases should not have benefit withdrawn after a sensitive assessment.
The global amount of benefits paid out is so great that it would be foolish to suggest there should be no reviews of benefits once awarded. As I have said before, those reviews should be such reviews should be appropriate, vigilant, cost-effective and proportionate. All the signs are that there is no effective risk-assessment taking place before cases are selected for review, the reviews are done from a template rather than being appropriate and disregard any medical evidence from those who actually have medical knowledge of the claimant, cost-effectiveness is not really considered if they call in a man certified as dying of liver cancer or a double amputee, and any sense of proportion seems to have been lost given that, until recently, little effort was made to catch the monster tax avoiders and evaders, and even now it will take time to train up new recruits to full effectiveness. The amount at risk from tax evasion and avoidance, and from plain wrong returns, is at least as great if not more than the amount at risk from claimants getting benefits to which they are no longer entitled.
If I sound a bit bitter on that last score, it is because as a very experienced enquiry officer I got sidelined into administration when my office moved to Truro and was barred from applying to comparable enquiry work fifty yards away because that office came under a different directorate. My then 35 years experience, 17 on enquiry work in a specialist area, was rendered worthless.
As a disabled person I wholeheartedly support Black Triangle and was lucky to find them at a time when I was feeling extremely vulnerable and having panic attacks due to the welfare system tests etc. The support and understanding I received from Black Triangle helped me through this traumatic time. The reason why Black Triangle members/supporters were able to help me was that they too have suffered at the hands of ATOS/DWP/Welfare system and as such could truly empathise with me. The tests quite frankly are a joke – if you watch the parliamentary select committee you will see Professor Harrington openly admitting that the test bears no resemblance to any real job/real life situation and then goes on to say it doesnt have to!! This in essence, means that it is a test which isnt testing for anything except the individual, one off actions within it!! The housing benefit being reduced to the 30th percentile is having terrible effects already on many people both in and out of work and OAP’s the average person having to pay £15 per week towards their rent from their benefits. Also why if someone has been diagnosed with a life long disability do they have to keep being retested – this is blatantly a waste of money!! My condition is for life – it is only going to deteriorate – I suggest that ESA and DLA should be awareded for life for life long conditions – then reviewed if a cure is invented whichh proves to be effective – this would save a fortune! A big fear for me and other disabled people – is that we will be declared fit for work and end up being forced to do workfare which will then make our conditions deteriorate drastically and with my condition once the deterioration happens its permanent – so fear of becoming even more disabled than I already am due to the system is a very frightening prospect.
The tests quite frankly are a joke – if you watch the parliamentary select committee you will see Professor Harrington openly admitting that the test bears no resemblance to any real job/real life situation and then goes on to say it doesnt have to!! This in essence, means that it is a test which isnt testing for anything except the individual, one off actions within it!! The housing benefit being reduced to the 30th percentile is having terrible effects already on many people both in and out of work and OAP’s the average person having to pay £15 per week towards their rent from their benefits. Also why if someone has been diagnosed with a life long disability do they have to keep being retested – this is blatantly a waste of money!!
Two things come out of this.
1. The nature of the tests. What tests should be used? If you think they are wrong, tell us what tests are appropriate.
2. On the question of retesting. I completely agree. Part of any assessment should be a determination of the time to the next assessment. If it is a long term condition with no chance of improvement, a very long time. Unless there is a medical breakthrough.
If its a short term condition that will improve – a more frequent period of testing.
That makes it cost effective. However, from the figures quoted by others of 60 million cost of testing, compared to a total ICB spend of 12,500 million, it doesn’t strike me as expensive. If fact it probably is some evidence to say that its being done too cheaply.
So I think you are on the right tracks.
What is needed is those that don’t require benefits, and there is a lot of evidence that people have been moved from unemployment to ICB, need to be prevented from consuming what resources are left, so as those that need it, get the help.
Lord Blagger.
There are many claims that incapacity benefit numbers have increased, even over the last decade or so it was a mainstream benefit that people could still apply for.
Do they stand up to scrutiny? No, read this link below.
http://www.ukbix.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=165
Look back at previous benefits, I dont have the stats at hand, and dont feel up to recollating them at present, but Im sure you can do your own research.
See what benefits existed before Incapacity benefit, not just its direct replacement, and the one before that, but the additional sickness benefits that were part and parcel of the package.
Add those figures together, and bear in mind, that all these increases in healthcare you are so fond of referring to mean that people who previously would have died, can now be kept alive, but with a disablility, and you will see (as I did a while ago when I did the research) that numbers have not actually increased dramatically at all.
There is another point to add, that is if you are stating, as you seem to, that people were moved onto incapacity benefit to hide unemployment figures, and they were healthy people – then that would mean that not only the government, the DWP, ATOS, AND the NHS and the judiciary (tribunal service) have ALL been engaging in a conspiracy to falsely declare people as unfit to hold down employment, falsely signing sick notes, falsifyin medical evidence, illegally passing people of as meeting the required number of descriptors etc.
The scale of the corruption, across the board, against the government (and the lords and ladies/barons and baronesses etc themselves as they passed the legislation) even across the board to include the entire nhs, and dwp, and even the judiciary, that you appear to suggest has occured is massive.
Its possible that one or two could be corrupt possibly, but ALL of them?
And if that was the case, why did they keep increasing the frequency of assessments? Why were the figures dropping a lot of the time, and not massively increasing, why was the inflow and outflow relatively stable?
And if there was any evidence of this occuring, do you not think by now, a rival political party would have not decimated the opposition beyond recognition and had people put in jail, ensuring they parties reputation was destroyed for ever?
Or do you not think, that in reality, all that happened was, people had been left alone for years on unemployment benefit, moves were made to call them all in, to see what the problem was, and those that were identified as having a health problem, were told to try applying for incapacity benefit, where they were strictly tested (with one of the strictest medical tests for benefits in the world according to official research) and those who passed the harsh tests were granted the benefit?
Those people were then re-assessed on a regular basis (either on paper in severe cases, or in person for the vast majority) until they retired/died/won the lottery/entered employment or their health improved till they no longer met the strict testing requirements imposed under law.
Which is it?
Full on corruption across the entire spectrum of this country, or simple easy to see facts that get lost in propaganda.
Well, that’s why I posted a link to independent peer review research. It does make an interesting read.
What it does show for women, since Sue raised that as an issue, is that 430,000 women were hidden unemployed moved to IB, and 125,000 likewise were single mothers move to IB.
That’s a large number of women alone who shouldn’t be receiving IB.
That’s the problem with the people who think I’m wrong.
They want people who need IB to receive it. So do I. However, they won’t admit that large numbers of people, far in excess of the 0.5% they claim get it wrongly, are receiving it.
Just because I don’t want people who aren’t incapacitated to not get IB, does it mean that I want the same extended to those who do need it. That’s just vitriol and spite.
The scale of the corruption, across the board, against the government (and the lords and ladies/barons and baronesses etc themselves as they passed the legislation) even across the board to include the entire nhs, and dwp, and even the judiciary, that you appear to suggest has occured is massive.
Yes. You don’t have to tell me. 300 peers as an example claimed for more days than they used their passes to get access to one of the most secure buildings in the UK. Go figure. 215 of those were investigated internally. Go figure. I’ve had one arrested and jailed – Lord Taylor. I hope to get a lot more. That frees up more money for use where its needed.
Or do you not think, that in reality, all that happened was, people had been left alone for years on unemployment benefit, moves were made to call them all in, to see what the problem was, and those that were identified as having a health problem, were told to try applying for incapacity benefit, where they were strictly tested
I don’t think that’s the main issue. The reason comes back to the current assessments.
First no one has put forward, when asked, if there have been rule changes raising the hurdle for IB.
So now we have to look at the number rejected for IB. It’s a large proportion. Of those a smaller number appeal, and 40% win on appeal. I’m not surprised at this. If it was different something would be wrong. The reason is that only those close to the hurdle who fail to make it over, end up appealing. Given quite a few have variable conditions, I would expect people to win appeals. In addition those that got IB, don’t appeal.
So again, why is it that incapacity went up by 300%, and why is it that on a stricter retesting now by people who aren’t the GPs, results in a large drop?
Why is it that IB is highly correlated with local levels of unemployment? That to me means people have been moved from unemployment to IB. ie. Merthy Tydfal I can understand. Ex mining area. Liverpool? Nope.
I must admit, its refreshing to see someone in a position of authority still use the term ‘disability’ as the government seem intent on wiping out disability from the language.
Note how INCAPACITY benefit is replaced with Employment and Support allowance.
Note how DISABILITY Living Allowance is to be replaced with Personal Independance payment.
Note how SICK notes are replaced with FIT notes.
etc etc.
I wish unelected members of the lower house remember there place as servants to the people. And spend a little time getting there facts right about Disability and the groups that support the such as black triangle
The ‘tests’ really are a transparent tool to simply deny benefits to nearly everyone claiming them. The doctors who ‘examine’ the ‘customers’ are employed to deny you the benefits for their monetary gain.
I write from experience, where the one I care for (who has long term ME/CFS) had to give up work due to stress and a very bad relapse. For those who know little about ME, let’s just say that many who have this ailment seriously deteriorate if stressed or when forced to do anything physical. Even a short walk can leave one bedridden for days if on a bad cycle. Yes, they may have the odd good day, but their lives become so erratic keeping a ‘normal’ job in check is impossible.
The assessing doctor (home visit) claimed many things; he claimed to be rather a specialist in ME/CFS, he also assured us that as far as he was aware, we had nothing to worry about in this test.
Needless to say, even after convincing ATOS of the requirement of a home visit, handing in not only doctor assessments, but qualified professional recommendations (from a professor studying the field with views to future funding and study) the assessment was FAILED with zero points awarded.
That, Baroness, is my definition of utter tosh.
As the one I care for is disabled, and not a complete idiot (although there will be many thousands who are not capable to achieve this due to the very ailment they are being assessed on, generally those suffering a mental condition or incapacitated to the point of near death or unconsciousness) the documentation was sifted through and after much fine print or obscurely disclosed procedural regulations, a simple phone call overturned this entire assessment outcome. No need for a tribunal, actually, jumping into an appeal/tribunal process may instantly put the disabled in a dire situation of having their monies stopped without warning and for the long term.
For those wondering what the correct way to assess those unable to work. What’s wrong with the GP assessment already available at no cost? Or a supplementary declaration by a specialist in the field, also available at no extra cost? And what about the actual person involved after these evidences, simply saying they know they are unable to work a ‘normal’ job. After all, it is THEIR life, not yours.
If that’s not enough, nobody is talking sense.
I know that you said that you wouldn’t be posting again Baroness, but as Webmaster of http://www.blacktrianglecampaign.org I’d like to know what on our website is nasty, inaccurate tosh with me standing by everything that is quoted on out website as fact.
Come on Baroness, what is there on our website that is inaccurate? You can’t make a statement like that on a public website without qualifying it.
[...] Baroness Murphy’s blog post [...]
Dear Baroness, would it also be possible for you to question Lord Freud, or even ask questions about his suitablility to be involved in the debate, or even the suitablility of his role as “Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Welfare Reform), Work and Pensions; Conservative”.
I find it rather odd, that a man, who has previously told outright lies about incapacity benefit and the people on it (such as wild un-evidenced and innacurate claims of massive fraud rates, such as that people on incapacity benefit are only ever assessed by their OWN doctors) is allowed anywhere near the area.
Is it not worrying to you as a upright, professional, that someone who can demonstrate such a profound lack of knowledge in a area they are writing a paper about for reform, who was widely critised, whose worked was officially stated as having no ‘evidence base’, who has basically promoted propaganda and lies against the sick and disabled, is allowed ANY WHERE near this debate?
It certainly worries me, rather a lot.
I would have thought, serious questions should be raised about this.
Or are the lords quite happy for man who has proven himself to be incompetant, and proven he is willing to lie about such a serious subject worthy of continuing in such an important role?
What do you think the public of this country deserve?
Truth? Honesty? Accountability? Serious issued being addressed?
Or do they deserve facts and history to be brushed under the carpet, and for people proven to be unsuitable to be allowed to play a major part in the future of the sick and disabled?
Its all documented, its all in the open, perhaps you were unaware, but not you are aware, I sincerely hope you will take the comments on board, and check for yourself, and do what you think is right for the country, and its vunerable.
Lord Blagger, the yearly contract for ATOS to do assessments is 100 million approx a year, the cost of benefit fraud on incapacity was at 20 million a year.
The cost of tribunals is around 50 million a year.
So 150 million a year, to combat, what 20 million a year fraud?
Thats running at a loss.
And failing to combat fraud I fear, as the assessments focus more on observations on the day than they do on medical evidence and facts.
So a faker can fake their way through the assessment, not needing to worry about not having much genuine evidence behind them.
The genuine, with solid evidence, are in a lottery as to how they appear on the day, and what the super secret software decides, and the honesty of the assessor, as well as the honesty of the decision makers.
Dear Lords,
Why can we not get the answers from the Freedom of INformation Act and Transparent Govt when it comes to Atos assessments and their affect on disabilities All such requests are banned, refused and blocked from the requests to the govt information site?
WHY??? If there was not something wrong going on? http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/breakdown_of_types_of_illnesses#comment-21676
How can a bill be moved through when the impact of its legislation and already in practice events have not been truely recorded and no one can get at or access the records which would show it true account. Atos WCA assessments have been going since October 2008 and problems have been evidenced and reported from the beginning and the evidence and personal and professional witness to devastating effects on people’s lives and the effects on thier care and benefits so all can and have been removed from months and for over a year up to 18 months while going through the appeal process, this is on top of of going through whatever illness of disability or deteriorating condition the person already has. The effects and devastation on different illnesses and conditions have already been recorded and individually witnessed to. Such as diabetics who have other conditions which make them incapacitated having their benefits removed to the point of not having sufficient income for adequate diet and having the upsetting consequences of having to have amputations due to septic areas and developing blindness and other organ failure, terminally ill cancer patients having everything removed and losing house, home, money and children as it has to be arranged for children to go into care due to parent not being able to support them in basic life needs any more. Income from disabled benefits which replace income does not just support the disabeld person but is there to supplement the income that supports the family. It is not just one person your support and feed and clothe and pay bills on very little £95pw £52pw or £31pw or no money per week but their dependents too. Have you thought of this, and if ESA and JSA is removed then automatically access to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit is removed too. So no income coming in but full rent needed and full council tax bill. as the council tax bill is then for the year then the full amount can be demanded. This is the state decisions have made and created.
This is on top of the poor administration and poor competence and adequate assessments of disabilties and illnesses. The Atos Healthcare reps say themselves that they do not care what the person’s medical condition is or how bad their situation, they do not care if a person has a leg injury, a leg ulcer or even an aortic venal ulcer (heart disease) as long as the person can walk they do not care if the exertion causes the injury to worsen, cause harm or even burst and cause death. They also admit they do not care in the situation of mental illness and mental distress if a person then goes on to harm themselves, others or even family members, work colleagues (I give the example of Derek Bird) or even a child is killed or harmed. This they admit to on taped audio tapes of their recruitment fair. It is very disturbing and very true, They do not care. How can these existing set up be OK and how can it be taken forward into something permanent when it has already caused so much harm.
One of the main problems and major areas in trying to make a decision is to get and access the relevant data and information. May it be in your Lord’s interest to know that the Freedom of Information Act does not cover the Atos assessments or how they affect the disabled who go through it. Many people have tried to access the information about their medicals, Atos assessments and information about how their area or family member’s area of illness or disability has been treated in going through the assessments. People have asked over and over again about similar cases going through Atos. The answer is that such information is priviliged and outside the public’s right to know. So people who have heart conditions, cancers, Parkinsons, strokes, MS. ME, Mental Illness and learning needs and severe learning needs and have been taken off their benefits and gone through hell, sometimes 3-4 and more times till their death have been constantly denied the information as to how Atos has overall treated their condition.
Even professionals and top consultants and specialists in their area are denied access to information regarding their area of expertise such as cancers, heart problems and neurological conditions and profounding serious conditions as to how Atos has affected and treated their patients.
Please take this into consideration. That if the public, disabled patient and professionals themselves cannot access the right information to inform their situation, protest, or specialist professional area, then how on earth can the Lords make a decision when no one else can get this information. Unless the lords be privy to information no one else has.
This is my recent request and post on What Do They Know to ask for information regarding types of illnesses and diseases, their outcome, numbers and consequences and re-calls. You will see that my request is denied even though other information is given. You will also see that another contributor Mr Taylor says he givee me acknowledgement for what I am doing and also confirms that the ability to access information of Atos from government about the most vulnerable in our society is blocked. He says that all such requests and the constant refusal, but the amounting evidence form independent gatherers of information and witness is noted and will be used.
The information is there. Atos and the government may deny access to the information which we should all have of how the disabled are being treated through this process. But those who are independent watcher and supporters and disabled, family and professionals have been gathering the evidence and witness. Why keep the information private and secret if there is no harm and nothing to be ashamed of?
