1) Andy Burnham calls on UK Statistics Authority to clarify Cameron claims on A&E waiting times

Andy Burnham MP, Labour’s Shadow Health Secretary, has today written to Sir Andrew Dilnot, Chair of the UK Statistics Authority, following claims made by David Cameron in Prime Minister’s Questions on July 2nd and further research by the House of Commons Library published yesterday.

David Cameron has been accused of misleading MPs over A&E waiting times, after a claim he made three times was challenged by the politically neutral House of Commons Library. Cameron’s claim that average waiting times had more than halved under the Coalition was based on “a simplistic reading of the data”.

In a blog on the House of Commons Library website, researcher Carl Baker wrote that A&E data “must be discussed in a way which is useful and informative”. The blog post was removed from the website, with a message in its place which said it had been taken down “as it does not meet our expected standards of impartiality”. The message said a revised blog post would be uploaded “as soon as possible”.

The researcher also said that a similar claim, made last month by the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, that the median waiting time had fallen from 77 minutes, was “false”.

In fact, there had been no reduction in waiting times, and total time spent in A&E was actually increasing.

A copy of Andy Burnham’s letter is below:

Dear Sir Andrew,

Prime Minister’s statements on average waiting times in Accident and Emergency.

I am writing to seek clarification about recent claims by the Prime Minister about waiting times in Accident and Emergency units in England. As you may be aware, on 2 July the Prime Minister informed the House of Commons that average A&E waiting times had fallen from 77 minutes to 30 minutes.

“Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman exactly how long people are waiting. When the shadow Secretary of State was Secretary of State for Health, the average waiting time was 77 minutes; under this Government, it is 30 minutes.”

David Cameron, Hansard, 2 July 2014, column 883
“The average waiting time is down by more than half. That is better.”
David Cameron, Hansard; 2 July 2014, column 883

In addition, the Health Secretary informed the House of Commons on 9 June that “the median wait for an initial assessment is only 30 minutes under this Government, down from 77 minutes under the last Government.”

“NHS staff are working incredibly hard to see and treat these patients within four hours, and it is a tribute to them that the median wait for an initial assessment is only 30 minutes under this Government, down from 77 minutes under the last Government.”
Jeremy Hunt, Hansard, 9 June 2014, column 288

But the House of Commons Library, in a blog post that has since been removed, says that “total time in A&E has been steadily increasing” and that “The data does not show that the average time in A&E has fallen since 2008. Rather, the typical total time in A&E has risen”. And they say that it is “false” to claim, as the Health Secretary did, that the median waiting time has fallen from 77 minutes, because “the median has remained more or less unchanged at around 10 minutes to initial assessment”.

I would be very grateful if you could consider the accuracy of the Prime Minister’s and Health Secretary’s statements, and in particular to clarify whether “time to initial assessment” is an accurate indicator of “average waiting time” in A&E, and whether it is an accurate indicator of overall A&E performance.

Yours sincerely,

Andy Burnham

2) House of Commons Library research devastating for Cameron on A&E waiting times

Following the publication of a blog by the House of Commons Library debunking the Prime Minister’s claims on A&E waiting times at yesterday’s Prime Minister’s Questions, Andy Burnham MP, Labour’s Shadow Health Secretary, has written to David Cameron asking him to correct the record.

Andy Burnham said:

“This analysis from the House of Commons Library is devastating for the Prime Minister. “It exposes his cynical spin on the NHS and suggests he is guilty of giving a misleading impression of what is happening.

“David Cameron needs to hold his hands up, return to Commons and correct the record. It is only by being up front about what is really happening can a proper plan be developed.”

Letter to David Cameron from Andy Burnham:

Dear Prime Minister,

Yesterday at Prime Minister’s Questions you told the House that average A&E waiting times had fallen from 77 minutes to 30 minutes.

“Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman exactly how long people are waiting. When the shadow Secretary of State was Secretary of State for Health, the average waiting time was 77 minutes; under this Government, it is 30 minutes.”

Hansard, 2 July 2014, column 883

However, today the House of Commons Library, in an analysis of A&E waiting time data published on their blog at http://commonslibraryblog.com/2014/07/03/have-ae-waiting-times-fallen/, has comprehensively debunked your claim. They say that “it relies on a simplistic reading of the data, and that the measure [the Prime Minister] refers to is not the most natural indicator of the ‘average waiting time’ in A&E”. The Library says that the data “does not support the PM’s statement”.

The Library goes on to say that on median time to treatment, and median time in A&E, which “are more natural ways to report ‘average A&E waiting times’ – there has been no reduction in waiting times… and total time in A&E has been steadily increasing”.

The Library concludes that “The data does not show that the average time in A&E has fallen since 2008. Rather, the typical total time in A&E has risen (for admitted patients, at least)”.

Given that they have risen, it was wrong for you to claim that average A&E waiting times have fallen. I trust that you will want to take the earliest opportunity to correct the record.

Yours sincerely,

Andy Burnham

–

Further reading

David Cameron accused of misrepresenting A&E waiting times to Parliament

Yesterday at PMQs – the Prime Minister

 With  thanks to Robert Livingstone for his brilliant illustrations

High Court grants declaration of incompatibility of primary legislation with the right to a fair trial after damning assessment of the Department of Work and Pensions’ interference in ongoing cases.

