I was really interested to read the stats released by the DWP today stating that two-thirds of ESA claimants are failing the WCA and are been found fit for work. It certainly fits with what we have been experiencing as a team with a sudden influx of ESA appeal referrals over the last few weeks.

Does anyone know what the comparisons are with failed PCA's?

To really understand the figures one should read the full document available at: http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/workingage/esa_wca/esa_wca_13102009.pdf

The final paragraph of this states:

'Comparable information on the Personal Capability Assessment (PCA) for Incapacity Benefit (IB) claims is not held centrally. This information will be available later this year or early next year at which stage we will include comparison of WCA and PCA results.'

Thanks for flagging up the link Ruth, really useful.

And and it will be really interesting to see what the final figures are once we have had 12 month's worth of appeals under our belts. I've only had a trickle so far, but all have been 'won', but I'm not sure what winning means in the context of ESA, as most people will be placed in the Work Related Activity Group.

There are also concerns down this way from people in those big offices with the green and yellow logos about the numbers of people being switched from ESA to JSA who are now denied Pathways support.

Some interesting letters in today's Guradian about this topic. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/16/incapacity-benefit-autism-mental-illness

And some articles in Community Care on the subject. http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/10/13/112847/nas-says-job-centres-are-failing-autistic-adults.html

Of course government ministers are not that interested in what the liberal media has to say on the topic and are more concerned with winning over the likes of the Sun, Star and Daily Mail which have all adopted their time-honoured, nasty appoach to the subject of "scroungers". The Star for example, alleges that the findings show that 75% of those on IB are "fit and healthy". This is the scale of prejudice we are up against.

It's truly sad that the two main political parties and the popular media appear to be engaged in a race to the bottom in taking us back to the prejudices of the 19th century.

It's also taken the current ruling party over 10 years to even begin to start considering the chronic funding problems of adult social care. Any victorian time traveller would be shocked to see that the same old arguments are still being trotted out.

Will the same issues still be around in 2109, or is there the faintest hope that we might develop sophisticated policies. I came to the conclusion long ago that the DWP's real remit is that of a massive paper shuffling organisation designed to employ tens of thousands of people in an effort to confuse millions of citizens. Maybe there should be a category on Rightsnet for advisers to design a new system from scratch, but any succesful model would involve making ourselves redundant!

It will be really interesting to see the comparable stats from Tribunals. mind you.

"I came to the conclusion long ago that the DWP's real remit is that of a massive paper shuffling organisation designed to employ tens of thousands of people in an effort to confuse millions of citizens. Maybe there should be a category on Rightsnet for advisers to design a new system from scratch"

Theoretically we could design a new system, which would no doubt be a streamlined model of excellence, that would address the needs of those it was intended to reach and we all know thats far too sensible and correct !!

Further to Neil's point, it is probably a good idea to highlight the work of the DWP's active press office, in ensuring that some stories that relate to the subject of "scroungers", actually get into the red top nasties.

As i believe it is fair to say and realistic to point out, that some of these alleged stories would not see the light of day without DWP consent !!

There has probably never been a greater need for welfare rights support, yet the insidious drip drip approach in the media about 'scroungers' not only puts off legitimate claimants, but also has the potential to have a damaging and corrosive effect on the ultimate funders of WR services.

How on earth can the balance be addressed in the media, and how do we alert the public to the fact that in their time of need they may find their contributory 'benefits' have been transformed into conditonal 'allowances'?

Mon 19-Oct-09 09:25 PM by Neil Bateman

The DWP's (and local authorities') selective encouragement of coverage by the media of benefit fraud cases can have very nasty effects. One day they will be found liable.

A defendant who I am representing at Tribunal following her conviction, received some sensationalist, lurid (and inaccurate) coverage in the red tops. As a result she and her young children (one of whom receives DLA), experienced considerable local hostility and her home was damaged.

To safeguard her family, she relocated to an area quite some distance away. The press recently repeated their coverage. Result: Her kitchen windows were smashed.

The truth is, of course, that there are people who take advantage in every potential area of gain in life - falsely claiming or making exaggerated insurance claims, making up stats to achieve targets to get a bonus, feigning injury to gain an advantage in a sport - the list is endless.However, the coverage in the press last week about the ESA statistics simply shows how those in a position to spout their uninformed opinions to a wide audience do so with absolutely no insight, and no care as to the accuracy of the story they wish to tell. To interpret the statistics as the Daily Star did, i.e. that all who do not pass the test (or stop claiming before the medical) are "scroungers" would be viewed in any sensible arena as laughable, were it not for the fact that there are so many people who will sit there and nod their heads in (similarly uninformed) agreement.In the same way as the Mail referred recently to Attendance Allowance being money for those who need help in the garden, or travelling to hospital appointments (must try those arguments at the next tribunal), ignorance of the criteria for benefits creates huge urban myths. What you will tend to find is that a relative/friend of the newspaper columnist, or local MP, who has failed the WCA for ESA, has been done an almighty wrong. Personal experience of a system seems to alter the approach.

Brian

danny alexander, lib dem mp, in the commons yesterday -

'...my experience from my constituency case load, and the experience of the Inverness citizens advice bureau, is that the new rules for ESA are being used to exclude far greater numbers of people than were excluded from the previous benefit. In one case, a former member of staff at the Department for Work and Pensions was rendered unfit for work and retired on the grounds of ill health thanks to an assessment by an Atos Origin doctor. That same doctor then gave him a nil score for ESA.'

Funny that, i remember seeing the very same Danny Alexander standing up in Parliament on more than one occasion stating how he and the Lib Dems supported the new approach of ESA/WCA when the Welfare Reform Bill was going through Committee and he was the official party spokesman.

Sounds to me like she has grounds to sue them for compensation for (incitement to) harrassment under the Protection from Harrassment Act 1997. If this Act can be used against animal rights people who hassle animal experimenters, and banks who hassle debtors with constant phone calls, why not against journalists and their editors who print information about some one in a way that they know will incite attacks on that person?

Which "press" was it, by the way?

"How on earth can the balance be addressed in the media"

I could not agree more with a number of the threads here, as getting a positive Benefits success story into even the local media is a struggle, as were soften told, a story has to "be sexy" better still "sensationalist" to guarantee media coverage.

It therefore appears that the reporting of stories (negative or otherwise) in a manner that casts and presents an intention to arouse strong interest, especially through inclusion of exaggerated or lurid details, fits both the above criteria. Frequently with disregard to the individual.

I can't believe they are still using the line about how "ESA looks at what people can do rather than what they can't do". How does it do that then? Where in the regulations is what people can do mentioned? How is it linguistically possible for 'limited capability for work' to be a harder test to meet than 'incapacity for work'.

This might have been superficially convincing before it was brought in, but how can anyone not realise the entire thing is a con trick.