Please stop this bill and suspend this until the auditing and accounting and counting of the disabled who have gone through this process has been done. This has been denied. It is your duty to insist on pursuing this evidence until you have the right information in your hands.
AA
Of course, in addition, which I keep forgetting. Severe disabilities and illnesses cannot get employment, not just because of their problem of working a normal hour day and consistently and not having time off. But because the employer cannot get employer/employee liability insurance. Certain conditions such as MS, Parkinsons, etc would not get work as their behaviour due to their illness would make them a liability and a health and safety hazard not just to themselves but to others and could be a danger to themselves, their colleagues to the work product and workplace and the employer would never be able to get them covered even if he wanted to. Even a little splip might mean a nice cup of sugary coffee over a computer keyboard. It is not possible to employ certain disabilities or conditions because of the inability to get employer liability. This really has not been fully worked out of looked at.
AA
It seems the campaign against the sick and disabled, has escalated to the point where even the GMC may become an agent of the state, and doctors may end up acting not in the patients best interest.
A doctor patient relationship should not include any political motives, a doctors duties should not be to further government agenda.
Since when has this country thought it acceptable that doctors should be ethically required to
“To encourage patients to stay in, or return to, work”
Because, that is the part of the wording of the new draft GMC guidance, which was developed with input from guess who – the DEPARTMENT OF WORK AND PENSIONS.
Since when has the DWP been in control of doctors?
Since when has this country made doctors act to do government wishes?
Hitler did that didnt he?
This is a disgraceful move, that shows the extent of how bad the campaign against the sick and disabled is becoming.
No doctor should ever be required to further political aims, thats not what the profession is about, and no doctor should ever be forced, as they would be if they have to give this advice to all patients, give advice that the doctor thinks could be harmful to the patient.
This is a national disgrace and should be taken into consideration when debating the bill, as to how far advanced the pressure against the sick and disabled is.
Because it comes to something, when government rhetoric and propaganda works its way into the sacred doctor patient relationship, and even may risk some peoples health.
Maude
Where you are off line is, you are blaming those who are needy.
No. You are offline in accusing me of this.
I’ll repeat, and an acknowledgement from you would be appreciated.
People who are disabled should get their extra costs met in full.
People who are able to work, should not get money for disability.
There is no blame to be attached for being disabled.
I for one do not subscribe to all the parties views for example on fat people, that they should be taxed for their choices. That is pinning blame on people.
That is my position. It is contrary to what you think my position is.
What you have made is a basic error in Logic.
I’m against people who are not disabled getting benefits. You read that and don’t see the bit about “not disabled”. If you’re dyslexic, it might explain that, but I doubt that is the case.
@LBlagger:
People who are not disabled do not get DLA. They have to ‘prove’ their disability beyond doubt.
If you are talking about those who, somehow, manage to pass themselves off as being disabled, via their GP and their hospital Consultant, then that is extraordinary and I don’t see how it is possible.
If you have a diagnosis and follow up with pathology tests, xrays, scans and so on, and the conditions are found to be in existence, then what are you saying? It is faked? Some people with broken limbs, cancer or what ever other terrible affliction they may have, do not all have the same affect. That does not mean that because one man, on one day, can just manage stand up and reach the door, that tomorrow he can do that as well. More likely, the effort of what he forced himself to do today will exacerbate his condition and make it impossible to even sit up the following and subsequent days.
Severe illness fluctuates on a daily basis. Today it can be said, I can lift my arms, but tomorrow they do not move at all. Do you resent the one day they have in fifty that they can lift their arms and as a result of that happy event, find thy should be thrown onto the street without food and a roof because of it. That is absurd.
As I have repeated, some expert lawyer group should be taking these cases to the European Court on Human Rights grounds.
But what troubles me more is, they can get our people to do this as a job. It smacks of the Hitler youth. And the Nazi’s. How did he get the people to do the things they did.
How can a civilized people become so horrendously callous overnight. Where does the mindset slide over from this is impossible to this is acceptable.
Only by creating an overwhelming sense of ill will. And this government is certainly working hard on and paying for that indignence.
What I have read here, about how much this official constant abuse is costing us all, as opposed to the cost of the so called fraud, is a difference of £130 million in loss to the tax payer. Now how is that acceptable to you? How does that make sense? And more, what does that do to the community in its spirit? It makes us simply one step away from putting kids up chimneys, or, using them as boy soldiers. That is what it does. It destroys the heart of a nation.
It removes the sense of decency we British people always had. It spreads like an aggressive cancer throughout the psyche of the population. And we end up with what we have now, hospitals manned by evil people who will not feed the sick, or, offer water to a dying man. And to the inhuman treatment of the senile and mentally ill. And with those who do these most disgraceful acts being allowed to stay hidden and never be punished for their crime.
Is that what you want for our country? Is that what you want for mankind? Because that is what happens when society endorses such offensive behaviour as this.
You see, I am of the belief that those who promote such horror, are made directly responsible for the monstrous policies that provoked this kind of reaction. And it always always comes from the top. So those at the top should be personally accountable for the consequences of such a mandate. Because this is brought about by commercializing abuse. Paying out our tax money to private companies whom they know abuse the vulnerable and set them up for mental torture. Our government pay them on how many they reject for benefit and that brings a pre-selective bias. They are only paid to fail them.
What a disgrace. And you should hang your head in shame for supporting such a business.
—>http://www.shu.ac.uk/_assets/pdf/cresr-woib-report-2010.pdf
Tell me about the 430,000 women who are under the disguised employment, or the 125,000 single mothers on ICB. All who shouldn’t be.<—
A two year old document colated by a University? As Leeds University wrongly claim there are 6 million carers (financed by Carers UK) it is as believeable as David Cameron knowing what ordinary people's lives are like!
You can make ANY reseach read ANY WAY you want it. Do you really think people are that stupid Lord Blagger?
Oh, and using an alias stops you being taken seriously. So what is your real name?
Forget the tag – that’s been explained.
Will you address the issue instead of trying to excuse people claiming benefits when they shouldn’t.
For example.
Has the general health of the UK got worse by 300%?
Why 300%?
Well that’s the increase in the claimants for IB.
Now, since IB is an entitlement based on NI contributions, if the number of people paying NI had tripled, it would be reasonable. However it hasn’t.
Now it is clear, and the research shows it, that there should be an increase in the number of women claiming IB, because their proportion of the workforce has gone up, and that is the case. But its far from 300%
Now when you look at men. No longer working in dangerous industries because they have gone. However, numbers claiming have escalated.
SO its back to the conclusion, unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, that a lot of those claiming IB are there for political reasons. ie. They aren’t unemployed.
Is there any other evidence for this?
Yes. The number not turning up for assessments, presumably in most cases because they have realized they can’t claim any more, or perhaps, were even frauds, and in the number being reject.
So it’s not me that’s being stupid. It’s those that haven’t worked out what has been going on. Add up the claims since Maggie pushed people from unemployment to IB, and its not millions, its not tens of millions, it’s not hundreds of millions, it’s not billions, or even tens of billions. It’s hundreds of billions.
So now since governments have run up 7,000 billion of debts, Maddoff’ed off the books, its not surprising that even people who need the money are being hit.
So Clive when I look at your post, I see no evidence. Nothing but an attempt at kicking the man, not the ball.
Who is Lord Blagger? Who indeed? Maybe someone who just wants to hone and sharpen your sapier. For like C S Lewis’s tutor he wants you to get your argument straight. So to beat him you must beat every man and every man’s argument.
And get the argument as to why someone would want to listen to your argument and take it on in the first place? There might be an assumptions already being made that your interests are automatically their interests. Do not assume or the unprepared for response will shock, annoy and anger you and bite you in the bum of your most greatest needs and values and intensity of feeling and righteous indignation. Then you will just scream, and people will automatically despise you. So British, unfortunately. It is not the scream but the discomfort it gives to others.
If you need to win your need to win every arguement and need to get yourself honed through ever argument, every prejudice and every self interest. If you get through Blagger maybe you would get through the rest. But then who can get through a Blagger? Not for nothing does he choose his name.
Here is his profile description:
ABOUT ME
LORD BLAGGER
If you need consultancy on how to cream it as a MP, or a Lord, get in touch. Trouble with all those embarassing expenses? Get in touch and let an expert in the matters help you with your problems. lordblagger @ googlemail.com
Here is a cartoon beloved by him:
Non Sequitur Comic Strip, September 02, 2010 on GoComics.com
Spot on. Sign up with Lord Blagger, and jump the queue at the Lobbyist entrance
http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2010/09/02/
and his profile description. If you cannot see his wry sense of humour and proposed proposition of purpose. You are an idiot.
But then he may just be like all blaggers. Not much far removed from the dodgy dealer on the corner psk psking and saying how he cd get your this or get you that and half a gram of this and half and ounce of that. and get you into this and get you into knowing the right people and into the right places where you would meet even more dodgier characters just like him on the make. psk psk. “I’ll do you a deal, but you are going to have to get through me first.” Sloughing off like George Coleman’s spiv “Flash Harry” with the music and dodgy limp going after him. Whistling the dodgy Laurel and Hardy spivvy tune through the halls and corridors of westminster as Dodgy Lord Blagger walks past.
AA
AA
And if you don’t get satire, try reading up on what Truscot and his mates were up to.
In January 2009 Truscott was the subject of corruption allegations in the Sunday Times, along with three of his Labour colleagues. He was accused of seeking a £72,000 fee to help two people posing as lobbyists “amend a government bill that was harmful to their client”, saying he would have to “be a ‘bit careful’ and could not table the amendment himself.”
ie. Attempting to selling changes to legistlation for cash.
Not a criminal offence, and the Lords have no intention of making it one.
Blagging? It’s what the Lords do.
Keep on topic! What remotely is the connection between this and the Welfare Reform Bill? Nothing. The Lord of the Blogs site cannot afford to be bogged down by repetitious inputs by a small group of obsessives.
So do you class the people being targeted by the welfare reforms as “a small group of obsessives” Dan? Or shouldn’t a more accurate term be “service users”?
If any of the Lords who will (no doubt) pass the bill regardless of concerns by disabled people and their carers (another group that will be hit by these cuts, because that is all the welfare reform bill is really) really wants to engage with the people that will be hit in the most savage way any government that I can remember then they should take on-board EVERY concern by ANY group no matter how small- in fact the Lords could be classed as “a small group” in comparison to the number of disabled people that will suffer at the hands of the ConDems.
If the Lords are genuine in their concern for fairness then they need to read places like this http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewcategory/1/
A website and forum run by professional welfare rights officers.
Or this article
http://news.scotsman.com/uk/Families-face-Third-World-winter.6848488.jp
followed by this http://www.disabilitynow.org.uk/latest-news2/campaigns/its-eat-or-heat-this-winter
FTR, I have no association with the Black Triangle group, I admire their spirit as I did something similar for carers a while ago, but the BT group have a couple of members I would never want anything to do with.
If the Lords pass the WRB then it should hang it’s head in shame as it will have sold out the most vulnerable people in society in order to save a few quid
No, my “small group of obsessives” is not the target group of these welfare reforms but certain bloggers (or blaggers) on this site who hog the cyberspace with their comments.
Apologies for any probs with my writing forget to mention the severe mental impairment and several strokes that cause displacement of words and phrases and sentences while still writing them. All good fun while it is in fact NOT!
Blagging? It’s what the Lords do.
HaHa.
Meanwhile, I have and urgent case among many today and one I would like to highlight to let your Lord’s know how those with a sweet nature, a pleasant soul and an uncomplaining and long suffering nature due to long term pain and disability and incapacity can be so dreadfully and sadistically treated by the current practices of the Welfare Reform Bill – before it comes in;
A girl/young woman in home counties, Buckinghamshire. I sufferer of unexplained brain haemoraghing. She has constant pain, cluster headaches, blindness, excessive migraines and it causes severe cognitive and mental difficulties. She cannot even read around a blog or advice site or forum to see what people say and look for advice. There is no right to support or legal aid and CAB are being cut back. most are getting their support through mutual support and trying to find ways to advocate and act for each other. So she has a friend called Jimi who stands up for her but also like a man is angry and does not believe how she can be judged fit to work and put in a Work Related Ability Group. This is on top or trying to manage her difficult day and headaches and partial blindness and cognitive problems. I must reiterate many very disabled people and very cognitive and mentally impaired people are getting round the problems and difficulties of the Atos WCA ESA Welfare Reform Programme and do and present and better argument and presentation than most Lords and self serving MPs. So please let her following communication to me today sink into your heart.
Debbie: Hi
Thanks for the link.
Rang DWP at Cosham this morning. Got a stupid rude foreign woman and I just could not believe her attitude and lack of knowledge – also think she should learn to speak English properly lol. I ended up being rude to her because of her attitude but she told me she would get somebody to call me back within an hour – think she wanted to get rid of me cos I was ranting on about lying ATOS doctors! She ended up saying ‘I will get somebody to call you back within the hour, goodbye’. An hour ended up being about 3 hours but I got a call from a lovely lady.
A lady called me who was a DM and we chatted for over half an hour. She said she has been on leave and she will be looking at my file this afternoon and sending me a letter out. It’s a big file. She has briefly read mine and Jimi’s letters. She told me that it’s quite difficult to get put in Support group but she will try and put me in it – think she needs to get me another 15 points? She said I scored very highly at the medical but not enough for Support Group. I told her all about the lying doctor and she listened. She was very interested in the fact that he had omitted the fact that I had my symbol cane with me and never mentioned I was partially sighted on the medical report. Also how he had put that I have frequent thoughts of self harm – told her that I have never ever had any intention of it. I said to her that he has had 6 weeks of training in assessing disabled people so how dare he make judgement on whether I am fit for work. Said I am treated by one of the leading headache consultant’s in the country and he has said I must not work so a ATOS doctor cannot go against that. Also told her that he had lied about my eye test – said he cannot overrule what a qualified ophthalmologist has said anyway and I am registered partially sighted. Dr also said I read an N12 print cared and I NEVER! He said I was sweating and agitated at my medical and I wasn’t. I told her that I understand that she is under strict guidelines about whether she can put me in the support group but I will appeal if I am not put into it and I went into a bit of a rant. I told her that they are disgusting and are ruining disabled and sick people’s lives. I told her all about JImi doing the Power Point presentation and what he is going to do with it and she said she would do the same fi it was her! She did say that I may only have to go to the Work Focus Interview once and then they will leave me alone when they know I cannot work. I will not be placed on JSA after a period of time. She also said that if she’s not able to put me in the Support Group then I may get put in it if I appeal. She is going to sit down and go through my letters and file this afternoon with somebody else and said she’ll send me an appeal form if she can’t put me in the Support Group. I actually did get the impression she knows what’s going on but could not say too much to me. She would not have listened so much to me if she didn’t know what they are and how much they stitch people up. I thanked her very much for taliking to me and she said it was nice to speak to me and thanked me.
Will now have to wait to see what letter I get in the next couple of days. I did get the impression that she will do her best for me. Was very surprised to actually speak to a DM. Do you know anybody that’s every spoken to a DM? Am so glad I called because I really feel I said my piece about to somebody that matters.
Debbie x
There are some fantastic people out there beyond the edge of reason and the savage hells of pain who can still stand up and try and do things and change things. This is not the only one. One MS in the third middle stage of incapacity got knocked out for 4 days and did not make a meeting. the DWP sent a letter 2nd class knowing it wd arrive past the date, and on top of that she was having a bad time where she is knocked out for a few days with high pain killers and when she woke up although still incapacitated and cannot get out she has been taken off JSA. That is right a MS sufferer in the middle to late part of the ilness is deemed fit for work, has to attend work groups and search and go for interviews and struggle back, no matter what although she has no food no heating and no money at times for weeks due to their cock ups and even then the lowest £31pw to cover everything She is cut off from all money and from that all housing and Council Tax benefit and the day after got a demand for Council Tax for over £800.
Please my Lords, take note. This is how we live even those who have served their country well before and taken care and supported their family and children. and in regard to the MS, as soon as her partner heard she had MS he did not support her, he did not comfort her. He hit her the following day and called her a stupid #### and that he was leaving her now she was going to be so much trouble. and since illness she sufferers violence and bullying from her neighbours. and abuse of disabled is not a criminal offence it is a civic offence so police do not have to act or respond.
In your satire, please take note. Not everything is funny.
I hope you make your choice and make the right choice.
I will go off and do what I can do, but so one of many, and these things would not happen if we did not have a system in which it happens and where it will be in even greater numbers in the future. 1.8 million without feedback as to what happened next is enough.