Many thanks to Public Interest Lawyers UK & International Law

In a detailed and critical decision, Mrs Justice Lang considered a challenge brought by Caitlin Reilly and Daniel Hewstone against the 2013 Act following a “series of misjudgments by the DWP” (at [109]). In a previous case, brought by Public Interest Lawyers on Ms Reilly’s behalf, the Court of Appeal had ruled that the regulations introducing back-to-work schemes (the 2011 Regulations) – and sanctions for failing to take part in or meet requirements of the schemes – were unlawful and should be quashed (see the press release here).

Following a challenge to emergency, retrospective legislation introduced to remedy mistakes made by the DWP in its ‘Back to Work’ scheme, the High Court has declared the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013 incompatible with the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights. The Government’s argument that the retrospective Act was compliant with the Convention has been shown to be wrong and its arguments deeply flawed.

Before the Secretary of State’s own appeal was heard (and ultimately dismissed) by the Supreme Court, the 2013 Act was rushed through Parliament in 3 days, without full or proper consultation, in order to retrospectively validate the regulations as well as sanctions imposed on benefit claimants under that regime. This effectively won the appeal for the Secretary of State before it was considered by the Supreme Court – the Judge referred to this as a “foregone conclusion” (at [86]). It also determined thousands of pending appeals in statutory tribunals in favour of the Department of Work and Pensions.

In reaching its decision, the Court considered that the Government’s actions had not been foreseeable to benefit claimants (at [90]) and that “the absence of any consultation with representative organisations” as well as the lack of scrutiny by Parliamentary Committees had led to “misconceptions about the legal justification for the retrospective legislation” (at [96]).

The 2013 Act introduced a new “draconian provision, unique to this cohort of claimants”  which was “not explained or justified” by the Government in Parliament “at the time” (at [99]). Mrs Justice Lang rejected the Secretary of State’s assertion that flaws in the 2011 Regulations were simply “a technicality or a loophole” (at [116]), that the 2013 Act sought to give effect to Parliament’s ‘original intention’ (at [122]) or that repayments to benefits claimants would be “an undeserved windfall”  (at [125). She also recognised that it would be “unjust to categorise the claimants in Reilly No 1 as claimants “who have not engaged with attempts made by the state to return them to work” (at [126]).

The learned judge rejected a challenge based on the property rights of benefits claimants. The Secretary of State has asked for permission to appeal the judgment.

The consequences of the judgment are that all those who have appealed against a benefit sanction on the basis of the previous Reilly and Wilson decisions will be entitled to win their appeals and be repaid the withheld benefits. Those who have not appealed, or are not allowed to bring a challenge to a sanction out of time will not be able to benefit from repayments.

Phil Shiner, a solicitor at Public Interest Lawyers, said today:

“This case is another massive blow to this Government’s flawed and tawdry attempts to make poor people on benefits work for companies, who already make massive profits, for free.  Last year the Supreme Court told Iain Duncan Smith and the Coalition government that the scheme was unlawful. In this case the High Court has now told the Government that the attempt to introduce retrospective legislation, after the DWP had lost in the Court of Appeal, is unlawful and a breach of the Human Rights Act and is a further disgraceful example of how far this Government is prepared to go to flout our constitution and the rule of law.  I call on the DWP to ensure that the £130 million of benefits unlawfully withheld from the poorest section of our society is now repaid.”

See further press coverage below:

PCS: Latest Poundland ruling shows ‘cruelty and arrogance’ of government

The Guardian

The Telegraph

The Daily Mail

Birmingham Mail

BBC News

International Business Times

 

Originally posted in The Guardian Wednesday 2 July 2014
by Tom Clark.

George Osborne claims to have cut inequality. But look behind the figures and it’s clear the Conservatives can’t take any credit.

‘Frightening signs of hardship emerge, tied closely to the early cuts to incapacity payments and housing benefits.’ Photograph: Neil Hall/Reuters
Have you heard the one about inequality falling? Top-tax-cutting baronet-to-be George Osborne boasted in his budget that “under this government, income inequality is at its lowest level for 28 years”. It’s a line we can expect to hear recycled between now and May 2015, after this week’s official figures – the last that will see daylight before polling day – recorded a decline on some measures of relative poverty, and again failed to register any widening in the overall income gap.

In a land where Barclays’ bonuses and bedroom taxes compete for column inches, many will suspect the books are being cooked. But having once been employed to run independent checks on these figures, I can vouch for their integrity. There’s nothing wrong with the numbers – and the smallprint contains ample evidence of coalition-induced hardship. The shortcoming is that the data only appears deep in the rear-view mirror, and so the consequences of a government that has lurched to the right remain disguised.

What the data demonstrates beyond doubt is the importance of social security in addressing inequality. It confirms the depth of the recent recession, with family incomes now down around 10% since Lehman Brothers’ implosion in 2008. Wages tumbled across the range, but at the bottom end this was often compounded by enforced reductions in hours, so the poor could easily have suffered most. But things did not initially turn out that way. Instead, for a time, those with the broadest shoulders really did bear the burden.