Extension of Debbie’s message and today’s update. Understand she is in terrible pain and distress and a serious medical neurological condition and both her specialist and GP have emphasised that she should not and could not work. All have been ignored
Hi Aunty
Got bad news in the post yesterday! Even after the long chat I had with the DM on Friday about the lying doctor and the letters that Jimi and I sent asking to change their decision and put me in the Support Group, they will not change their decision and I am to remain in the WRAG Group. I even sent a letter from my neurologist which states that he has told me that he has told me that I must not return to work and that my condition is unlikely to change in the near future. He only deals with my cluster headaches and migraines! They have a copy of my CVI Partially Sighted Certificate and so much medical evidence. I even have a letter from my consultant saying that it is not safe for me to travel on my own and that I need an escort because I experience auras/hallucinations which impair my vision – that was written before I was registered as partially sighted! I have other medical problems too but these are irrelevant, I really think what I have mentioned is enough lol.
You seem to be the only person that I know that has real knowledge about ESA and I was wondering if you think it is worth all the effort and stress of trying to get put into the Support Group? I think I will have to go to a Tribunal if I appeal their decision. I was wondering if you have any documents you could send me please that lists the criteria for the Support Group. The DM told me on Friday that only very special cases get put into the Support Group. Jimi is going to have to act for me at the Tribunal as there is absolutely nobody in Milton Keynes at the CAB or at any other organisation that can help me.
I am going to London on Monday for 4/5 days for my headache treatment so if you recommend I do appeal, I will not do anything until I come out of hospital. Am getting stressed already about going in hospital so just don’t want to start having to do letters and things. Of course, I will be taking computer with me. The days are so long and boring in hospital and they get me up so early for treatment and then I can’t go to bed til late either cos of treatment.
Saw my GP yesterday and she was absolutely shocked by what I told her about my medical and the lies the doctor had told about me. She knew a bit about ATOS but I told her quite a lot and she was disgusted. She has not seen the Training Manual and I’m going to print it off and drop it in the surgery so she can have a look through it and show her colleagues.
Look forward to hearing from you. x
This has made me cry..and feel very hopeless. WHY is this happening? Any LORD,LADY. Or MP with a heart would put a stop to all of this right now!!.
I beg you to forward this letter to all Lords, Im in fear the Baroness Murphy will not be reading this, However Baroness Campbell seems to be taking a keen interest.
Here are some links you may be able to copy this heartfelt letter to
http://t.co/8h89PrgF
http://www.abcofesa.co.uk/board/index.php
http://thebrokenofbritain.blogspot.com
Kind regards.
people do care, I for one am absolutely ashamed of the way we are persecuting the sick and disabled right now and will fight with all my might till death on this.
They aren’t going to. There is no money left, and they still want their cut.
Have you worked out how much one peer for one day costs the taxpayer?
It’s over 2,000 pounds.
That’s why they haven’t enough for IB.
I really tired and exhausted.
I think I will go to bed and lie and down and if I am lucky perhaps not wake up.
Did the Barroness actually attend the debate about the bill on the 4th?
Did not see any comment from her on the transcript of the proceedings?
Can the people in the bill debate, also not be fobbed of by re-assurances, seeing as we the people on the recieving end of them, have had reassuranes countless times before, countless promises, countless times we have beeen told things will improve etc.
Yet they never have.
Each time, things get worse.
Why are questions not being asked, as to why all the previous re-assurances given in previous debates and bills etc were not upheld?
Why are the same companies, and people whose re-assurances were not upheld, still being believed when they (as no doubt they will) offer reassurances yet again?
Does anyone know, if the public are allowed to attend the bill debate, and if they are also allowed to speak up and contribute if they hear a mistruth or misleading statement being made?
I have lost count of the number of times, and Im sure many others feel the same, that I have read the transcript, and thought, that answer does not stand up to even the remotest amount of scrutiny, yet in the debates, often answers are not scrutinised, its as though the members literally believe every word people say, without checking, or doubting it.
Odd, considering the baroness admits to treating reports she is sent with sceptisicm, why is the same sceptic nature not applied to people like Lord Frued, who after all, has shown himself in public to have no qualms in lying about the facts, making things up, and helping to stigmatise and promote more hatred against those on sickness benefits.
Why are questions not being asked about UNUM’s involvment?
Why, is the future of the sick and disabled, being rushed through parliament, when its clear to the public, the full facts are not available, that the DWP fail to collect the required statistics (such as detailed breakdowns of claims/conditions/outcomes etc), that even the people in the debate are denied access to have the software examined properly (as are the public).
Why are questions not being asked about why a known failing system, should be copied for hte dla to pip moves?
Why are questions not being asked, why the esa system was based on a made up fantasy from the likes of Frued, and why the UNUM system of disability assessment was copied for the pca?
Why did the lords accept that the harrington review would act as a safeguard to review the system, when harrington himself has made it CLEAR in public, that his review is not concerned with saying if the system is FIT FOR PURPOSE or not, because that, and whether it should be scrapped or not, is purely a political decision?
Also, why are questions not being asked about the moves by ATOS to censor websites?
Just when you think you are safe…. I won my appeal for ESA on the 23rd of August and got put in the WRAG group as I have stated before. I’ve just been sent for interviews for jobfit, which I have to do next Monday. If that isn’t stressful enough, this morning another ESA50 form has been posted through my letterbox. They don’t even give you any breathing space. My stress levels have now gone up through the roof. For someone with social anxiety problems and anxiety in general, to have to go out to interviews and now worry about ATOS all over again………. I’m in a living nightmare and I don’t know how I’m going to cope. Something has to change!!! There’s no consistency to any of it.
@Shazzyrm:
The first change you can make, depending on your state of health of course, is to have them come to your home for the assessment and have a witness or two, of standing, attend on your behalf.
Another sensible idea is either record what is said and asked of you or film it. Of course you must let them know you are doing this.
Harassment is illegal. And should you be ‘harassed’ you can then approach a law practice who specializes in these complaints.
Thank you Maude, that sounds like a very good idea and you are quite right, I do feel like I am being harassed right now. How are you supposed to get better if you’re not allowed to?
If you let an atos assessor know you are recording, you would think they would have no problems with it, in fact a medical union has even recommended that there members should not object to patients recording them.
But its not the case, if you turn up on the day and tell them you are recording (even if its for medical reasons such as poor memory, or due to previous incorrect reports/lies) then they will halt the medical, and your benefits will STOP.
You will also NOT BE PAID whilst appealing due to non-compliance.
If you try to arrange recording before hand, the standard response, is you must comply with rules that are stricter than the PACE police rules of evidence, stricter than how the police record things in murder interviews.
You have to have a professional double deck recording machine, professionally calibrated by a qualifed professional, immediately prior to the assessment.
Both ATOS and the Assessor must agree to the recording.
Reports show, that even when someone did eventually (as it is out of the cost bracket for the vast majority of claimaints) meet the technical requirements regarding hiring a trained professional for the period, and the equipment, the assessor simply refused to give consent.
They did have a recording trial, but you can bet your bottom dollar the findings from that will indicate that recording should not be allowed in future, perhaps the lords could clarify that point.
Even when you have been allowed to record, under the trial for example, I can confirm that in some cases (mine for example) you are forced to sign a document waiving your legal rights, a document that attempts to pervert the cause of justice.
The document only allows you to submit the evidence for the direct purpose of obtaining the benefit in question.
This means it prohibit things such as (but not limited to)
Exposing a public interest concern (legally) to the media.
Submitting evidence to the regulatory body, such as the GMC or NMWC.
Submitting evidence to a court, the police, or other authority or regulatory body for investigation into any wrong doing.
You can only submit the evidence to the DWP, your advisors, welfare rights etc and a benefit tribunal.
Its a clear attempt to pervert the cause of justice, and I regard it as a crime.
What do you think Baroness Murphy?
I think things like this is the way to go.
Start recording. If they refuse, get them to say the refuse to assess you.
Note, this isn’t the same as the question the other way round.
It’s the same with all government. Record what they say. It’s a game changer.
For example, on recording phone conversations.
1. If A rings B. A can record what is said. A doesn’t not have to tell B.
2. A has to have B’s permission to release that recording to C.
3. C cannot record a conversation between A and B. That’s the equivalent of taping. It is also inadmissible in court as its hearsay.
Now, as soon as there is an Android, or a iPhone app, its a major changer.
Government can’t cope with it. Just like when it comes to the law it can’t cope with DNA for paternity.
In addition to the recording offically route, you can approach it via covert recording, whereby you secretly record without telling them.
This is 100 percent legal, absolutely above board, and within the law.
As for wether a tribunal will accept the evidence, that is up to the individual tribunal panel themselves.
There is nothing actually stopping them from doing so, but they could chose not to accept it if they wish.
There is some case law supporting its use though, and covert recordings have been allowed in a tribunal before.
Pleasehelpus
I totally agree about covert recording, I advise anyone who has an Atos assessment to do just that, I also personally record any telephone conversation I have with anyone from the DWP, JobCentrePlus, Atos etc, I also copy anything sent to me, send anything to the DWP,JobCentrePlus, Atos by special delivery, recorded post, these people cannot be trusted whatsoever.
The pilot study into the viability of recording assessments has taken place, the whole pilot was in my opinion a total farce.
As you have stated, they have said in the past one needs to provide a twin deck tape machine and a qualified engineer to work it, I have found this document which puts some light on how Atos want to conduct assessments and with what type of equipment.
http://issuu.com/atosvictims/docs/audio_20recording_20pilot
As you will notice, it seems Atos thinks it’s perfectly acceptable to use a handheld digital recorder?
I would be shocked If a decision is made to provide recordings of all assessments, Atos and the DWP are too affraid as to what may come out, hope the document is useful…
Convert recording works. You get their evidence for the tribunal. Then you let them know its been recorded. They then panic.
All you have to do is get a transcript produced. You then use that. It can be vouched that its accurate.
In addition, claimaints assessed for IB or ESA are not offered a copy of the medical report before it is sent to the decision maker.
GMC guidance clearly states they MUST BE offerede a copy before it is sent to the decision maker.
ATOS have refused to comply with this in my case, and have never offered a copy.
They say it is not required that they do so.
Well, perhaps the lords can address the issue of the fact that every assessment ATOS has conducted by a doctor for ESA or IB where the claimaint has not been offered a copy of the medical report before it is sent to the decision maker is clearly breaking GMC rules, and therefore unethical, and breaking legislation that assessors must conduct a assessment in line with their regulatory bodies rules.
The NMWC confirmed that they expect the same to, for a copy to be provided should the claimaint ask for one at the time.
This was sent (with supporting evidence) to the harrington review also – although I wonder if it will be covered, as a lot of the points I raised last year seemed to get ‘lost’ and were not covered at all in his report.
If it is ‘buried’ and the lords do not address such a major point, then its clear to me at least, that something very corrupt is going on.
Is it possible you could send me the details about the GMC & NMWC, the links to both If possible, I may have some use for that info?
you can contact me at
atosvictimsgroup@gmail.com
Perhaps the lords (ps no offence to ladies/barons/baronesses, when I say lords I am just referring to everyone in the debate) could ask why if ATOS admit to health and safety concerns (such as problems evacuating in a fire in some assessment centers) and also lack of disablity access/parking/facilities in some others, why they are allowed to continue operating?
Is the LIVES AND SAFETY of the workers, and the claimaints not important?
Perhaps if this is not addressed as a matter of urgency, someone should ring up health and safety, and the fire brigade and arrange assessments of the risk, and they can decide wether to shut the place down or not, or prosecute etc.
Because they, unlike the government and ATOS seem to take the lives and safety of people very very seriously.
Perhaps the lords could also re-ask ATOS why they are feared and loathed, and NOT accept the silly answer that its because the disabled do not understand the process.
In general we understand perfectly what the process is, what the design is, we are NOT fools.
That answer, does not stand up to scrutiny Im afraid.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/oct/07/disability-poverty-welfare-cuts
Four in 10 disabled young people in England are living in poverty, amounting to a “staggering” 320,000 children. And the figure will rise because of government cuts to welfare payments, according to a report by The Children’s Society.
+++++++++++++
Bob Reitemeier, chief executive of the Children’s Society, said: “These findings are staggering and very worrying. It seems that all forms of support for disabled children are seriously hampered when families live on a low income. Hidden costs, such as transport, heating and learning aids, are forcing more disabled children and young people and their families into poverty.
The bill is a disgrace, DLA more or less “works” and doesn’t need changing. Target those that caused this financial crisis we are in NOT the most vulnerable people in society.
This government makes me ashamed to be British
@DanFilson.
My apologies for my misuderstanding what you meant
[...] seems a comment I made HERE has provoked a reply on the BLACK TRIANGLE GROUP’S [...]
I am very surprised Baroness Murphy has withdrawn from the debate on this blog.
I would add that facts speak for themselves and that I find it hard to believe that Baroness Murphy does not know the truth of the situation.
These matters affect the lives of many disabled and vulnerable people and families. I think that Baroness Murphy is doing a great disservice to people by not doing her duty, and by failing to engage in this debate with people.
It is somewhat insulting that Baroness Murphy’s comments demonstrate that she has not taken on board people’s comments and real-life experiences.
Does Baroness Murphy consider her position so weak that it will not withstand debate?
I have to admit I found it a bit of a surprise for someone to post an invitation to discuss the welfare reform bill and then to announce that they no longer wish to comment on it.
It just goes to show what a mess the whole system is in. The very fact that the DWP are sending letters out to the vulnerable and disabled about losing Contribution ESA before the bill has even been pushed through, shows just how confident they are in getting their own way regardless of how we, the people, feel. Something isn’t right here.
NB: Today – disabled respondents complain about being forced to undergo body searches and searches of their belongings and bags when they go into Atos assessments as Atos do not want them to take in recording devices. So many complain about Atos lying about what they have said or not said, of hurting and harming them, of women and sex abuse victims and adult child victims being asked inappropriate and indepth questions about their sexual life, sexuality and their abusive event. Causing disgust, distress and breakdown, victims say they feel they have been raped and abused again. All healing of their abuse destroyed. The problems have been raised but denied. some have taped interviews and proven what has gone on. Also many conditions need the person to record and remember as their condition such as brain injury, severe mental illness, ME stroke and onset of early dementia mean they should be able to record it.
Can I ask what your policy is of disabled being forcefully body searched and bags searched? Do we all lose our rights and dignity and expectations of common decency because of this bill. Like processing and sectioning blacks and jews under apartheid or the Holocaust. It is disgusting. Disabled like meat to be poked, packed and despatched.
AA
AA
Could you possibly direct me to where you found this information, I would be very interested?
This is obviously illegal in my opinion, If Atos are forcing people to have body searches or refusing to assess people without first having a body search or their bags etc searched then people should refuse, it is not acceptable to be treated in this way whatsoever.
Anyone attending an Atos assessment should put in a formal complaint, stating that they were Physically assaulted, bring in the police.
It seems it is not only ATOS.
A friend of mine who is disabled, and has sustained added injury due to an RTA several years ago, had his DLA stopped. He is unable to work.
He had been in receipt of this for some time. When it stopped, he received no notification. This caused him severe financial hardship.
He had to re-apply and was turned down. He went for an interview. He went with another friend of his, who has since said that they treated him with no respect – even implying that he was lying. He described their attitude and words as ‘treating him like an animal’.
He is not a liar. I have known him for years. He used to work and earn very good money, even after his accident. However, when his disability got worse, he could not work anymore.
He is significantly worse than he used to be and cannot even walk 50 yards without help. I do not understand how he could be refused DLA.
This is becoming an all too common story. I have heard many similar experiences from people I meet at disability groups and on-line.
These agencies and companies such as ATOS are trying to root out the fakers, workshy and scroungers – which is fair enough.
However, in the process they are also turning down people who are genuine and, like my friend, have a severe disability. These are people that are entitled to that money.
These directives come from Government. This is simply unacceptable and disgraceful conduct.
I would urge anyone attending such a meeting, interview or assessment to take a friend or friends. If you are treated badly in any way, write a letter to lodge a formal complaint – ensuring that someone has to sign for the letter upon receipt.
Send a letter to your MP and neighbouring MPs, as well as opposition MPs in your area. Contact the CAB and write to relevant bodies in the EU and at the UN explaining your experiences.
Above all, contact and consult a solicitor or free legal surgery to get legal advice for your specific situation and experiences.
Do not just sit back and take it. I have seen first-hand now just how many genuine people are being denied what they are entitled to and how they are being treated by these organisations.
Thank you.
Absolutely disgusting no-one should be treated in such a way it beggars belief that the Government of this country would condone such behavior from their employees.
Perhaps, if people wish to understand Baroness Murphies comments a lot more, they should read her previous blog post entitled
Legitimate Legislation
Link here
http://lordsoftheblog.net/2011/08/26/legitimate-legislation/
where she talks about ‘lifestyle choices’ co-ercion, forcing people to work, minor injuries etc.
Its very telling, and sheds a lot of light on her views I feel.
I fear, its also all so wrong in my opinion, but what do the views of the disabled matter, it seems we chose to be this way, with a minor injury or condition, and we are forced by the system to remain ill, and should be co-erced into work, and should have our expections changed.
Really, words are failing me after reading that blog post of hers.
Can Baroness Murphy ask the lords to ask ATOS if LIMA has any information in it about Cello Scrotum?