Why? Because the Labour government of the day protected the safety net, even nudging benefits payments up slightly when inflation turned negative during the crisis. And this, as Robert Joyce of the Institute for Fiscal Studies explains, is “the chief reason why inequality declined with the recession: as wages dipped sharply, benefits were more stable, and benefits go mostly to those on lower incomes”.

“Frightening signs of hardship emerge, tied closely to the early cuts to incapacity payments and housing benefits”
Regime change in 2010 did not immediately unravel this progressive pattern, because – for a time – the coalition also showed some regard for the poor. After all, on these very pages in opposition, Oliver Letwin had made the Tory embrace of Labour’s child poverty promises a plank of Cameronian modernisation.

In Osborne’s first budget, even as he began to cut, the chancellor found the money to raise family tax credits so he could guarantee that his austerity would “not increase measured child poverty”. The next year he reneged, and cancelled some of his own ameliorative measures – but the Liberal Democrats were not yet ready to fold. With the cost of living rocketing in autumn 2011, Nick Clegg fought to ensure that families relying on benefits would be fully compensated, and benefits (or at least those not already being cut) rose by 5.2% the following spring.

This week’s data only takes us up to this point, the financial year that began in April 2012. Even so, frightening signs of hardship emerge, tied closely to the early benefit cuts. In line with the first restrictions on incapacity payments, there’s a sharp rise in poverty for disabled people. As the first housing benefit restrictions bit, on the breadline that adjusts for rising rent, 600,000 people sank into absolute poverty. Among children, so-called material deprivation – that is, families who can’t afford things such as birthday parties and warm winter coats – also edges up, as does the coalition’s new measure of “severe poverty”. And overall, the incomes of the poorest fifth are already faring worst.

But the true statistical picture of foodbank Britain will have to wait. For it was not until April 2013, at the very same time the 50p tax rate was chopped for the richest, that the poor were landed with a new household benefit cap which could leave children in London being raised on 62p a day. Poor families nationwide were then also faced with the reinvention of something very like the poll tax, as the national council tax rebate scheme was axed, and a three-year programme of holding benefits below inflation began. Clegg was just as craven in accepting this as he had been brave over indexing for living costs the year before.

Joyce says: “Just as benefits that outpaced wages led to reduced inequality immediately after the slump, government plans to reduce welfare spending in the next few years – while workers’ pay stabilises – are likely to push inequality back up.” The links between the coalition’s direct decisions and prospects for poverty are clear. There is no rise at all in hardship among pensioners, which fits with a whole series of special exemptions from the cuts. But a separate official survey revealed how overall taxation was rising for the poorest, even as it fell for others.

So when the truth finally outs, what will be the response? One option is to plead inevitability. This, however, is a hard sell. The vast total of around £25bn in benefit cuts already set in train by the chancellor brings in less than he has freely given away in personal tax allowances, petrol duties and corporation tax cuts. To govern is to choose.

The alternative, which seems to be Iain Duncan Smith’s preference, is denial. His administrative overhaul of benefits has descended into a shambles: he wastes court time trying to keep papers documenting the mess secret. Even if it had all worked smoothly, it would still have been a sideshow next to such historic cuts. But last week Duncan Smith published an anti-poverty “strategy” claiming that his welfare reforms would transform “the lives of the most vulnerable”. In the IDS war on poverty, the first casualty is not hardship, but truth.

Thanks to Robert Livingstone for his brilliant illustrations of Tory lies, hypocrisy and anti-progressive dogma.

In March, MPs agreed a 2015-16 welfare cap of £119.5bn, which excluded the state pension and some unemployment benefits, such as Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) and Housing Benefit paid to JSA claimants, but it covers all other benefit expenditure. That also includes administration costs, staffing costs and so forth.

Social security benefits are by their very nature supposed to be needs-led, so if individuals meet the eligibility criteria for a benefit, and apply, then they will ordinarily receive that benefit. The welfare cap does not change this one bit. All it does, essentially, is require the Government either to justify where expenditure increases by more than forecast, or propose further welfare cuts to bring expenditure back into line. It will not turn social security into a cash-limited budget. The Conservatives use other ways to do that.

The cap was set in line with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecasts of benefit expenditure, with an additional “forecast margin” of two per cent added on. This means that the level of the cap will be £119.5 billion in 2015/16 with a forecast margin of £2.4 billion, rising to £126.7 billion by 2018/19 (with a forecast margin of £2.5bn).

So, there is a fundamental difference between a budget cap – as is the case here, and benefit cap, though people have tended to confuse the two. It became an issue when Labour decided to agree the Tory budget cap, and although it was for very good reason, some have made the claim that it was an indication of Labour’s consensus ad idem with regard to the Tory welfare “reforms”, when this very clearly is not the case.

And you do have to be suspicious of the probable intent lying somewhere behind that, especially when the BBC’s Tory correspondent Nick Robinson admitted yesterday, live on air, that Cameron’s best chance of winning the next election is if people believe politicians are “all the same”. That is very clearly not the case. 

Lynton Crosby, who has declared that his role is to destroy the Labour Party, rather than promote the Conservatives, based on any notion of merit, is all about such a targeted “divide and rule” strategy. This is a right wing tactic of cultivating and manipulating apostasy amongst support for the opposition. It’s a very evident ploy in the media, too, with articles about Labour screaming headlines that don’t match content, and the Sun and Telegraph blatantly lying about Labour’s policy intentions regularly.

To clarify, the welfare cap does not actually limit funds for social security. It does, however, provide a mechanism for crucial Parliamentary debate to address the structural drivers of higher benefits spending. It may be used to demand Government accountability and to highlight the real reasons why benefits have risen: a massive recession, a cost of living crisis and repressed wages, an over-heating housing rental market, and the grossly inadequate support and opportunities for those out of work.

Rachel Reeves knew that it was unlikely that Iain Duncan Smith would manage to stay within the confines of the budget cap, not least because of his blatantly massive expenditure on programme failures such as the Universal Credit. However, Iain Duncan Smith has been systematically withholding information regarding the details, consequences and administration of his welfare “reforms”, and this makes effective challenge a little difficult.

However, Labour circumvented this by supporting the budget cap. This is entirely about creating opportunity for scrutinising how the budget is (mis)spent by the Government. And it’s very clear that despite the fact that the Tories set the terms of the cap, this is a debate that Labour will win strategically and rationally with ease.

Rachel Reeves said: “A Labour government would take a completely different approach, focusing on the things that drive increased social security spending – such as low pay, long-term unemployment and the inadequate supply of housing. 

Labour would tackle low pay by strengthening the minimum wage and encouraging more employers to pay a living wage. We would get 200,000 homes a year built by 2020 to help bring down the cost of rents and tackle the housing crisis. And we would tackle the £330 million cost of long-term youth unemployment with a Compulsory Jobs Guarantee.

[Jobs for young people are to be created, using the banker’s bonus tax that Labour have already proposed].

Ministers are having to spend more because of the cost of their failing policies, waste and the cost-of-living crisis which has left working people an average of £1,600 a year worse off. 

The levels of overspending and waste under this government are staggering. £1 billion has been spent on the government’s flagship Work Programme, but people who use the scheme are more likely to return to the Jobcentre than gain a job.

An astonishing £2.4 billion of taxpayers money has been overpaid in benefits by the government due to ‘official error’ since 2010. Long-term youth unemployment has doubled since 2010, costing £330 million a year. The housing benefit bill has risen since 2010, and figures in the Budget pointed to a further increase of £100 million in 2014-15, and £300 million in 2015-16. Universal Credit is now costing a staggering £161,000 per claimant according to figures released last week. 

So, despite tough talking from ministers, the Budget well and truly confirmed their failure to control welfare costs. 

A Labour government would take a completely different approach, focusing on the things that drive increased social security spending – such as low pay, long-term unemployment and the inadequate supply of housing”. 

The Coalition is very close to breaching its self-imposed welfare cap as more people move off Jobseeker’s Allowance and onto sickness benefits, leaked government documents have revealed.

The internal memos which were seen and reported by the BBC suggest that Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) costs, intended for people who are unable to work because of sickness or disability, are rising with few cost-cutting options left available. The leaked documents say ESA is “one of the largest fiscal risks currently facing the government”, with the cost projected to rise by nearly £13bn between now and 2018-19.

Of course the biggest fiscal risk in reality is the billions in unpaid taxes, and the generous handouts to millionaires that the government have made over the last couple of years.

The documents’ authors suggest the main reason for the rising cost is an increasing number of people moving from JSA to ESA, partly because claimants are “less likely to face sanctions”.

It seems that sanctions are considered a major part of this Government’s welfare budget planning. It’s not as if we didn’t anticipate that the new Tory “conditionality” rules would serve to present opportunities for the government to remove benefits, rather than “supporting” jobseekers. Despite the persistent claims that no sanction targets exist, this government would struggle to deny convincingly that the current benefit rules don’t provide an incentive for the Department for Work and Pensions to sanction people.

A key aim of the government’s sickness benefit system is to “get people off welfare and into work”, but the documents reveal the severity of claimants’ illnesses and disabilities have been “underestimated”, and people are staying on the benefit “longer than expected”.

A range of cost-cutting options were offered in the documents, but the authors concluded that there appears to be “not much low-hanging fruit left”. One memo said: “This leaves us vulnerable to a breach [of the cap].”

Private firm Atos, which carries out health assessments for the government, has agreed to end its contract early, but the documents say the new contractor, due to be appointed in early 2015, is expected to cost roughly “three times as much” as Atos’s £100m annual deal. Private companies contracted to save money at the expense of people already facing significant hardship and disadvantage are costing the public purse billions more than they claim they will save, while stripping sick and disabled people of their lifeline support. The money paid to private providers like Atos, Maximus to “assess” the “work capability” of disabled people, and those delivering the various workfare schemes, comes out of the welfare budget too.

Ministers, who say welfare spending will come in under the cap, will have to give an explanation to Parliament if the limit is breached and ask MPs to approve additional spending. · 

Shadow work and pensions secretary Rachel Reeves, who anticipated this, said the work capability assessment was “in meltdown”, the Universal Credit was “chaos” and that people were being badly let down.

“It is a catalogue of total failure and threatens huge costs to the taxpayer,”  she said.

“David Cameron must urgently get a grip of this chaotic department.”