For those who are unaware…
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5601050.ece
The news today from the world that has been evaluating and living with the Welfare Reform Bill – the disabled – is that the information and personal histories and intimate details of the disabled and carer’s and even child’s life is being opened and read by the Royal Mail Postman who sorts the mail. Contrary to the expectations of confidentiality of patient and practitioner and any official department working with a person’s confidential and personal details. their information is open to be read by any one and the layman post office worker. Atos and DWP already practice the practice of having access to a person’s medical history and documents and being able to share it and pass it around to who they see fit.
Our lives are not our own but the most personal details and intimate and history is open to all insundray. Again Atos argues that it is outside the expectations of patient and healthcare because the person in a claimant and customer not a patient. so the rules and expectations of patient confidentiality do not apply.You will never repair the damage that has been done through this.
This was found out through a request to the Freedom of Information government site. See following:
Well, I’m sure you’re also aware how tricky it is to get a look at your own medical notes. Or how careful doctors always are not to share your personal information with anyone. Or how many checks are in place to guarantee our data is secure.
Now, it comes to light (FOI request) that once your ESA50 form speeds on it’s way to the day of reckoning, it will be opened first in a royal mail sorting office, bundled into relevant piles and only then sent on to the correct department.
Yep, Fred the postman, spotty young Fred, 19 (interests : arse jokes and medieval platform games) gets to open your form, the form you agonised over, blushed as you wrote, perhaps cried tears over, smudging the words.
Perhaps he is a responsible young man who simply opens your private, medical evidence, looks at the address and bundles up the papers.
Or perhaps, he is a little thoughtless. Perhaps he shouts to Pete over the way and they guffaw at your bowel habits or mock your spasticity. Either way, surely the point is that no-one should see these forms but the person who wrote them and the decision maker who will consider them?
There is nothing on the form to say this happens, no disclaimer warning you. If it is legal (which I find incredibly hard to believe) then surely it is not moral? Surely it breaks every code that medical professionals try to follow as they safeguard our intimate medical secrets?
I imagine ministers will tell us that it is “standard procedure” that no-one reads the details. Is that the point?
If this is the line they take, then perhaps they would consider writing a 1000 word account of the most embarrassing or traumatic event of their entire lives and allowing me to pass them round my local pub? No-one will read them, honest, we’ll just pas them round and leave them in a pile at the end.
No? Thought not.
The government is guilty of attempting to suppress welfare reform bill opposition in the Lords by pushing the Welfair Bill through the Grand Committee rather than giving it the proper discussion it requires.
The is a particular element of the bill which will have considerable impact on disabled son (cerebral palsy) who lives in a car home, ie Included in the bill are proposals to remove the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance from state funded care home residents, the most vulnerable of all. In such circumstances mobility allowance is used to fund accessible transport. This could be a motability car, but is often accessible taxis or specialist wheelchairs. Removing this payment would see care home residents virtual prisoners and those who use wheelchairs confined to bed. This is a long way from protecting the vulnerable.
My son uses a car to get to hospital appointments, visit family and holidays, etc. Though the care home does have transport, there is not sufficient resource to cover individual needs, of my son or the other residents.
Quite simply I have lost faith in Government and that in reality they not listening to either the individual or the representations being made by organisations like Scope.
Peter Ongley
Peter Ongley: How does taking a Bill for Committee stage in Grand Committee deny the Bill proper scrutiny?
Because What’s most disturbing is the difference in the way peers will be able to scrutinise the bill. If a bill passes through the main committee it involves detailed, line by line examination, every clause of the bill must be agreed to and votes on amendments take place. However, in a grand committee there is no voting on amendments and the committee must agree unanimously, which leaves room for just one peer siding with the government to derail the process.
Peter Ongley: It also means that the Government cannot make any changes unless everyone agrees. It is unusual to have votes in committee when a Bill is taken on the floor of the House. The usual practice is to wait until Report stage, when any unresolved issues are dealt with and, as necessary, can be voted on. There is thus no great difference between committee on the floor of the House and in Grand Committee which is, in effect, a parallel chamber.
Irrespective of what process is adopted, reading through both House of Commons and Lords and research data provided (which is poor), I have become rather cynical about the whole process, as the government has already “won” and the those with genuine needs are not been given the opportunity to have their say, as the majority are not in the fortunate position of having access to the Internet or the physical capabilities to use it effectively.
It brought a smile to my face about the fact the committee where concerned their members not been able to get the division in time due to the distance from the chamber. How would like this problem every day of their lives and then their access to transport then been taken away!
Sorry but I don’t believe anybody is listening or really cares, it is no wonder that both my son and have become disheartened.
Peter Ongley: I am not sure how your observations relate to what I have said. Committee stage can and frequently does result in considerable changes to a Bill.
The government is guilty of attempting to suppress welfare reform bill opposition in the Lords by pushing the Welfair Bill through the Grand Committee rather than giving it the proper discussion it requires.
Meanwhile the Dumfries book club are also up in arms. We haven’t had time to debate this bill and the government is trying to rail road us. After all, at least we democratically elect our chairman, which is more democracy than the Lords.
There is thus no great difference between committee on the floor of the House and in Grand Committee which is, in effect, a parallel chamber.
Well Lord Norton since according to you there is no great difference, you won’t mind if we have transparency with proper debate and the votes taken on the floor of the house then will you ?. Look Lord Norton, listen up…we are not fools ok, so stop trying to insult our intelligence.
Maverick: This sort of comment annoys me considerably. What are you talking about? There is no issue of transparency. Proceedings in Grand Committee are as transparent as on the floor of the House. How on earth is transparency affected? What do you mean ‘proper debate’? It is the same as on the floor of the House, with those speaking who would speak if committee was on the floor of the House and following the same rules governing debate. It is, as I say, a parallel chamber.
I agree Lord Norton’s comment about Grand Committee. Hardly in secret! Forgive my ignorance, was this bill introduced into the Commons before the Lords? Has there been any restraint on debate?
Please let me know if I am on the right track or even on the right page.
Its my belief that the Government wishes to:
1. Privatize the NHS and open a lucrative Private Sector Market.
2. Reform all Benefits for sick and Disabled people across the country and put Private Heath Insurance and put a cheaper PIP package in to cover all Benefits its place.
4. Employ’s a questionable Company that assesses sick and disabled people that finds rather to many fit for work causing the claimant to appeal.
Looking at a lot of comments and disabled and charity forums on the internet I do not think I am on my own in the assumptions (Am I on the right Pages) Please Reply if you get a minute
Surely you are wrong? – that nice Mr Cameron promised most sincerely that the NHS was safe in his hands. He would not lie, would he?
The simple point I am trying to make on behalf of those who are genuinely disabled from birth and who don’t have a choice, it is very frustrating that they can’t their message across and even though you believe you are discussing the matter properly I can’t see from any of the committee meeting minutes evidence that anybody really understands the implications of amending the DLA (especially the motability element) will have on those in care homes. It is quite simple really by removing access to the motability scheme for this in care you are making them prisoners in their own homes, through the loss of access to either a car or wheelchair. It appears that everybody of the opinion that the care homes and local councils already provided these resources, this is not the case and where transport is provided, it is only a limited service in my son’s case one vehicle to cover the individual needs of 12 residents. Sorry this may seen a small issue from Government ‘s point of view but the loss of the motability element for my son will have life changing and major financial implications.
At least you are responding compared with seinior ministers in both parties, if they have responded it has been in a very condescending manner.
As stated, previously disabled people don’t believe anybody is listening, even when they have approached their MP’s, they basically not interested even though 60,000 disabled people will seriously affected by these changes.
Lord Norton : What I mean by proper debate is just that, proper debate, with proper debate and transparency there will be no need for Lansley to go skulking in toilets and tea rooms trying to pull the wool over the Lords eyes. Answer that one big shot ?.
And with proper debate and transparency we can all discuss UNUM insurance as well, strange how Lansley and co never mention those corporate criminals who are banned in most States in America but are over here to destroy the NHS with Lansley and company’s blessing. Go on google it, tell you what I will do it for you and will google at random UNUM disability insurance complaints: Attorney for denied claims. just copy and paste that. You could enter almost anything saying UNUM and it will come back negative, because there is nothing positive about them, they are well known criminals.
Try the above then, I haven’t looked at it, as I said I googled at random and don’t need to see what it says because I already know, and I’m beginning to suspect you know too.
Why isn’t that then (UNUM/ATOS) up for proper debate my Lord ?.
And by the way, your kind of comments annoy me too..!!
Maverick: Your comments have no bearing at all on what I said. What have your remarks got to do with the nature of debate in the Lords? I have no idea what you are referring to in relation to Andrew Lansley, but it has no particular relevance to proceedings on the Bill.
I think you’ll find it does as Andrew Lansley has been practically begging on his knees. I quote from the daily mail;
“Health Secretary Andrew Lansley faced the humiliation of touring the House of Lords bars and tearooms to sweet-talk peers into backing his reforms, which are unpopular with Lib Dems.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048004/NHS-reforms-vote-Andrew-Lansley-pleads-peers-support-controversial-bill.html#ixzz1aa4isNH0
I think this is what Maverick is talking about.
I don’t see it as unreasonable for a minister to lobby peers in support of a bill. If those opposing the bill can lobby against it, why should not the minister lobby for it? If he succeeds in any attempt to “pull the wool over the Lords eyes”, that says as much about the Lords as it does about the minister.
I’m not arguing in any way in favour of the bill, it is just that rhetoric can be overdone. Nor is it helpful to describe the eminently modest and quiet Lord Norton as “big shot”
Peter Ongley is quite right. Government – that is MPs we elect to represent us – are not listening to what people and organisations are saying about how the changes proposed in the Welfare Reforms will affect thousands of disabled people and families in the UK.
It is not just mobility and DLA. The Bill has many flaws.
For example, Housing Benefit and LHA changes, which do *not* take into account the specific needs of disabled people.
There are families with disabled parents and children; their need must be met also.
I am all for rooting out the workshy and scroungers, but the reform bill does not cater for those with difficult, severe or complicated disabilities and conditions.
The Bill has been ill-considered in construction and debate has unbalanced and narrow.
The effects of these changes will have a profound impact on disabled people.
For example, removing DLA or the mobility component will mean many disabled people will not be able to work anymore, as they depend on this for high or higher travel costs. The Govt should be promoting the ability of disabled people to work – not making it harder.
That will also hurt the economy.
Some disabled people will face the prospect of no longer being able to live in their home because their Local Housing Allowance Level means their Housing Benefit will no longer be enough to pay rent. In many areas, there are simply no suitable properties on the 40th percentile, never mind the 30th.
This will also hurt the economy.
For those who are forced out of their home and into care homes, this will cost the State more; it will cost taxpayers more. This is because such nursing care costs significantly more per week. It will also put more stress on the care system, social services and the NHS.
This will also hurt the economy.
There are many more examples. It is scary how many more there are, and that says a lot about the lack of insight inherent in this Bill.
The Bill has failed to recognize the significant knock-on effects, effects that bring significant knock-on costs. I do not think most reasonable people and taxpayers would support this Bill if the realized this.
Deep cuts have shown in the past that they do not have the desired effect. Deep cuts do not remove the needs and problems of people; they merely transfer the burden and cost elsewhere. But with that transfer, comes extra, high costs.
In the past, we saw how cuts left many people and families having to live in B&Bs and Guest Houses for years. This could well have been the start of the ‘generations of people on benefits’. That was in the 80s and there should be lessons learned from this. This is not the way to help people improve their lives or get into work.
Recent figures I saw from the Jobcentre showed the number of vacancies drop to below 200 (for a single month). Meanwhile, the number of Jobseekers was still over 20,000.
The ratio between vacancies and job seekers has been widening.
With the best will in the world, Tories such as Mark Spencer MP just telling people to get a job are out-of-touch and insulting. Their rants are often from the whip and are designed to rouse and please the Party faithful and right-wing sheep.
With media coverage, it paints a false image to the General Public.
This is very insulting to the thousands of people who are trying their best to find work, disabled or not.
In any event, the Welfare Reform Bill needs changes and refinements. Otherwise, genuine disabled people will suffer badlty. It is wrong that genuine, vulnerable people should be penalised or punished just for being so.
In its current form, the nature and details of the Bill will cost the country far more than it could ever save. History has proven this already.
Thanks,
Tom
themingford: There is a difference between listening – parliamentarians receive a mass of evidence both for and against proposals – and doing what some arguing a case want them to do.
I agree.
Consultation is pointless if they are only going to do what they want to do or vote a certain way for the wrong reasons.
It is an out-of-date system that promotes disgraceful conduct and ill-considered policies.
I find it hard to trust any MP. Since the 80s, it’s been sleeze, smut and dishonesty with politicians. Affairs, cash for questions, expenses, and Liam Fox to name but a few in a very long list.
They no longer have a credible defence.
Lansley has no particular relevance to proceedings on the Bill ?. You’ve got to be having a laugh. Because just like Lord Freud he has a conflict of interests that’s why he has a relevance.
You obviously didn’t read your favourite newspaper this morning then ?.
Lansley has everything to do with welfare reform, and fine well you know it.
So could you please answer my question, what is Lansley doing skulking around the Lords trying to spread disinformation and in my opinion outright lies regarding this Bill.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048004/NHS-reforms-vote-Andrew-Lansley-pleads-peers-support-controversial-bill.html
And moreover if you have a look at today’s Daily mirror my Lord you will see their article regarding the 40 peers with a conflict of interest, and they are allowed to vote on this Bill ? you really are having a laugh Sir, let me tell you this, you can laugh now, but you won’t be laughing shortly when it’s your turn for the push.
Here’s the roll call of shame : Their names are………
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone: The former Conservative Health Secretary Virginia Bottomley is a Director of BUPA, the health insurance, private hospital and care group.
Lord Naseby: Chairman of and a share-holder in Invesco Perpetual Recovery Trust. One fifth of their investments are in pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.
Lord Wakeham: Advisor to L.E.K. Consulting, which specialises in helping private healthcare companies identify “growth and new business development” and “opportunities with the government”.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: Partner in Beachcroft, a law firm that offers incisive analysis on the full range of government, parliamentary and regulatory matters in the health sector.
Lord Lang of Monckton: Director of Marsh & McLennan Companies that “help hospitals, insurers, pharmaceutical companies and industry associations understand the implications of changing policy environments”.
Lord Darzi: Former surgeon drafted into government as a health minister by Gordon Brown when he was PM. Now an adviser to medical technology firm GE Healthcare.
Baroness Cumberlege of Newick: Former Tory health minister, runs Cumberlege Connections, a political networking firm that works “extensively” with the pharmaceutical industry.
Baron Higgins of Worthing: Holds in excess of £50,000 of shares in Lansdowne UK Equity Fund, backers of private hospital group Circle Holdings.
Baron Newton of Braintree: Advisor to Oasis Healthcare on dentistry and general healthcare matters.
Baroness Hogg of Kettlethorpe: Chair of Frontier Economics, a consultancy that advises private sector clients on the impact of healthcare reforms and how “to shape regulatory environments”.
Lord Freeman: The ex-health minister is chairman of the Advisory Board of PricewaterhouseCoopers, which claims to have “been at the heart of shaping [healthcare] reforms and working with clients to respond to the opportunities they present”.
Lord Ribeiro: Adviser on hospital reorganisation to PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Lord Blackwell: Chairman of Interserve, consultancy to NHS and private healthcare firms.
Lord Blyth of Rowington: Senior adviser to investment bankers Greenhill.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: Senior adviser to Evercore, bank involved in huge healthcare deals.
Lord Garel-Jones: MD of UBS bank, whose healthcare division earned the firm over $1billion since 2005.
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach: Director of Goldman Sachs bank, provider of services to healthcare firms.
Lord Howard of Lympne: Senior adviser to Hawkpoint Partners, a corporate finance firm.
Lord Tugendhat: Adviser to Trilantic Capital Partners, a private equity firm “active” in healthcare.
Lord Coe: Director of AMT-Sybex Group, IT supplier to the NHS.
Lord Magan of Castletown: Director of the SISK Group of healthcare companies.
Lord Ballyedmond: Chairman of pharmaceutical company Norbrook Laboratories.
Lord Chadlington: Chief executive of Huntsworth communications group with several lobbying firms.
Lord Bell: Chairman of Chime Communications group, whose lobbying clients include Southern Cross, BT Health and AstraZeneca.
Baroness Hooper: Until July 11, chairman of Advisory Committee of Barclays Infrastructure Funds, one of the most experienced investors in hospital PFI deals.
Lord Ashcroft: Until 2010, held investments in two private healthcare groups.
Lord Leitch: Bupa chairman.
Lord Filkin: Adviser to outsourcing giant Serco, heavily involved in .
Lord Harris of Haringey: Senior adviser to business services giant KPMG.
Lord Hutton of Furness: Ex-health minister is an adviser to law firm Eversheds. Clients include care homes and private hospitals.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Self-employed “consultant on NHS and wider health issues”.