Meanwhile, a report by MPs has branded the implementation of another benefit, Personal Independence Payments (PIP), a “fiasco”. PIP is replacing Disability Living Allowance, but the Commons Public Accounts Committee said the reform had been “rushed”, with some claims delayed by more than six months, causing unnecessary distress and severe hardship to thousands of people.

In February, it was revealed that Iain Duncan Smith’s welfare “reform” plan is costing £225,000 per person to implement, which prompted the Labour party to accuse the government of wasting money on a staggering scale. In the latest blow to the universal credit (UC) scheme, which has fallen behind schedule and will not be fully implemented until halfway through the next parliament, the figures show that £612m has been spent on introducing the new system since 2010.

Esther McVey disclosed how much had so far been spent on UC in a parliamentary reply to Rachel Reeves, the shadow work and pensions secretary. McVey said that the government had spent £612m of the £2bn earmarked in 2010 for implementing UC. The government spent £100m in 2011-12, £320m in 2012-13 and £192m in 2013-14.

Chris Bryant MP, the shadow welfare reform minister, said: “Iain Duncan Smith’s flagship policy has been plagued with delay after delay from the outset and millions of pounds have been wasted. We were once told universal credit would be on time and on budget and that a million people would be on the system by April this year, but this has come to nothing. It is staggering that the government has spent £225,000 per person on this project”. 

Duncan Smith was heavily criticised by MPs over UC, which brings together six existing benefits, cutting them by stealth, when he appeared before the commons work and pensions select committee earlier this year. Labour MPs accused the work and pensions secretary of hiding failings in the IT system after he disclosed in his department’s annual report – the day after he gave evidence to the committee – that £41m had been written off.

The National Audit Office (NAO) challenged Duncan Smith’s claim that the IT failings had only cost £41m. It said that the DWP had been forced to write down £91m of software assets, three times more quickly than had been planned.

Now, the Government has admitted UC could cost taxpayers an additional £750 million after failing to decide how free school meals will work alongside the crisis-hit programme.

In response to a Parliamentary Question, Schools Minister David Laws said the additional cost of extending free school meals to all families in receipt of UC could reach £750 million a year. Under the current system, eligibility for free school meals is decided by certain benefits received by families such as income support.

However because UC is set to replace existing benefits, including in-work benefits, and will be claimed by families not currently in receipt of free school meals, the Government must decide on new eligibility criteria.

Since 2011, Labour has consistently asked questions on the issue but the Tory-led Government has still not decided what the Free School Meals criteria will be despite repeated assurances.

Until it reaches a decision it has said that all children in households receiving UC will automatically be eligible for free school meals – which could result in an extra £750 million of government spending.

Chris Bryant MP, Labour’s Shadow Minister for Welfare Reform, said:

“Ministers have ignored warnings about Universal Credit and free school meals for years.

“Now they have admitted the cost of their incompetence could reach £750 million.

“David Cameron must urgently get a grip of this latest Universal Credit fiasco with threatens to cost taxpayers millions of pounds.”

Dr Éoin Clarke at The Green Benches did an excellent piece of work which shows 16 ways that Iain Duncan Smith’s Department have wasted a total of £6,221,875,000.00 of taxpayers’ money.

 Welfare Spending climbed £24bn this Parliament
(evidence from HM Treasury & Budget evidence)

1. IDS’s spend on Private Consultants is up 59% this year (evidence)
2. IDS’s spend on Temporary Staff is up 91% this year (evidence)
3. £150million+ of taxpayers’ money wasted contesting successful appeals against unfair WCA assessments (evidence)
4. The DWP have written off £140million in overpaid Housing Benefit paid in error since October 2010 (evidence)
5. £241m of taxpayers’ money is set to be wasted in IT overspend for the Universal Credit Project (evidence)
6. £90m of taxpayers’ money is wasted on IT equipment that won’t work in 2 years (evidence)
7. £60m of taxpayers’ money paid to a Private Firm to carry out WCA assessments that they botched (evidence)
8. £1.2bn wasted on over-payments at the DWP due to Fraud and Error for 3 years running  (2010-11) (2011-12) (2012-13)
9. £194m wasted on the Tory Back to Work Scheme for Troubled Families that helped just 3% of the families’ targeted (evidence)
10. £2.25bn spent on a Work Programme that was only 10% successful wasting £2bn (evidence, evidence & evidence)
11. £457m Youth Contract Scheme has achieved a 95% failure rate, wasting £434m (evidence)
12. 40,000 Bedroom Tax victims are exempt due to a loophole that will cost taxpayers’ £29m (evidence)
13. DHP increased to cover the mess of the Bedroom Tax costing taxpayers’ £150m (evidence)
14. Impact study of Bedroom Tax arrears suggests £260m could be lost this year (evidence)
15. IDS wasted £75,000 of taxpayers’ cash on a Bedroom Tax poll (evidence)
16. Shares For Rights Scheme opens up a £1bn tax loophole (evidence)

Seems that Mr Duncan Smith, who may breach his own self-imposed welfare spending cap, is better at managing a “fudge it” than a budget.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has continually aimed to block publication of reports that would reveal the utter failure of the UC programme, despite a series of rulings insisting they should be released. A ruling by tribunal in March on information release provided us with glimpse into exactly how secretive the DWP is and the lengths that ministers will go to prevent the public (and the Opposition) seeing how catastrophic the UC project has become.

The ruling upheld a decision by the information commissioner to overrule the DWP on whether it would have to release some of the documents raising concerns about the UC programme.

What’s particularly telling about the tribunal report are the details of how even harmless information which would have struggled to get any press attention was aggressively kept secret by the DWP.

The DWP insisted publication would have a “chilling effect” on the working of the department – a standard defence against disclosure last used by Andrew Lansley to prevent publication of the risk register regarding his disastrous NHS “reforms”. The information tribunal ruled there was no evidence of that, but that there was “strong public interest” in publication.

Iain Duncan Smith appealed the decision. And lost. But the fact that he fought, spending tax payers money, to keep details of the programme secret, and that he has vetoed the publication of a damning internal assessment of UC in the first place is an affront to democracy, notions of transparency, accountable government and ministerial responsibility.

Despite the fact that information has been purposefully withheld by the government, the Labour Party has called for a “hard-headed” review of the coalition government’s supposedly flagship welfare reform, Universal Credit, also following the publication of an independent report on 23 June 2014. The very damning report highlights that Universal Credit will never be delivered successfully across the country without leaving the new system open to “fraud and error”.

The Universal Credit Rescue Committee was asked by Labour to explore ways of rescuing the government’s “mismanagement” in delivering the Universal Credit system and to assess whether the new benefit “is delivering value for money”.

The independent report also highlights a lack of transparency and accountability on the part of the government: “Delays and waste have plagued Universal Credit since its inception, a culture of secrecy and ‘good news reporting’ within the Department for Work and Pensions” has “hampered effective scrutiny of the project”.

Labour’s shadow secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Rachel Reeves, said:

“Universal Credit is in crisis. Mismanagement by incompetent ministers has wasted millions of pounds of taxpayer’s money and caused huge delays to this £12.8 billion programme.

“A Labour government will conduct an urgent review of waste, mismanagement and whether Universal Credit is delivering value for money. And we’ll call in the National Audit Office to make sure the review’s conclusions are robust.

The committee slammed the government for “repeated refusals to provide detailed information” which “makes it almost impossible to assess the current state of the project”.

According to the comprehensive report, the introduction of Universal Credit risks damaging work incentives and that crucially, council tax support should not have been left out of the new system. Universal Credit also poses a “significant risks for many women” who are often the main carer of a child, because the new system only allows for payments to be made to “one member of a couple”.

Rachel Reeves said:

“Labour’s review will lead to hard-headed decisions about whether Universal Credit can be rescued.

“If Universal Credit goes ahead we will make major changes to help families and businesses by cutting red tape for the self-employed and making payments of benefits for children to the person who is caring for them, not just the main earner. These changes that will be funded from within the existing budget”.

Iain Duncan Smith justified his entire welfare “reform” programme on falsified statistical “evidence” and particularly vicious scapegoating propaganda campaigns in the media aimed at vilifying the most vulnerable citizens in an attempt to justify cutting their lifeline support. He has failed spectacularly even at a basic level, if we take him on his own terms, Iain Duncan Smith’s claimed intent of “money saving on behalf of taxpayers” doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. But we must not forget that this minister is also responsible for the suffering and premature deaths of thousands.

This despicable, deceitful, lying and sadistic authoritarian minister, however, is merely one of many Tories that are quite clearly intending to fully dismantle all welfare support by stealth, and we need to keep that in mind. And this account reflects one battle in a much bigger, ongoing Tory-led war on the poorest and most vulnerable citizens of the UK.

This is an authoritarian government, it bypasses democratic process and operates in secrecy. Without crucial information about policy detail, impact assessment and implementation and administrative accounts, it becomes very difficult for any opposition, and to mount successful challenges to a government that propose consultations, equality impact assessments, audits, judiciary review are all simply “inconveniences” that are (and I quote Cameron): “… not how you get things done. ”

Ask yourself what kind of things this government “wants to get done” bearing in mind that every single policy that this government has formulated from its ideological compendium has been about handing out our money to private companies (and Tory donors) that are clearly unfit for purpose, whilst taking money away from the poorest – those already at the hand-to-mouth end of the economy – reducing the lives and experiences of the most vulnerable citizens, rather than enhancing those lives in any way.

 

Pictures courtesy of Robert Livingstone 

With big thanks to ilegal

Well over half a million sickness benefits appeals have succeeded – why has the DWP kept this quiet?

DWP ministers said only 9% of ESA decisions were wrong.  Our research reveals the DWP have been quoting from figures which state 151,800 appeals have succeeded.  Our evidence shows the true figure to be at least 567,634 – casting serious doubt over 43% of 1,302,200 ‘fit for work’ decisions. 

ilegal Press Release – 16th June 2013

DWP’s internal figures reveal a much higher number of successful ESA appeals than have been made publicly available.

A DWP reply on 13 June 2014 to a Freedom of Information Act request made as part of an investigation in to DWP figures relating to the controversial Work Capability Assessment by ilegal.org.uk has revealed that of 1,287,323 ESA appeals, at least 567,634 claimants have had the original DWP decision overturned in their favour. Government’s key defence of the assessments has been that around 9% of all decisions are incorrect.  The most controversial of which are those where a claimant is found fit for work.  DWP figures (for new claims) show that between October 2008 and September 2013 a total of 1,306,200 fit for work decisions have been made. 