Lord Puttnam: Director of Huntsworth communications group.
Lord Warner: Former adviser to Apax Partners, one of the leading global investors in the healthcare sector. Current director of Sage Advice Ltd,
Lord Evans of Watford: Director of healthcare property firm Care Capital.
Baroness Morgan of Huyton: Ex-director of failed care home firm Southern Cross.
Lord Clement-Jones: Partner in DLA Piper, a global law firm providing lobbying services to “clients in the health and social care sectors”.
Lord Taverne: Chairman of private health insurer Axa Sun Life’s monitoring board.
Lord Patten of Barnes: Adviser to private equity firm Bridgepoint.
Lord Currie of Marylebone: Chairman of Semperian, an investment vehicle, which owns a portfolio of mature Public Private Partnership investments, including hospitals.
Lord Hameed: Chair of private secure mental health hospital group Alpha Hospitals, which is investing in a new acute private hospital in central London.
Read more: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/health-news/2011/10/12/nhs-reforms-d-day-40-peers-have-financial-interest-in-nhs-privatisation-mirror-investigation-shows-115875-23482784/#ixzz1aaRYlprP
I’m surprised your list does not include Lord Djanogly, the minister, who clearly seems to believe his placing, somewhat late, his personal interests in insurance into a blind trust, makes him exempt from accusations of holding a conflict of interest. The blind trustees are hardly likely to dispose of those interests whilst a government is in power that clearly favours insurance-based health care. Lord Djanogly cannot of course place into a blind trust the similar interests of his relatives, so surely retains an indirect fiduciary interest in health-care insurance. It will be interesting to see what the Cabinet Secretary, who must be very busy these days, makes of this, and IPSA.
With 40 (forty) Lords having an outside interest in the NHS reforms being passed , the vote was a handicap from the beginning.
A 40 vote start is not a transparent and fair vote.
source Daily Mirror
@lord norton – strait answer to a strait question please – will you be supporting the disabled of the uk by voting AGAINST any thing in this bill that affects us detrimentally ??
yea or nay sir ??
I am in absolute tears How far can the disabled support the disabled and keep them going and help keep them safe in such an abusive sadistic and malicious system that your have got in place now?
My beautiful head cluster haemorahging girl with the 16 injections to her skull every few weeks, registered sight impaired with constant severe migraines and told she cannot even consider going out to cross the road on her own has just sent me a message to say she is in hospital. and still cannot get out of the WRAG group. I really do think this will end in tragedy for this girl.
Debbie
Hi
Am in hospital at the moment and having a bit of a bad time. Thought I would send you a quick message though just to let you know that I have found the criteria for the Support Group. It’s in the ATOS Training and Development Manual – Page 133 onwards. Not even worth me appealing against their decision to put me in the WRAG group.
Will be in touch when I get home from hospital. x (Lets be honest. If she gets home. That’s why she sends a message so late at night from hospital to a total stranger she only knew on the net who has helped stand by her at this time. Why else would you send a message to a stranger you know only because they supported you in recent tough times? Because we touched once to give support and reassurance. this might be the last time and a goodbye. Just in case we do not see you in the morning and I’d just like to say Thanks for all you have done but in the end they won and I lost – my life.
There is so much pain and suffering I really do have nothing but bitterness and hatred to you all.
Go play your games and daley over your debates. England was lost without a blade being shown but a fair maid’s blood was on it.
Lord Norton, you said
“There is no issue of transparency. Proceedings in Grand Committee are as transparent as on the floor of the House”
Correct me if Im wrong, as Im no where near as learned in parliamentary procedure as you are famed for, but are not normal debates on the house of lords, openly televised?
I cant seem to find any televised footage of the recent committee debate procedings?
pleasehelpus:
See http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=9076
Lord Norton, in your experience of the parliamentary system, can you explain if there actually is a way for the public to raise a complaint if they feel a Lord is unsuitable for being involved in a debate, due to either a conflict of interests, or a past history of openly lying about issues highly important to the topic being debated?
Or is it just a case of the parliamentary system does not care if there is a major issue at stake like that?
I refer for example, to Lord Freud, who is on record as stating blatent untruths about how incapacity benefit operates.
Such as claims that claimaints are only seen by their own GP.
(and other comments of a similar ludicrous nature that serve only to fuel the propaganda in the media against the sick and disabled, furthering their stigmatisation).
For example, I found it ironic that in the recent debate, he actually spoke on behalf of the prime minister, when he was defending the prime ministers blatent lies that also serve to stigmatise the sick and disabled (as pointed out in the debate).
Yet – he himself is just as guilty of lying about claimaints on the previous system.
To me, allowing someone with such history, to be involved in such a debate flies in the face of decency and common sense?
The problem you face is that almost everyone has realised that there are large numbers of people removed from the unemployment figures by the trick of moving them to ICB.
So these people are receiving ICB, when they shouldn’t be.
The evidence is there that this group is a very large number.
So to remove them, people have to be tested. There is no other way. You can’t trust GPs any more on this because they have clearly signed these people off in the past for ICB, when they shouldn’t have been.
So the problem is how to make the testing accurate. Something that people who are anti the change won’t address.
“The evidence is there that this group is a very large number.”
I’ll believe that when your alias provides absolute proof. Until then stop being an ass
This Bill is an atrocity; it will affect the poorest in society the most whilst benefiting the rich. I can not believe the House of Lords are allowing this heap through its second reading. Perhaps I may be shouted down here but is it wrong to allow 40 members of the Lords to vote on the passage of this Bill when they have a vested interest in its enactment? I consider it too late to ask for transparency, maybe that will come in my time I don’t know, but I do know one thing. I am a member of the disabled community, I will suffer because of the actions of the Lords yesterday, I know the only people to benefit from this will be the rich and above all I know I am going to do everything I can to aid the abolition of the House of Lords. I am taking this position because they have metaphorically stabbed us (the disabled) in the back, I intend to metaphorically reciprocate.
Having read Mavricks last post I feel the 40 Lords with a vested interest should be barred from voting on this Bill and thier votes retrospectively removed. I know it will not alter the present course of the Bill but it will certainly make me feel a lot better knowing that the self serving buffet of public money has been denied to them.
I am shocked at how many have a vested interest in this bill. Anyone who has a hand in this should be well and truly ashamed of yourselves and if you think that we, the people, are ever going to vote for you again, you have another thing coming. Hang your heads in shame.
That will be the rich that have been giving you all this money?
Free health care, ICB, maybe other benefits such as free housing.
All paid for by the rich.
And not a word of thanks.
Lord Blagger, it’s not the rich who pay for the free health care etc, and it’s not even free either, the working people of Britain pay for our national health service not the rich.
I have to ask do you have a vested conflict of interest in this bill ? because you seem to keep banging on about it as if your very life depends on whether it is passed or not ?.
In an earlier comment you said that there is no money left, could you explain if there is no money left then how can Cameron conjure up 11 Billion pounds of taxpayers money to send to Africa ?. Please don’t do a Lord Norton and run away, please answer the question. And since you know so much, perhaps you could answer the question I put to Lord Norton before he panicked and did a runner, which is ”Why was Lansley skulking around the dark outer fringes of the Lords begging them to lend a helping hand to push through this draconian nobody voted for bill” why would he need to do that ? when according to Lord Norton we have transparency with free open debate and presumably nothing to fear.
And to answer your own question regarding this trick of everybody being transferred to ICB, well the solution is simple : Provide a fair and accurate health test with no fabricated medical reports and if it’s done fairly and honestly the people who genuinely deserve help will get it and the others wont, at the moment that is not happening because the genuine disabled and ill are being punished, and that’s around 99.5% (fraud level is 0.5 according to the DWPs own figures) 0.5 from 100% is 99.5%.
And by the way since judging by what you say you must be stinking rich, THANK YOU very much for your monetary contribution to the NHS.
Lord Norton answered your comment about Mr Lansley lobbying in support of his bill, which is perfectly legitimate, though with him doing it possibly self-defeating. Lord Norton is actually a better member of this blog than many as he responds to many of the posts here, even if manifestly utterly exasperated by the comments made in them.
All of us, unless gifted with eternal life and perfect health, are contingent beneficiaries both of the NHS and any reformed welfare system. You never know what may hit you.
You may also be presumptive in assuming Lord Blagger is wealthy.
Maverick: I have not run away from a question, but rather queried what on earth you are talking about.
Lord Blagger, it’s not the rich who pay for the free health care etc, and it’s not even free either, the working people of Britain pay for our national health service not the rich.
To be more accurate, its anyone who pays taxes, and that includes the rich, as well as people on minimum wage who pay 2,500 a year in employment related taxes.
So when you want ICB to be paid to all and sundry, including those who need it and those who don’t, its the rich who pay, and its those people on minimum wage who pay.
Now you don’t seem to be particularly grateful to either group for the money you’re getting. Hence your little sarcastic ( I assume that’s why you put it in capitals) comment at the end.
In an earlier comment you said that there is no money left, could you explain if there is no money left then how can Cameron conjure up 11 Billion pounds of taxpayers money to send to Africa ?
Very simple. He’s borrowed and printed it.
So perhaps you can also now tell me and not do a Norton.
What tests do you want to see that distiguish the Frank Galagar’s from those that really need the help? You’ve never said, or given an example. Isn’t that doing a Norton?
And to answer your own question regarding this trick of everybody being transferred to ICB, well the solution is simple : Provide a fair and accurate health test with no fabricated medical reports and if it’s done fairly and honestly the people who genuinely deserve help will get it and the others wont, at the moment that is not happening because the genuine disabled and ill are being punished, and that’s around 99.5% (fraud level is 0.5 according to the DWPs own figures) 0.5 from 100% is 99.5%.
I’m sorry but this is wrong. I’ve posted links that show there are 525,000 women alone on the disguised employment ICB count.
http://www.shu.ac.uk/_assets/pdf/cresr-woib-report-2010.pdf
Independent, peer reviewed.
Here are some of the relevant snippets
Hidden unemployment. These are the women who could be expected to have been in
employment in a genuinely fully employed economy – an estimated 430,000 in all.
A diversion of lone parents from Income Support. This accounts for around 125,000 women
on IB
There is little evidence that any deterioration in the underlying health of the working age population
has contributed to the increase in IB claims among women.
So what’s the real reason?
There is clear statistical evidence of a link between the local and sub-regional demand for labour
and female IB claims. There is also clear evidence of a link between the male and female sides of
the labour market. In simple terms, job loss and unemployment among men is being transmitted, via
competition in the labour market, to higher IB claims among women in the same places.
Yep. It’s disguised unemployment.
You’re confusing fraud by claimants with people who shouldn’t be on incapacity benefit. The latter being fraud by governments.
Don’t forget that it costs people who pay taxes over 2,000 pounds per day to run one peer.
So target your hostility where it is appropriate.
1. Government spending
2. People who aren’t disabled who are on ICB.
Don’t target the people whose support, and in particular money, that you need.
I could never support the welfare reforms, benefit cuts and housing benefit caps as they stand.
I simply cannot understand how any caring, humane human could possibly support and agree with such policies.
I must make it clear that I say this not because of any political motivation or affiliation, but through both personal experience and that of others I have met this year.
I am very concerned and I think that any welfare reforms, caps and cuts should not hurt those people in our country who we should so vehemently protect, support and help. I would be saying the same if Labour or any other party was in power.
I think on the part of Cameron, IDS, Lord Freud, Maria Miller et al – as people in government – to know the details and to have read, in full, the impact analysis and assessments and then to still proceed in support has shown poor judgement.
For me, it does say something about the make-up of these people, irrespective of politics. Now, that is just my view of them and it may not be the case – they may not appreciate the impact (some would say that just shows ignorance) – but it is the impression and perception with which many people are left to consider.
I am disappointed, in general, that more MPs (of any persuasion) have not done or said more; it is certainly not down to not enough people writing to their MPs
The reforms and changes cover a wide spread of areas and people: Disability Living Allowance (DLA), Housing Benefit (HB), Local Housing Allowance (LHA), Incapacity Benefit etc.
However, disturbingly, they all share a common thread viz., that disabled people and vulnerable groups will be hit the hardest.
Benefits such as those above are supposed to be there to help people – particularly those who need help the most. They should be part of a framework that empowers people and aims to make life easier for those whose days are dominated by illness, disability, poverty and pain.
I think that would sound reasonable to most people – would you agree?
Yet these reforms are, in their very nature, diametrically opposed to that end.
There are many areas of the UK where private rental market rates are very high and fluctuate.
In these areas, reforms will exclude many homes, as the actual rents are much higher than what would be payable via housing benefit with the new local housing allowance levels.
The Government argue, with little conviction, that they hope to influence market rates. This is absolute nonsense, as a market would not bear this. Overall, if landlords cannot get the money they want or need with tenants via housing benefit, they will simply not rent to them anymore. They will just find other tenants who can pay what they are asking.
There is an unpleasant element of greed with some landlords. There is nothing wrong with making a profit – and even a healthy profit. There are, though, in some areas, family properties on the market with outrageous levels of rent, far in excess of what is reasonable. In this sense, there is a problem.
High rents have led to higher Housing Benefit levels.
However, I do not believe for one second that the Government genuinely believes that these measures will bring the cost of renting down. The Government are just spinning a line and telling people what they think they want to hear.
I have come across people already who are having to look for a new home due to the caps. However, it seems even council staff are agreeing that, in difficult situations, there are no suitable properties or accommodation on the 40th percentile, never mind the 30th percentile.
The Media is very powerful and Government uses this to its advantage. Sometimes, just telling people what they want to hear or using distraction is enough to squash unwanted public debate.
I am concerned for all those affected by these changes. However, there are two particular areas that I find expressly abhorrent.
The first is the possibility of people losing part or all of their Disability Living Allowance (DLA). This is vital money for many people. Let’s remember, also, that we’re not talking about hundreds of pounds every week. By today’s standards, it is a very small amount that people have to stretch a long way.
But it is vital money, used for both personal care and mobility. Many people already have to put some of their DLA towards making up a rent difference or basic necessities that would be otherwise unaffordable.
Lots of disabled people also have extra costs that they would otherwise not have but for their disability. These costs fall outside the brackets of personal care and mobility but they often have to use some or all of their DLA for such items. This includes some medical items that are not available on the NHS.
How can any respectable, reasonable person want to take this away from people who need this relatively small amount of money so gravely?
The second specific area is related to Housing Benefit (HB), Local Housing Allowance (LHA) and families.
The LHA rates and HB/LHA mean that, for example, if you have three children and two adults that you would only be entitled to a 3 bedroom house.
The reforms take no account of families with disabilities and how it affects their home or home life.
There are many families that need, for example, a 4 bedroom house because a child cannot safely share a bedroom with another child.
This could be down to the nature of a disability or illness, its symptoms and/or knock-on effects. These can be things that occur every night – e.g., severe bed-wetting, fits, insomnia, pain, broken sleep patterns, panic attacks, sickness etc
There might also be medical equipment, other equipment and/or medication that has to be in the bedroom, which would make it impossible and very dangerous to have another child share the room.
Would one put a child in that situation?
Personally, I see this as a form of disabled discrimination. Discrimination is not just about not treating disabled people less favourably than others. It’s also about accommodating their additional needs because of disability – because but for the fact they have that disability, they would not have those extra needs or requirements.
There are many families where there is a disabled parent and disabled child. Often where the other parent is fit and healthy, they become the full-time, 24-7 carer. This means they cannot take on a job or any work and thus there circumstances, through no fault of their own, have limited their income and opportunities. They become, through no fault of their own, stuck in a rut and trapped, with only benefits on which to rely.
Imagine a mum, mother to three children, all the usual household chores and jobs to attend to, but not being able to get any help from dad because he is unable.
There’s all those usual chores but then also having to be a full-time carer to a disabled husband and disabled son. That’s 7 days a week, any and all hours of the day and night, no holidays, no salary – just unrelenting work and care.
People living daily in these very difficult situations have enough pain and anguish; the reforms do nothing to help.
I consider the reforms to also be neglectful when it comes to situations as described above. We are supposed to be a developed nation; a compassionate and reasonable people; a civilized society – to potentially force a child to share a bedroom when that could be unhealthy, inappropriate, unsafe or dangerous is unforgivable.
If a parent was to expose a child to danger on a regular basis, this would be considered child neglect or child abuse. How can this be ratified in Government policy? And of all things, in welfare reform?
There is also wider impact for families. That does not mean that all families will be adversely affected. However, if you have, for example, more than 5 children, spread across the age spectrum, you don’t need more than a bit of basic maths and logic to figure out what size of property is needed.
Moreover, for families, housing is far more than just bricks, windows and doors. For all of us, we need to feel a house is a home – but it is so vital for family life. Housing needs to be more than just ‘a house’.
There is a plethora of practical, circumstantial and other valid reasons why it would be impractical, unsuitable or unsafe for a family to have to downsize or live in a house with too few bedrooms. One in particular does concern me greatly.