It is with considerable disappointment noted that the DWP’s latest publicly available statistics confirm that only 151,800 successful appeals have been recorded out of a total of 410,400 appeals (for new claimants only).  Our investigations reveal evidence of three times as many appeals being ‘internally recorded’ of which 567,634 have been successful.  The DWP have revealed to us figures which show nearly quarter of a million internal reconsiderations have led to decisions on new ESA claims being overturned in favour of the claimant; we have added these to figures from HMCTS tribunals which provides us with a much higher figure than the DWP seems to be prepared to admit to in their publicly available figures.

Our intensive research into the assessment of claimants for the DWP’s Employment & Support Allowance (ESA) has, following a freedom of information request to the DWP, provided one of the final pieces of the jigsaw needed to unpick the Department’s overly complicated statistics. We now have the final clue which has enabled us to identify that no less than 567,634 ESA claimants have in fact had their initial ESA refusals overturned in their favour.

It is a startling revelation that the government department has apparently been keeping a lid on a set of statistics that clearly shows between May 2010 and June 2013 no less than 820,356 decisions were looked at again by the DWP after claimants had been assessed by the controversial private contractors Atos Healthcare. These ‘internal’ statistics show that a very substantial 232,782 (28.5%) decisions were then subsequently overturned in the claimant’s favour.

What makes this all the worse is that these reconsideration statistics come on top of separate figures that show us that of those claimants who did not have the decisions overturned in their favour by the DWP, 817,102 went on to appeal to tribunals arranged by Her Majesties’ Courts & Tribunals Service where a further 332,607 were then overturned in the claimant’s favour by the tribunal.

These figures completely negate all of the DWP’s claims that it is getting the majority of its decisions right

These figures completely negate all of the DWP’s claims that it is getting the majority of its decisions right. Government ministers in conjunction with the DWP’s Press office have been telling us that a million claimants have been found fit for work whereas these figures show that in reality this is only a small part of the true story and that huge numbers have gone on to successfully appeal decisions which were wrong.

These new figures highlight the dubious practice of using the unchallenged assessment results, which only encourage media sensationalisation, with headlines such as those appearing in the Daily Express in July 2011 stating that ‘75% on sickness benefits were faking‘. The same article goes on to say that out of ‘…2.6 million on the sick, 1.9 million could work’ before receiving an endorsement from the Prime Minister with an assurance that his government was “producing a much better system where we put people through their paces and say that if you can work, you should work”.

DWP and Ministers know the truth, they just aren’t telling anyone

These figures have been available to the DWP and its ministers since April 2010 from their ‘Decision Making & Appeals Case Recorder (DMACR) – ESA Management Information Statistics’. The DWP confirms this to be unpublished information which is for internal department information only, yet our research notes that the Right Hon Chris Grayling was using the same information in answer to Parliamentary questions on the 10th January 2012. 

We question then why the DWP has consistently ‘over promoted’ only the results of Work Capability Assessments relating to ‘initial’ decisions (including the opinions of Atos Healthcare in the absence of a statutory DWP decision) when it could instead have come clean and declared how hundreds of thousands of their incorrect decisions have since been overturned in favour of the person appealing.

These revelations seriously undermine the DWP’s contention that the initial Work Capability Assessment outcomes are a valid measure of the claimant’s ability to work. The DWP has consistently defended its assessments by giving an impression that only a relatively low number of decisions have been overturned whereas the reality is that well over half a million have resulted in a successful outcome for the claimant.

And this DOES NOT include the 712,000 people awaiting assessments BEFORE they can appeal

This news must have come as cause for grave concern when considered in the light of a recent revelation by DWP Minister Mike Penning which revealed that in addition to the figures we have highlighted, a further 712,000 Employment & Support Allowance claimants are awaiting assessments without which they cannot yet appeal.

This hugely unacceptable backlog of cases means people with disabling medical conditions are left hanging for months and months on a basic allowance way below what they are entitled to. This is leaving hundreds of thousands deprived of the support they require and means having to scrape by on money which is wholly insufficient to meet their needs due to disability and illness. It also means many claimants affected by severe and complex mental health conditions are facing prolonged torment as they wait month upon month for their decision to be overturned before they can even lodge an appeal.

Face up to reality: it doesn’t work. Scrap the WCA

These findings add considerably to the pleas of disabled groups all over the country to scrap the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) and to find a better way to assess their needs.

It is simply appalling that the DWP, along with Ministers and other government spokespeople appear to be feeding the media with misleading statistics that are unrepresentative of the real story and instead encourage headlines vilifying the disabled and the genuinely ill. These figures clearly show the DWP has evidence in their possession which shows how in far too many cases the decisions it is making are dead wrong and they know they’re dead wrong.

---

Editorial notes

Please contact the author of this article Nick Dilworth for verification of any of the figures quoted.  We welcome sharing our findings on social media and allow this information to be produced providing credit is given to the
i-legal website with links to the article produced.

We apologise for the slight delay in publishing this release.  This was due to a need to align the figures to ones recently produced by the DWP in their Work Capability Assessment figures released on the 12th June 2014 which relate to the most recent statistics up to September 2013.