I am concerned how children’s education could be affected. If I had a child that was studying for lots of GCSEs, doing well, often doing homework late into the night, how could he/she share with a younger child who is disabled and goes to bed much earlier? It is just not feasible.
How will this help children develop and bring children out of poverty?
What baffles me is that the welfare reforms do not consider everyday situations, exceptional situations or extreme situations. They just do not make sense, yet people seem to just carry on regardless. I find it bewildering.
The Government tries to distract the public with cases of ‘benefit cheats’ and silly stories. And, to some extent, this distraction works. The public’s view and perception therefore becomes skewed and blighted. Of course, cheats etc do exist but that does not negate the genuine cases. These are real people.
The reality is that genuine, sincere, good people could be hurt by these policies.
This is not to say reforms are not necessary. However, reforms should be well-considered, not ill-considered; they should be thought-through, including evaluations of knock-on costs . They should be refined, adjusted and amendments should be made where appropriate. Why would a government have impact assessments from experienced, relevant sources if they do not debate them, listen or take heed?
We have seen this evidenced several times already by the Government in other areas, where they have been forced to listen. They called it ‘listening’; the reality is they did not listen or take notice the first time and they did not think policies through. They got it wrong. I don’t like the phrase ‘u-turn’ – but so many of them is evidence that the Government’s approach to devising policies has been shallow, flawed and blinkered.
For each of these areas, where was the investigation and gathering of information and data that would be needed to even begin to establish the needs and requirements? Where was the analysis and debate on the needs and requirements? How was policy devised? How were the needs and requirements translated into policy details if the needs were never identified properly? Where was the investigation into the feasibility of detailed proposed solutions? And the associated costs? Consideration of secondary, knock-on and long-term costs? Critical path analysis of the policies’ implementation management and general ongoing management? To me, their approach to making policies has seemed very shallow and puerile, and there has not been adequate deliberation of the details.
I apologize for getting off the topic a little, though it is related.
If people are made homeless, this costs the nation and taxpayer far more in the long run. Increased homelessness costs the nation in support and places more burden on the NHS, which also means more costs. It’s also something we, as a nation, should not wish to advocate.
If a disabled person can no longer afford their rent due to Housing Benefit LHA caps, the cost of care to the nation and taxpayer is significantly higher if that person has to move into, for example, a nursing home.
Similarly, if they have to move, only the nati0n can afford to foot the bill for the changes and adjustments that will undoubtedly be needed at the new property. This is a far higher cost and burden than the cost of the benefits to that person – let alone the savings via cuts and caps.
There are lots of examples I could cite where the policies just do not make sense and have little or no financial credibility.
Because the policies have not been considered properly and thoroughly, there are going to be huge knock-on costs that the Government has failed to identify. Holes will also appear over time that the Government will have to fill, which will be further costs that were not ascertained originally.
Tough times or not, we should not be treating people with disabilities or long-term illnesses in this way.
I think it is important to remember that it is not all about the money. We should not discriminate and we should stand up and protect the most vulnerable – which should also include the elderly.
I hear too much from the Government and Media that represents this country as though we are just a ‘nation of taxpayers’. How did we arrive at accepting this kind of thinking? We are a nation of citizens; of individuals; of people.
To be fair, this year the Government and Media have leaned more towards portraying all people on benefits as cheats or scroungers. This misrepresents the disabled and long-term ill up and down the UK.
Despite what you see on TV or read in the papers, many thousands of disabled people work. They are taxpayers too. And, I am also not forgetting pensioners.
Many disabled (and long-term ill) are forced out of work and onto benefits as a result of their disability, condition or disease getting worse.
Up until that time, they have paid their dues and taxes.
But after that point, it can be an awful downturn. Many do end up exhausting their savings, having to downsize and eventually move into rental properties, using money from their house to pay for their rent and care. Wives, husbands, children or others become carers, reducing or removing their ability to work and earn. In the worst cases, one can lose everything and end up dependent upon benefits and the kind care of family and friends. I have personally met a few people who have gone through this and it is devastating.
My cousin’s wife is disabled and works in the IT sector as contract software developer. She is angered and disappointed by the Government’s portrayal of disabled people. As she pointed out to me, she earns £45 per hour now and came from a very poor background, getting to where she has through hard work and merit. But she has had her own experiences of discrimination in the work place. However, she feels the Government have done nothing to empower people. As she put it to me, if I can do it, there is nothing stopping other people who are fit and able improving their earning potential and getting a better job. It’s often that, in different areas, jobs or training don’t exist, training is not affordable or people do not want to change what they do for a living.
She went on to say that, eventually, her condition will get worse and she will be forced to give up work altogether. It might be in 2 years time or 5 years time but it will happen. She is fully aware that she could go from where she is now to having to rely on benefits; savings and investments only go so far or last so long.
She also mentioned that compared to the £49 per week her friend receives on DLA, that she does not see how her friend is expected to have any less. She feels embarrassed and guilty when she meets with her now; that she earns in an hour what her friend receives in a week.
In all of this, it’s easy to forget that many long-term disabled and ill people do not get to enjoy things that, in general, fit and healthy people take for granted. This might be, as just a few examples (as there are simply too many), not being able to see, hear, talk, walk – or any in combination. It could mean that they don’t get to play with their children as they might otherwise, or see them grow up. It could mean that they are unable to cook or eat for themselves; or unable to go out to places with friends and family. Of course, it’s not the same for all – but it is for many. For some, for example, holidays are difficult or even impossible.
People with long-term disabilities and/or illnesses did not ask for them; it was never something they chose.
It’s not all about money; people in these situations are often stripped of elemental and intrinsic things, through disability or illness, that most people take for granted.
These are things that people in general take for granted but that, over and above money, make for a good quality of life. I think some people also forget that many are also often in severe pain daily, have very hard daily lives and may also need medication (which can itself cause problems). I don’t think we need to throw more problems at them.
I very much sympathize with people working on low earnings or the national minimum wage. I know and understand how hard it can be and have family and friends in that boat.
However, I do not believe that one negates the other. In addition, many disabled/long-term ill who cannot work have costs they have to meet that only exist due to disability. These are often (shockingly) high, not met by any specific benefit and these people do not have the choice of looking for work or a higher paid job. In general, these extra costs are not expenses that fit and healthy people have to meet.
In families with a disabled parent and disabled child, the costs can be extreme and even hopelessly high. Again, it’s not the same for all. However, such families do not deserve to have more taken away. They should not bear so much of the cuts. They do not deserve to be put in a position, through no choice or doing of their own, where they may face more debt, risk homelessness or where their health or condition may suffer. Such results only lead to more costs for the country.
I think it’s worth pointing out too that, whilst the Government is trying to push these cuts and caps on the most needy, they do not themselves do their bit. Cameron’s words were “we’re in this together”. Hmmn. Yet there are very wealthy and millionaire ministers and MPs that continue to take their £64k+ per annum salary and claim huge expenses. The disabled and long-term ill cannot claim the expenses they incur due to disability etc. Please – let’s not be naive or hoodwinked into thinking that MPs and the Government are somehow being altruistic in this.
The unhappy truth is starting to get across to people, though, and people are starting to see things for what they are really. The Government will be forced to fight for its controversial housing benefit reforms in court, after a child poverty charity won the right to challenge their legality. You can read more here:
http://carerwatch.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/charity-wins-fight-to-take-government-to-court-over-benefit-reforms-inside-housing/
I would ask people not to just take what they see on the TV news or what they read in the paper on face value. If you have no personal experience, find out for yourself, find people and talk to them. Find out the truth for yourself.
Of course, not everyone will be affected severely but our concern should be focussed on those who will.
Yes, reforms are needed. Yes, we need to root out ‘scroungers’ and the ‘workshy’ – but NOT at the expense of genuine disabled people, the long-term ill and elderly.
There are many issues that disabled people and children often face in trying to just live as normally as the next man or woman.
However, legislation cannot do the single most important thing that needs to be achieved in order to reduce the discrimination and persecution of disabled people, the elderly and vulnerable groups.
Legislation cannot alter peoples’ attitudes or their misconceptions about disability, religion, race and culture or indeed sex (in terms of sexual discrimination – which is still as much of a problem in some areas as it always has been).
That is the real challenge. That will take longer but the Welfare Reforms in their current form are a big step backwards.
To Maverick, Mo, After Atos, DWP Examination, Black Triangle & all those too numerous to mention who are here in support of sick, poverty-stricken & disabled people & who campaign online & march the streets against these vicious policies; I APPLAUD YOU!
Despite your pain & suffering, you stand united with your fellow men & women.
To the Lords & Baronesses who have failed all these wonderful & courageous people; SHAME, SHAME, SHAME ON YOU!
Despite your wealth, privelege & financial support of the public you are moral cowards.
And may God forgive you because we won’t & we certainly will not forget those of you who betrayed us. How can we when you help along such destructive policies under the evil guise of “Reform”? How can it be Reform when it will leave us poorer than we already are, sicker than we were, homeless, cold, hungry & prematurely in our graves?
To those Lords & Baronesses who spoke & fought passionately against these cruel, heartless, regressive & wholly unnecessary Welfare & NHS policies; THANK YOU! GOD BLESS YOU FOR TRYING!
In response to who pays the most taxes etc to pay for the expense of govt, public servants, public services such as education, welfare, hospitals etc. The astounding fact is that although the rich and business pay more percentage in taxes the biggest majority of taxes is paid into the govt purse by the lowest paid. as there are more low paid than rich and their contributions make up the bigger part. Also it is little known that the greatest part of the taxes paid into the govt and public coffers is paid in by the women on their low paid and part time jobs and income. Most working hard for home and family and survival and little comforts while the guy goes off and earns the big wage and blows it down the pub, on his mates or on his more important hobby. Most men abandon wives and home and family when the wife has the audacity to remind him that his money is supposed to go to something more important. “TaTa I don’t do families or kids or relationships. We gave it a try. I’m off to pastures new and new life and to the local easist whore down the pub, See you on Jeremy Kyle” The majority of workers of workers in Uk now are women, they are also the greatest contributors to the pot and the reason they do is to support kith and kin. Not only those who are directly their own but like many women those that are their sisters, aunties, mothers, grandmothers and daughters and grand daughters.
Some are working 3 jobs a weeks 24/7 with no breaks no days off no sick pay and no holidays.
I think you get a lot out of the people who do work and moan and whinge that they might want a healthy home and family back and their babies, disabled and elderly people safe.
The National Insurance service came from the little societies and unions which formed to make a little from everyone going to help many and the take care of the majority. It aslo came into place because of the practises of private insurance on vulnerable low income families with the provider in dangerous work to take on Private Insurance only for it to be denied later after the man is ill, or disabled or killed. That is why the NI was formed to safe and secure everyone and save us from such practices. Yes it went wrong with greedy practises, too much mega complicated systems and management with a new fangled idea every minute. But the fact was there is was an overall system and could be addressed and changed and challenged as an overall system. Now it cannot. The health system will ge governeed and ordered in regard to needs of management and private finance and interests not for the patient need or overall authority of medical knowledge and best practice and patient care as central. Management has already said for years that they do not recognise medical ethics and code of practice or GMC or NMC guidelines and direct medics and nursing staff to act contrary to patient care. Now it will be even more impossible.
By the way, did you know that your NHS trusts and private health companies have been selling off patients private details and contact numbers to the highest bidder. Surely that is breach of confidentiality and on so many levels. But then private say once person gives their details to the hospital it is their property to do as they like.
So sick of the way it is so bad and your ignorance and complacency has allowed it to get like this. and so much bad practice in private practice. Can I check that when private and govt advice nurses and doctor to work contrary to patient care at threat of risk of job and career that the medic and nurse are still responsible for the liability? Thought so. Thanks.
That will be the rich that have been giving you all this money?
Free health care, ICB, maybe other benefits such as free housing.
All paid for by the rich.
Lord Blagger : It was you that mentioned the rich not me, look at your comment above, ALL paid for by the rich.
And it was me that was accurate not you, I said the working people and that includes everyone who works whether they are rich or not. Stop trying to wiggle your way out you are fooling no one.
And where did I say I wanted ICB to be paid to all and sundry ?
And as for : ‘What tests do you want to see that distiguish the Frank Galagar’s from those that really need the help? You’ve never said’ For goodness sake I have said !!, so read my comment above again, which was a fair test without fabricated medical reports, even a Frank Gallagher should be tested fairly, who are you Lord Blagger ? his Judge, Jury and executioner ? I don’t partake in alcohol myself, but even I know alcoholism is a serious illness Lord Blagger. And it’s not for you or I to judge, but a proper medical professional surely we can at least agree on that ?.
Now you mentioned/implied that Cameron is basically a crook by printing money out of thin air (Very simple. He’s borrowed and printed it) ok I will agree with that, there’s no money so he just borrowed it ? are you daft ?, Cameron and his sidekick Osbourne have been banging on about not borrowing but paying our so called debts for the last eighteen months, they never stop talking about it. So why would/should he borrow it and just give it all to Africa ?.
Look I can’t be bothered corresponding with little children so goodby ok.
Lord Norton : You know fine well what I’m talking about, I even provided the link to your favourite newspaper which explains what I’m talking about, now please read it and answer the question if that’s ok with you.
I’m away to take some tramadol and maybe even get some sleep to take me away for a couple of hours from the hell that’s become Camerons Britain.
Cheers to you both and I hope neither of you ever have a serious illness.
There is only one way and that is to ask for the actual disability and diagnosis of those on IB and going through the assessments and those who do not turn up and those who get taken off. So far the FOI will not release these basic stats as they say it is not important what type of illnesses people going through the assessments have. even though illnesses such as terminal cancer, MS, Parkinsons and paraniond schizophrenia who have just been discharged from being sectioned are going through and deemed fit to work. On a one by one basis and by a media reporting of individual cases no one can say who and what are on IB and for what reason. And do not forget we have an aging population of the baby boomers who are coming up to the middle and late ages where they are more likely to have illness and skeletal muscular problems. The whole reason for the National Insurance Number is that your could check these facts without arguing them on the blogs with no facts between you.
So far the FOI are refusing to give information to the concerned public about the facts and outcome of the WCA and assessments as it is restricted Why is there is not a problem is it restricted?
From Carer Watch – You remember. the online blog set up by two older female carers which was attacked and taken down by Atos cutting off carers and disabled without warning and having no reason in the end. Atos is no not a problem to the ordinary people of Britain. Asking Facebook to remove disabled groups and profiles that criticise it.
What EVERY MP should know about welfare reform
by carerwatch
Sue Marsh of Diary of a Benefit Scrounger has sent this over asking everyone to help raise awareness.
Since Employment and Support Allowance was introduced back in 2008, campaigners and those affected have warned that it is flawed. Not because people must face assessment to qualify for support but because the wrong people are declared “fit for work”.
People clearly too disabled to work get harassed and pressurised into work programmes they clearly cannot comply with, while the number of “cheats” or “scroungers” caught, remains at exactly the same level it always did.
Throughout the last year, we have warned of a tipping point. With over 110,000 decisions already found to be wrong and overturned, 11,000 people a week are being put through flawed assessments. It is only a matter of time before this becomes the toxic story of recent years. MP mailbags are already bursting with letters about this.
Read in full here
What EVERY MP should know about welfare reform
Can you help raise awareness by sharing this post with your contacts, on Facebook and twitter too.
Contact your MP with your concerns.
Please leave a comment on Sues’ blog or contact her direct with links to any reports in your own local newspapers. suey2yblog@hotmail.co.uk
For those that dont know, Sue is one of the founder members of The Broken Of Britain team
Even at present people appealing against the Atos decisions can be without any money for 6-18 months. That is any money or severely reduced such as a autistic young man down to £31pw which he had to support his elderly mother on and obviously as high needs and learning needs has difficulty going through any such process never mind a very complicated on needing much communication, comprehension and writing and form filling in abilities. Not sure how another with a severe stroke and cannot move or feed himself can fill in forms and communicate even though written off fit for work. That without realising strokes are not just a physical thing bit affect cognitive impairment.
Go and find out please, do not just believe the stats coming out in the press. It must be very strange being so far removed while others do not have that privilege.
Another concern. no money really means no money, no food heating or lighting and people and disabled and disabled children being made homeless every day. Women who are single whether from widowhood, just a few days after husband dies, and vulnerable single women being made to move out of secure and safe accomodation in a safe areas and into unsafe areas. Making women’s lives more vulnerable. A woman’s home is not her own and she can be moved at will like chattel. So sad, so bad. This includes the mother of two soldiers in Afghanistan. No home for them to go home to as soldiers are assumed to have left home so home taken off their mothers. Disgusting.
Disabled people: guilty till proved innocent
by carerwatch
The government plans to suspend benefit for people who appeal against a decision to disallow Employment and Support Allowance (the main income replacement benefit for disabled people of working age). The New Statesman’s Samira Shackle reports that the government has noticed that 37% of those found fit for work appeal, and of those who appeal, 39% win a judgement in their favour.