A full supporting explanatory memorandum will be published very shortly.

The Reconsideration statistics relate to new ESA claimants only (excluding incapacity benefit to ESA conversion cases) whereas HMCTS figures refer to all ESA claimants.  It is our contention that had the DWP supplied all of the information we had requested, the figures for reconsiderations would have been considerably higher.

We acknowledge that not all appeals will be against fit for work findings for new claimants but given the DWP’s emphasis on this claimant cohort and the lack of information to the contrary we are of the contention that other appeals relating to claimants being moved from the Work Related Activity Group to Support Group are likely to be of a much lower volume and more likely to be contained within the cohort relating to incapacity benefit/ESA assessment.

We would like to express our thanks to Anita Bellows an i-legal member for her cooperation and for making the freedom of information request upon our guidance and our thanks extend to the DPAC organisation with whom Anita is also a member.

Many thanks to Robert Livingstone for the artwork

Press Release: MP sends Minister speech before debate on ‘Fit for Work’ test.

• Debate on Work Capability Assessment Mandatory Reconsideration Delays at 10.00pm on Monday 16 June 2014
• Sheila Gilmore’s speech sent to Minister responsible this afternoon
• Minister can have no excuses for not answering questions

In advance of a debate on the Government’s controversial ‘Fit for Work’ test, Work and Pensions Select Committee member Sheila Gilmore today took the unusual step of emailing an advance copy of her speech to the Minister due to respond, Mike Penning.

Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) provides support for people who cannot work due to a health condition or disability, but since it replaced Incapacity Benefit in 2008, many people have been incorrectly assessed as fit for work and refused benefit. A new two-part appeals process was introduced in October 2013, with claimants’ cases first having to go through ‘mandatory reconsideration’ by a DWP official before reaching a judge.

Sheila Gilmore said:

Today I have taken the unusual step of emailing a copy of my speech for an upcoming debate to Mike Penning, the Minister due to speak for the Government. Now he can have no excuse for not answering the important questions I intend to put to him.

Commenting on the issues raised in her speech, Sheila Gilmore said:

I regularly meet sick and disabled people who are unable to work but who have been declared fit to do so following a flawed ESA assessment.

In my debate I’m going to focus on the new mandatory reconsideration process, introduced in October last year. I’m going to highlight the fact many people are left without any benefits payments during this period, the regular ten week waits for decisions, and the lack of official statistics on outcomes.

ENDS

Notes to Editors:

• See the email Sheila Gilmore sent to Mike Penning here:  Speech for Debate on Work Capability Assessments ­ Mandatory Reconsideration Delays
• This ESA informal appeal process is known as ‘reconsideration’, and involves people who have been found ‘Fit for Work’ asking DWP civil servants to look at their cases again. If the decision remains the same then claimants can lodge a formal appeal with HM Courts and Tribunal Service.
• Clause 99, Catch 22 and Penning is telling lies

By RL

From Pride’s Purge 

(not satire – it’s Iain Duncan Smith!)

No one should be surprised by the extremities of Duncan Smith’s attacks on the welfare state.

After all, Duncan Smith has a history of links to far-right politics – including racist and fascist organisations.

• In 1995,  Duncan Smith was one of a few Tory MPs who met with senior figures of the racist and anti-semitic French National Front in Westminster. Le Pen’s deputy, Bruno Gollnisch MEP, later said Duncan Smith and other Tory MPs they met were “sympathetic” to their views:

“I came to meet members of the Conservative Party sympathetic to our views… I met Duncan Smith and others in their offices and later we got together for less formal talks in a bar somewhere in the Parliament building.“

• The vice-president of Duncan Smith’s leadership campaign team in Wales was Edgar Griffin – the father of BNP leader Nick Griffin. Edgar later said the reason he was not a member of the BNP was because it was “too moderate” for him – unlike the Tory Party. And unlike Duncan Smith too presumably.

• A Tory Party far-right wing fringe organisation called the Swinton Circle also supported Duncan Smith in his successful bid to lead the Tory Party. The Swinton Circle is led by former National Front activist Alan Harvey and has close ties to pro-apartheid far-right South African groups such as the Springbok Club.

• Former deputy head of the British Ku Klux Klan, Bill Binding – who later joined the Tories – was also a fan of Duncan Smith. Binding said of our present Secretary of State for Work and Pensions:

“I think he’s very good.“

If you can tell the nature of a politician by his supporters, Duncan Smith is a very extreme politician indeed.

No surprises then that he was one of the first UK politicians to call for the invasion of Iraq. And believes unpaid work makes you free.

–

Related articles by Tom Pride:

Iain Duncan Smith to undergo surgery after tests reveal severe shrinkage of the heart

The remarkable similarities between Fritz Sauckel and Iain Duncan Smith

Iain Duncan Smith and Universal Credit – a case of a tool blaming his workmen?

Advice on what to do after a car crash – by car crash expert Iain Duncan Smith

Iain Duncan Smith bullied aide to tears over his expenses claims for – underwear!

Etymological maps of common words like ‘clegg’, ‘cameron’ and ‘duncan smith’

Only one problem with the government’s list of top ten benefits fraudsters – it doesn’t exist

Government Announces Clampdown On Work-Shy Babies