The old Incapacity Benefit is being replaced by ESA, and every existing claimant is having to go through the Work Capability Assessment, the tougher test that was originally brought in by the last government. Literally hundreds of thousands of people are going to win appeals against not being awarded the new benefit. Now, you or I might conclude from this that (1) there’s something wrong with the new test and (2) given that such a high proportion of the people who failed the test are actually entitled to the benefit, it’s probably best to err on the side of generosity in deciding how to treat them while they appeal.
Today’s news. Govt demand that Youtube ban videos of the demos after policeman punched woman in face who was walking away and ran over a man with a motorbike who was only walking slowly with the other peaceful demonstrators and pinned him to the ground and ran over him again to make sure he was pinned, then with the man with broken leg writhing on ground only proceded to arrest him.
Also with the removal of all benefits so families cannot cope sexual favours are being aksed and demanded from both women, single mothers and off their children. What should they do? Starve have no home or heat or lighting of *uck?
Also Peter a dying terminal man who has since died and who’s wife is being refused a funeral grant as well lived on 12p per day when benefits were taken off and deemed fit to work. This is the norm, this is the majority of people going through the work capability assessments and deemed fit to work, genuine people with genuine long term serious illnesses and disabilities. only 5% were found to be not ill scroungers. After i year disabled on ESA if not found work are taken off the benefit, that means no money. But disabled and ill people cannot get work because the employer cannot afford the liability and no employer liability insurance will cover them.
A terminally ill man has been living off 12p a day for food after being refused benefits.
Peter Duut, a Dutch national who lives inHaverhill, has worked long hours as a carpenter in theUKfor the past two-and-a-half years.
When he became term-inally ill with cancer in April he tried to claim benefits, only to be told that he does not qualify.
Peter and his wife Laurel have since been unable to afford enough food, and are battling with the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) to give them enough money to live off.
Laurelsaid: “Peter was advised to top the amount of Jobseeker’s Allowance up with Income Support. Being ill myself I was unable to advise Peter and to my horror realised that he had a payment of £55 pounds per week for both of us to live on and pay our bills with in our rental property.
“He was then told that he had failed his Habitual Residency test and that he had no right to reside in the UK, even though he had been paying all of his national insurance stamps and taxes.”
The pair tried appealing to the DWP and called on MP Matthew Hancock for help, but have yet to have their financial situation resolved.
After paying their bills, the couple are left with just 12p each day for food. Peter now weighs 9st 2lbs (58kg).
Laurelsaid: “He looks like a person who had been released from a prison of war camp and is unable to walk far due to frailty and breathlessness.
“He has developed stomach problems due to not eating regularly and very small amounts for such long periods of time and having no money for food.”
The DWP states that Dutch nationals can receive benefits only if they are active in the labour market, but Peter has widespread cancer and has been told by a doctor that he cannot work.
Laurelsaid: “I do know that the legal system is a cold system, yet where does one draw the line on torture and inhumane treatment or even right to life?”
Matthew Hancock MP said: “The case of Mr and Mrs Duut is difficult and complicated. I deal with many such cases, and am working to try to support the Duuts to find a solution.”
A spokesman for the DWP said: “We understand that this must be a difficult time for Mr and Mrs Duut and we are working with them to ensure they get the benefits they may be entitled to, such as Disability Living Allowance.”
Haverhill Weekly News
Mt Duut as since died Peter died on the 13th and they are even refusing to give his wife a funeral grant and it’s looking like she’s going to be evicted from their house.
I hope you are happy and suitably smugly pleased.
AA
While Carerwarch have members who take part in the reviled hate site (and a few of the Black Triangle group for that matter) – http://carers.myfastforum.org/index.php (plus a host of other hate siets and blogs)
then they have no right to speak for carers. While they have members who find cancer scares something to laugh about they have no right to speak for carers. This doesn’t take into account members of theirs making false complaints to the DWP about benefit fraud and false complaints to police, then we have the threats to a disabled woman. Sorry ‘After Atos’ but you know where you can stick anything Carerwatch related.
Clive,what is your problem? has a disabled person wronged you at some time, all that hate should be channeled into doing something good, maybe help an old person with their shopping!
Why not insist Lord Freud set up his own section on Lor of the Blogs so he can interact with the people he is screwing out of benefits?
I’m far from convinced Lord Freud is into interacting with ordinary people. It’s just not his thing!
Do the sums Clive.
How many peers attend each day on average? 400
Number of sitting days a financial year? 142
Total cost of the House of Lords? 153.5 million
You do the sums and work out how much each one costs you a day.
That’s why legitimate claimants for IB are being hit.
The other reason is the number of Frank Galaghers who are claiming IB.
Lord Blagger, not for the first time, has a pop at the cost of running the House of Lords and assumes that any saving made there would go to Invalidity Benefit budget, which of course is complete nonsense. By all means let us improve the workings of the second chamber, but not on any assumptions as to where the savings would go.
“I’m far from convinced Lord Freud is into interacting with ordinary people. It’s just not his thing!”
Which shows what a coward he actually is don’t you think Dan? He seems to enjoy harassing people on benefits then get him here to interact and answer for his actions and accusations.
Is it beyond this site’s ability to host an open web chat with Freud? I’m sure most people who post here would love the chance to let him know just how hard it is to survive on benefits, and that’s BEFORE the cuts set in.
As for possible savings, I believe that over 15 million in benefits (or billion, it’s too late in the night to check) goes unspent or unclaimed
Perhaps the members of the committee could raise the shocking level of stupidity in authority during the next session.
Dont forget Lord Frueds lies against the disabled too – I note you are all blissfully ignoring them, rather disgraceful in my opinion, when you have clear evidence of his lies from many sources available to you.
You could also raise the issue of why the minister for disabled people is a) clueless b) promoting false propaganda to stigmatise the disabled
I quote from the media
“In response to the Scope report, minister for disabled people Maria Miller said: “At the moment disability living allowance doesn’t have an in-built reassessment as part of it and we have £600m a year going out in overpayments as a result. ”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15398051
Even (and thank you to the lords for noticing and commenting on it) Cameron was lying and stigmatising the disabled.
But I am suprised you accepted Lord Frueds explanation, considering he is well known for lying about the sick and disabled in the past.
Why has the harrington report been given to the government, but not the lords and the public at this time?
Why is it being hidden?
Surely its in the interests of everyone for it to be published to all, at the same time?
So people can comment on the recommendations and the report, before the DWP/Government act on any recommendations.
Who is in charge of regulating the report, or if evidence of serious wrong doing is wilfully ignored, is it a police matter?
I see that Maria Miller’s justification for the new PIP assessments is due to what she says is £600 million of DLA overpayments.
However, a simple check of the DWP’s own official figures shows DLA overpayments of £220 million, but underpayments of £300 million, meaning that Miller has exaggerated the true position by £680 million!
How is she allowed to continually get away with this sort of behaviour?
Sadly it appears she can! Unfortunately, she clearly does not represent the disabled. I have noted she is quite happy to promote the benefits of Motabililty on her web site, when it puts he in a good light but in reality she is quite prepared to remove it from those who are really in need.
I sure she won’t be suffering a loss of transport and or expenses to the extent the a disabled motability user will.
As you will gather from the tone of my comments I have lost my faith that people in politics listen, once they get into power, irrespective of what part they belong to.
Don’t forget that P.I.P will only be available to those under 65. So what happens to those OVER 65 and receiving DLA?
Simplifying the disabled and benefits system is not at simple as you thought. It may be a mess but this will make it a nightmare. For something that has been formed over decades to try and meet every eventuality and yet still misses how on earth can you change it and make sure everyone is catered for a safe overnight in just one year of Conservatives/Lib Dems coming to power. You really have not thought of it or how it actually affects. A severe MS Parkinsons, Cancer or Stroke is declared by Atos as being fit to work although really ill. but barely moving or surviving without difficulty. They have their money cut, changed to ESA and made to attend job interviews apply to jobs and do exercises and walk miles to the work programmes due to no money, and without heating or food under threat if they do not. If they have a severe relapse and collapse but because of such have not been able to attend the work programme there money is stopped immediately for non attendance, that is what is happening now. They have to be sufficiently better to be able to sort it all out so have nothing for days or weeks if they are really incapacitated.
ESA is treated as JSA it only lasts for a year so after struggling for a year in the last years and time of their life when they are really bad the disabled person living as a complete invalid or dying has no money at all. and no support for carer and if they have a partner they do not any longer get any carer or attendance allowance. they are still expected to work but also look after their disabled partner full time. Not quite sure how you are figuring this out? The maths and logistics and basic human need does not add up. Glad Atos and A4e and G4S is getting so much money out of this. This is Mad abusive and dangerous and the most humiliating and degrading way any one could go in a dying or disabled condition and a terrible way to treat families. It is mad. Suicides are up to 10% from 0.3% that is suicides up 1000% + and child suicides and attempts are up. just within the last year. Not getting the facts. go look at them. You are causing severe distress. By withdrawing and denying basics. The economy is made by the millions of little people buying the little things every day such as milk and clothes and newspapers. As 75% of the poor are now having to go to food kitchens for food including the children and do not buy food, that means the economy is not going to keep at an level and is not going to recover. mad all mad. Anyone who thinks you can feed clothe and wash children and babies – even without yourself – on £30-50pw really does not know the price of bread.
well said sir !! – not that it will bother those who do not have to LIVE on such amounts of course
Update: I asked Lord Freud if he would be interested in doing a guest post for the blog – unfortunately he is not able to. However, a spokesperson for the DWP wanted me to post this message and their email address:
“The content of the Bill was consulted on earlier on in the year, and it is now being scrutinised by Parliament. Any views on the content or process of the Bill or wider Government policy are very welcome to be directed towards ministers@dwp.gsi.gov.uk. DWP welcomes the views of members of the public.”
Views might well be welcome from the public but in reality all you receive is a standard letter stating that they welcome your views and they are committed to helping the disabled. Unfortunately Ministers are not listening and are just following the Government line without thinking of the consequences.
Sadlly, the one person who is is supposed to represent the disabled – Maria Miller appears to be totally detached and is only interested in promoting the Govetnment, for example she is happy to promote the Motability Scheme but she is quite to happy to remove this criticall support from those in care homes, resulting in them becoming prisoners.
It appears Ministers think local Government provide sufficient transport needs, this is totally untrue.
Sadlley, it appears decisions are being made on what is stated in the Daily Mail!
As stated before
Hello Peter
Whilst I think it a good idea having someone in Parliament who represents us the disabled community, I think it’s outragous that disabled people have NO say in who this individual is.
Maria Miller does not represent disabled people, she represents the government, she is their voice and not ours, the position of Minister for Disabled people needs to be ended unless disabled people themselves get the opportunity to vote on who gets that role.
The person who gets that job needs to be totally independent of government, personally speaking the woman is a complete waste of time.
We need someone who really understands what coping with a disability means on a day to day basis, not someone who has worked in the Business world, am I talking rubbish or does anyone agree?
A better solution is to cut out the middle man. You get to vote directly on the issue. So if you want more money, you have to convince the voter that you’re a priority spending target. I suspect you’re more likely to get your money than Peers, or dictators in the third world.
So Beccy, I presume that the ministers there are not the ministers in the Lords, but those in the Commons?
DWP mentions Lord Freud on their website so it looks like both Commons and Lords.. http://www.dwp.gov.uk/about%2Ddwp/ministers/
News Today. Severe Learning Needs man sent ESA form and insistance on filling it on or loses benefits. R U MAD!! Obviously. or do you not realise this is not and exception but the norm.
Via Carer Watch and Harborough Mail
http://www.harboroughmail.co.uk/news/local-news/couple_s_frustration_with_disability_allowance_form_1_3186701
Published on Tuesday 1 November 2011 08:04
THE PARENTS of a man with severe learning difficulties have slammed as unnecessary and insulting a new form aimed at assessing whether he is fit for work.
Sue Barlow and her husband Tony Hipgrave, of Middlebrook Green in Harborough, say the new Employment and Support Allowance assessment form is not appropriate for their son Tom Hipgrave and others like him.
Tom (27) has a complex disorder known as Smith Magenis Syndrome, which means he has learning and communication difficulties as well as physical disabilities including spinal deformity and visual impairment.
He lives in a supported living home in Glenfield and requires 24-hour care.
His condition and situation is well known to the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), from which he receives disablement benefits.
So the family were frustrated when they received the new assessment form – called the Limited Capability for Work questionnaire – introduced as a result of Government changes to the way benefits are paid.
The 20-page questionnaire aims to assess a person’s physical and mental functions to determine whether they can work.
Questions on the form include whether applicants can operate a telephone keypad, pick up a £1 coin, cross the road on their own, or meet new people without feeling anxious.
Mrs Barlow told the Mail the form is irrelevant to people with Tom’s degree of disability.
He may be able to answer yes to some of the questions, but he is not fit to work because of his many other severe disabilities.
The family have refused to complete the whole form and have written to Prime Minister David Cameron and Labour leader Ed Miliband to express their feelings.
Ms Barlow said: “Sadly Tom will never lead an independent life or be able to work, which is already tough enough for him and us.
“This form is totally insensitive and inappropriate. We have filled in countless forms for him over the past 25 years, each time providing the same details about his condition, which will never change. It feels as if we are always treated as guilty till proven innocent. I’m sure we’re not alone in feeling this.
“This form shouldn’t be targeted at people who are severely or multiply disabled. It is a waste of carers’ precious time and energy and tax-payers’ money.”
The DWP said: “Everyone going through the Incapacity Benefit reassessment process will be sent the form. If the customer has a terminal illness or severe condition they are usually assessed on a paper scrutiny, based purely on the form and information from their GP/consultant, and will not have to attend a medical examination.”
Our son also now lives in a care (after a very long fight to get a place), he has Cerebral Palsy, his physically condition will continue to get worse not better and had already been awarded DWP for life after years of filling on countless forms and assessments.
I totally agree with your comments but I will be surprised if you get a response, as I have done the same. Neither the PM or Maria Miller have responded personally. All you will get is the usual standard letter from the DWP.
Unfortunately, I have come to the conclusion that the people pushing this bill have no real idea about the impact on the disabled, that this bill will have.
We are lucking that we can communicate using this blog but the vast majority of disabled people do not have the opportunity to voice their opinions as they can use the medium or afford the internet!
I wish you every success with your attempt to get somebody to listen and trust for the sake both our sons that somebody is listening ????
I am After Atos the on line feedback survey which takes the experience of the disabled of their Atos assessment and its consequences and feeds it back. The survey is on going and rolling and so are the results which are sent regularly. I am unfunded I am severe mental impairment with gross PTSD and strokes fits and a few others things when I get back. I have not support, no intelligent professional or health support except idiots who think I want to sit in a corner of a day centre doing a macrami class or drop in art. I am last on the list but doing my best to get the facts stats and experience in and feedback and results out. Only doing it for Atos at moment as one person and limited resources and time and health. But it should be supported and provided for to address the need to collect and collate the ongoing responses and experiences of those going through not just Atos but all the govt experimental departments and ideas and process to find out what is actually happening. It seems so far the govt DWP and Atos and other private health providers and work programme providers deem it not necessary or any priority to do a remit and audit and ongoing monitoring of their input and services. That is the worse sort of management that puts in a process or service or provides a product without ensuring a monitoring and feedback process is also in tact and set up.
Find our feedback at afteratos.org or afteratos.com or via Facebook. There is not a disabled who is not going through hell at the moment and that is not counting for their parents, family partner or children. and being attacked on top. This is costing more than it is saving and causing much harm to the British people to who you as Lords are sworn to protect defend and lay down your lives for. A Lord would be a Knight at one time, worth his throne and place because of his battles in protecting his people. That’s when a people swore alliegance to their Lord. I wonder how many would swear allegiance to these. None I suppose. You have sold us for a shekel
Bristol Tales Today:
David Smith
This happened to me yesterday – and every word is true ..
There was some poor guy in a wheelchair at the bus stop .He’d had his work capability assessment . He’d come from Weston-super-Mare to Bristol because his local centre has no wheelchair access …
It sounds like his assessment was a real barrel of laughs . This is the conversation as he told me….
“I am just going to hit you on the knee with this mallet to test your reflexes”
“NO YOU ARE NOT!”
“.. why not?”
“Because I have bone cancer…..”
ffs you couldn’t make it up ……
Neither do I – Aunty.
What is an Aunty? – A woman you had rather not tangle with.
Disabled ESA50 forms are being opened by Royal Mail Staff not Atos assessor of DWP. Can you answer and address this problem. Are all our rights being taken away?
Fury over sensitive benefits forms opened by Royal Mail staff
Thursday 13 October 2011
Disabled people have expressed outrage after learning that benefits claim forms containing confidential and highly personal information are being opened by Royal Mail staff in a south London sorting office.
Following a series of Freedom of Information Act (FIA) requests by disabled activists, they say the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has admitted that “ESA 50” claim forms for employment and support allowance (ESA) are diverted to Royal Mail.
Royal Mail staff open the envelopes and bundle up the “limited capability for work questionnaires” before forwarding them to the company that assesses the eligibility of claimants, Atos Healthcare.
Most people have to fill in an ESA 50 form if claiming ESA, the new replacement for incapacity benefit.
Disabled people had assumed that the forms were opened by employees of Atos, which is paid by the DWP to assess the eligibility of claimants using the controversial work capability assessment.
Campaigners say the use of Royal Mail staff raises serious questions over the confidentiality of their claim forms, which can include highly personal details about their health condition.
They have also questioned whether the use of Royal Mail by the government could be breaching the Data Protection Act.
Disabled activist Sue Marsh, who wrote about the FIA requests on her blog this week, said she believed that “no-one should see these forms but the person who wrote them and the decision maker who will consider them”.
She said: “I don’t care if it’s legal, it certainly isn’t moral. It’s shocking.
“People like me and the people I write for have spent our whole lives being told we can’t see our medical notes. They protect this data so strongly in every walk of your life.”
One of the disabled people who commented on Marsh’s blog said she felt as if she had been “punched” when she read how the forms were being opened and sorted by Royal Mail.
She was forced to declare on her ESA form how she had been raped – because it affected her mental health – as well as including her address, telephone number and the information that she lives alone.
She added: “I already feel desperately frightened of life and vulnerable as hell. This makes me feel even worse.”
Another described how the form asks for information such as medication, hospital visits, any problems with drugs or alcohol, communication difficulties, incontinence, any mental health conditions, blackouts, and anxiety or panic attacks.
They added: “Why do they not put anything on the form to tell us that this is what will happen? Surely that is against the rules?
“Whether ‘illegal’ or not, it is morally and ethically wrong. It is frightening and humiliating and degrading.”
A Royal Mail spokesman refused to comment. He said: “We would never talk about individual customers to third parties.”
The Department for Work and Pensions was also unable to comment.
For further information view the Diary of a Benefit Scrounger Blog
Good heavens… that’s awful.
I’ve just sent in an ESA50 again, a couple of months after I won my appeal I may add because ATOS and DWP don’t want to give me time to get well without anxiety and worry… and I have sent so much information in with that form including pictures i’d rather the common worker not view. Had I known that they are opened by the Royal Mail, I would have been very reluctant to send them in. This is not exceptable.
It is quite obvious politicians do live in the real world. They are expecting disabled people to get work where in reality abled bodied people are struggling to obtain work and many people are under threat of losing their jobs.
How can they say to the disabled get work when they are planning to remove the funding from Remploy who employs 4000 disabled people!
A petition of over 100,000 people has been produced against the cuts but will they listen – N0!
Sadly, the only medium, I appear to have left to express my concerns about the Wefare Bill is this blog as nobody is prepared to either respond to letters or meet to discuss these issues.
Peter Ongley
Please have a read about this person’s family and situation –
http://iancastlesblog.wordpress.com/2011/11/05/my-family/
http://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_214917_en.pdf
This is a good piece that shows a study of how bad the newspapers have got when reporting about people on welfare, particularly the disabled. It’s actually a good unbiased read and I would advise all ministers to have a good look at it.
It appears the government don’t learn from past mistakes, Accenture have just won a contract with the DWP worth hundreds of millions, under their contract they are responsible for subcontractors, Guess who Accenture have taken on as their main subcontractor for this contract? Yup Atos, the same Atos who has completely failed to provide a decent service, a company who has lost the country 50 million per year in tribunal and appeal costs, the very same company that is destroying the lives of disabled people/sick, please tell me who has been handing out the brown paper envelopes for this to happen???
http://victimsofatoscorruption.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/department-for-work-and-pensions-awards-application-services-contract-to-accenture-guess-who-theyve-chosen-as-one-of-their-main-subcontractors-atos-are-the-government-totally-incompetent/
Hi friends of disabled and this country. I am so proud of everyone. Get feeds from this. I have nothing to say as trying to get one girls tale into press and get information about ex servicemen and Atos dismissing them into press. But just saw feed and AtosVictims and all and am just overwhelmed by everyone’s efforts and passion. XXX AA
You know, if I wasn’t seeing this myself, I would laugh and say nah the Government arn’t that low but alas the bbc news today is shocking.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15801515
Who would run this sham? oo let me guess, Atos! What callous, unthinking, uncaring sort of person would think this one up eh? Obviously someone who has not learned their lessons from the ATOS WCA sham that goes on wasting money when their decisions go to a court of appeal over and over and is getting away with it.
I have started think that neither the MP’s nor the Lords are listening. It is so disheartening trying to represent your loved ones against a bill that is only going to make matters worse for the disabled.
Instead of spending time and money on creating a another body to assess benefits why don’t let the Doctor’s do their job. My son has been through the process of these supposed independent experts and they incapable, the only person I trust is my Doctor, who has over 20 years experience of dealing with my son.
But who is listening, it certainly isn’t the Governement.
Peter Ongley
Of course they aren’t listening. Too busy racking up the expenses.
However on the GP issue, I think you’re wrong. The evidence is that there is a huge conflict of interest between the GP and the patient, and lots of GP’s are not prepared to remove benefits from patients, and in some cases will sign the off to get peace and quite. After all, its then someone else’s problem.
The next issue is standardisation. To be fair, the criteria need to be objective and applied consistently across the board. Otherwise getting IB is a post code lottery.
So, even the introduction of similar for sick pay is welcome for me. It’s been a long time coming. The result of that has been part of the massive government debt, and the result of that is massive cuts.
Even more unfortunately, those debts are far larger than government will admit too. It has tipped. They won’t be able to dig the UK out without cuts being imposed because of lack of money. They have promised more than the UK can deliver. They have spent all the pension contributions as the main example.
So its going all Greek, and for that you can blame the Lords.
However, here’s a prediction. Lord Norton claimed the lords were good at keeping costs down, so no doubt he will avoid the blame when it comes to the disaster.
Yes they need to make cuts but to be truly honest, they are looking in the wrong sector and praying on those who are to ill to fight back, whilst appeasing those who they think are in the majority so they can keep votes.
They’re not going after the disabled because of cuts, they have already stated that it’s not about cost cutting on the news and that was Cameron’s own words. It was all supposedly about welfare reform and how to make it better for patients. The only thing this is going to do to patients is make them wait for any money while waiting for an assessment to claim time off work. It sounds like they are just hoping people will think it’s to much work when they’re at their lowest to get any time off work and not even try.
Paying yet another private company to assess even more people who go in for a sick note is just going to cost them more. It’s pretty obvious really.
You know what I think is the most stupidest thing of all? Making all these benefit changes all in one go and doing it at a time when society is having cuts thrown at them left right and center and fuel prices are going up. It’s neglectful, irresponsible and callous.
You need to do the sums. The government is in debt to the tune of 7,000 bn, and that doesn’t included paying people IB.
Only 70 bn of that is bank bailouts. The rest is that they have taken payments from people, and promised to pay the pensions in the future. They haven’t invested it, they have spent it.
Now income is 550 bn.
Gearing on that basis just to pay people’s pensions, 14 times. Would you get a mortgage on that basis?
News today. So much.
ATOS MIRACLES AGAIN!! PRAISE BE!
“When i was born in 1953 i had cerebral palsy. after my ATOS assesment i was cured. HOW?”
And disabled confirm that Atos is contacting GPs directly after their assessment and anouncement of fit for work and instant cure to no longer give sick notes and change diagnosis. Absolutely bloody amazing. Atos overides medical examination, evidence and diagnosis. and all referrals to further treatment is stopped. ARE YOU MAD!!
“Update: I asked Lord Freud if he would be interested in doing a guest post for the blog – unfortunately he is not able to.”
Shouldn’t that be “not willing to”? He knows that he would get a real reaction to his attacks on disability benefits and allowances rather than the ones fed to him to make his life easy.
Baroness Murphy, I asked you in an email (which you failed to respond to) how many deaths of disabled people would it take for you to admit that the reforms are wrong, care to state on here in tens or thousands how many deaths would make you reassess your stance on the Tory attacks on disability related benefits?
Connections between members of the House of Lords and certain companies which are helping the past and present governments to attack the disabled & sick are coming to light.
Baroness Greengross was made Patron of a project sponsored by none other than Unum, it frustrates me that such a person could accept such a position when Unum are involved, a company branded as disability Deniers” in the USA, a company which had to reopen over 300,00 cases they had previously denied, a company which had been fined millions of dollars in US Courts, I suppose being a member of the House of Lords doesn’t require an ounce of Morals or ethics.
http://victimsofatoscorruption.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/greengross-made-patron-of-disabled-workers-campaign-sponsored-by-unum/
Yep I have heard of UNUM and their connections in helping make the policy for welfare reform. It’s obvious they have a vested interest especially as they are also ATOS. To think this company was prosecuted in America but is allowed to operate in a very high place here in the UK is DISGUSTING.
It won’t be long before the next scandal hits and I believe this will be one of them.
*Asking again*
Baroness Murphy, I asked you in an email (which you failed to respond to) how many deaths of disabled people would it take for you to admit that the reforms are wrong, care to state on here in tens or thousands how many deaths would make you reassess your stance on the Tory attacks on disability related benefits?
It seems you don’t give a stuff how many disabled people die Baroness Murphy?
However much I may disagree with the policies of Baroness Murphy, I think this is hardly a helpful contribution to debate and unworthy. Baroness Murphy I am sure does not wish any disabled people to die unnecessarily.
However these resource decisions are exceptionally difficult and it is naive to believe that current patterns of provision can always be maintained unchanged despite any economic turmoil around, whether created or exacerbated by the current coalition, whether due to acts of commission or omission of the previous government, or whether by forces external to the UK beyond control of the government of the day.
Helpful? Is it “helpful” that people have already died through the fear of what the Lords will vote through? (it would be naive to think they won’t)
I want to know just what is classed as an acceptable number of casualties in these Tory cuts but it appears by the inability to get an answer that any number of dead disabled people is acceptable, and I’m being as ‘cold’ as possible in asking this.
As for “resources”? Around £15 billion a year goes unclaimed in the various benefits and allowances. The rise in number of those claiming DLA was built into the system (and there is likely to be some sort of decline in those claiming Attendance Allowance which will go some way to equalling out those who dare to live past the age of 65 and still claiming DLA)
For the record I didn’t ask the Baroness “wish(ed) any disabled people to die unnecessarily”, I asked “how many deaths of disabled people would it take for you (her) to admit that the reforms are wrong” and you have to admit that those are two totally different things.
I just don’t reconcile the thoughtful comments of Baroness Murphy as a crossbencher, in for example yesterday’s debate on the Health and Social Care Bill, as broadcast on the Parliament Channel, with the “careless as to lives” portrayal in many comments on this site. She, unlike a good many peers, showed herself willing back in September (when this thread started) to enter dialogue with subscribers to the Lords of the Blogs site on the issues in this Bill. Many useful and informative posts have been lodged as to the way the ATOS assessments are being made. She has been the subject of some various and fairly offensive postings putting onto her shoulders the obloquy more rightly falling onto the Governments’. People posting should follow the kind of respect for others that is incumbent on peers themselves. Otherwise many people will stop reading comments and this will defeat the object of the blogs.
With all due respect DanFilson, there is no discussion. We were blogged at and told how it is but when there is a question, the lovely Baroness doesn’t answer. How is that a discussion?
Of course we appreciate the Lord of the Blogs and being able to have our say etc but there’s no point if we feel that it’s ignored or the person who started the discussion no longer wants to partake just because someone says something they don’t like or disagree with or is to afraid to answer.
Things like Clive has talked about need to be addressed. It’s important to a lot of people and it’s the next scandal waiting to happen. Sure with all the hype about those on benefits are cheats and scroungers, hype that is fed daily to the papers when there are less of them out there than people think, people at the moment do not have sympathy for those who are suffering but how long do you think that will last when more and more of them find themselves in the same situation? It’s a ticking time bomb.
Baroness Murphy has twice responded to contributions to this blog, the second time indicating it would be final one.
I asked a question, I did so through an email to the Baroness who thinks that someone who would rather kill themselves than be constantly reassessed for an allowance she was granted indefinitely due to a rare and deteriorating condition would be “cutting off their nose to spite their face”, she failed to answer the question which is quite a reasonable question to ask, done unemotionally I may add. She finds it acceptable to help decide the fate of every disabled person AND their carers but finds interacting with the same people as not worth bothering with because they have the temerity to stand up for themselves.
Sorry but I don’t like ignorance especially from those who might be the cause of my wife’s health being put at risk Dan. It shows that this woman, because titles mean sod all to me, has no compassion and no intention of interacting with people she finds beneath her (and one little comment in her email makes me think that the decision to pass this bill is a forgone conclusion)
Lord Fraud should be available to be spoken to regarding his stitch up/con job that he is carrying out, the rubbish about Discretionary Housing Payments would be a good place to start, his fake figures of people claiming DLA would be another. You know Dan, if someone is going to f**k me then they could at least have the courtesy to speak to me and all the others he is going to f**k over too for that matter.
Respect for others dan?
Seriously?
How can deciding the fate of the sick and disabled, through the use of, and allowance of liars such as Lord Freud, or even Cameron, be allowed?
How can it be classified as the Lords etc having respect for others, when they clearly do not, or they would be refusing to work with known liars like freud.
They would answer to the people whose fate is being decide, they would not run and hide and refuse to comment like Murhpy or Freud.
Murphy, and more so Freud, as well as Cameron, Osbourne etc are showing about as much respect to others as I would be if I went up and kicked a disabled person to death.
At least, the death would be quicker than a slow suicide or deterioration of health through the mental hell they are being put through, both through the propaganda, lies and the system.
What was it Cameron said about people on IB? Everyone has been given it No Questions Asked.
A lie, that oddly was picked up by the lords, but brushed of by Lord Frued – and the lords accepted the pathetic excuse that made no sense. Disgraceful.
What did Osbourne say about people on incapacity benefit, apart from his lies that people are not checked etc, he said the ‘contribute nothing to the greatness of this country’
So much for respect for others, thats just outright disgusting talk from anyone, not least someone in his position.
Same as Freud, whose work on the previous paper about welfare reform was classified as not having an evidence base by the SSAC, who lies in the media were easy to see.
He lied that people on IB were only ever assessed by their own GP – blatend lie, he lied about the fraud rate etc.
Where is the respect for the people whose fate is being decided?
There is none, just hatred, contempt and lies coming from the people at the top, fully supported it seems by those in the lords, or they would be refusing to co-operate with it.
They are co-operating,and I find their actions, or rather their inaction, beyond contempt.
I would prefer to sit and talk with a common self confessed theif than someone in the lords – as at least you know where you stand, and wont be buried under false niceties and protocol while they stab you in the back.
Of course, they could rectify this, grow a backbone, and stop spitting in the face of the people they represent.
But I wont hold my breath.
It really is going to take more deaths before they perhaps admit things are not designed properly, and even then, it probably wont enter their heads they are responsible for those deaths.
Dan : “Many useful and informative posts have been lodged as to the way the ATOS assessments are being made. ”
Yes, and as always, as they have been for many years, they will be ignored or brushed under the carpet.
Why, because they just dont give a damn.
Clive
“Lord Fraud should be available to be spoken to regarding his stitch up/con job that he is carrying out”
Theres little chance of Frued being available in a public setting to answer questions, not without seriously heavy pre moderation.
Why? Because he is such a liar (and before the mods hit delete, stop and think – nothing I am saying is untrue – its easily verifiable with a quick google search the amount of previous lies he has told about IB.
Such as people on IB are only assessed by their own GP.)
And as he is such a liar, I would assume he knows he would not stand a chance in a open debate.
His lies, would easily be called out, he would have to answer real questions, and not get away with the type of nonsense he gets away with in the lords.
In short, that I fear, is why he hides like a coward would hide, unable to answer to the people whose fate he rules over.
Hi to All after Xmas and New Year. I have had a break, but not a break. Ravi Low-Beer is taking a challenge regarding the Atos Assessments and Mental Illness and been delivering info and testimonies too them. Again reading through and seeing the testimonies of what has happened and how they are treated and like I said no matter how ill or how mentally ill someone is or has habits or behaviours which would not be a good and conducive safe environment the assessor deem the person fit to work. Again I see very ill, severely schizophrenic people who cannot cope and severely deluded and suffering hallucinations and incomprehension being persuaded to meet the assessor on their own, without any other help or support and deemed fit for work after just 2 minutes when the assessor was so scared he got the person out as quick as possible. And all those who after years of putting themselves together after abuse and finding a precarious balance are made incredibly ill and relapse. Read through it again to find the right information for Ravi but again beyond me how someone does not shout STOP!! to the whole lot. Happy New Year!! AFTER ATOS – customer “feedback” survey for all those taking the Atos Medical Assessment. Counting the Disabled Back In – Because People Matter. Lots of Luv Aunty AA