Forum Home → Discussion → Work capability issues and ESA → Thread
TV getting it right at last
Nice to see both Channel 4 Dispatches and BBC2 Panorama doing programmes tonight about the WCA and daring to say that there’s a lot of twaddle talked about scroungers (well, not in so many words: but very sympathetic to ESA claimants.
Forum users would recognise one of the participants too, and I don’t mean Malcolm Harrington or Chris Grayling but a regular contributor to these pages.
Can’t imagine though what the schedulers were thinking of, one after another opposite the swimming on the Olympics.
Yes, I did think I saw a familiar name last night.
(Can I claim an hour back as flexi time for having watched both last night? It’s work!)
Sheme they were scheduled during the Olympic weeks. Interesting to see if TV returns to the theme if the mental health judicial review is successful. Prof. Harrington’s comments were interesting too.
For anyone who misssed the programmes, they can be viewed here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01lldrc/Panorama_Disabled_or_Faking_It/
Don’t know who that person is. I normally only see him in the mirror.
I think the Panorama programme was the better of the two and made more punchy points. Now if only they’d have combined the two… Someone sent me an email this morning to say that Chris Grayling’s body language was illuminating, but I’ll have to watch it again to check that!!!
More disturbing was Grayling’s view which strongly implied that judges should ignore the law and base their decisions on a subjective, value based view about whether an appellant could do a job.
Basically the DWP and ministers are in denial about the poor standards of decision making and they really don’t like the Tribunals system.
Channel 4 Doc was important in that the undercover assessor was apparently asked to change WCA reports after the medical by phone. Secondly both programmes clearly showed there weren’t any targets no, never, catagorically not, just averages that you have to keep to, so that’s clear then. Thirdly Chris Grayling a cold fish who appears to think he is better qualified to decide cases than the whole tribunal service. Finally toodaloo to Prof Harrington who is to stand down at the behest of the government and has not been fired, no, never.
I agree with Neil that Graylings comments about tribunals are the most concerning. In a letter of 22.5.12 to David Cameron MP Grayling wrote:
“It is entirely understandable that both representative groups and thos presiding over tribunals form an immediate impression that they cannot return to work, but I have seen the difference that can be made to these individuals if we can get them into the Work Programme and begin to prepare them for work.”
Either Grayling does not understand SSA 98 s12(8)(b) or he is wilfully misrepresenting it. I note that he has not taken the oportunity to reintroduce the ‘down to the date of the hearing’ rule in the draft decision and appeals regulations before the SSAC (and wasn’t it the Tories who revoced it with the 98 Act!).
Will we see a provision requiring tribunals to also consider claimants circumstances at a future date? Will Atos get the bulk order for crystal balls?
Has Harrington resigned? Given that his reports & recommendations are beginning to look like whitewash it would come as no suprise?
re ‘Has Harrington resigned?’
in hansard for 9 july, chris grayling said that -
‘Professor Harrington was commissioned to undertake a third and final review of the Work Capability Assessment in November 2011. This was with the expectation that he would publish his final report before the end of 2012.
There is no correspondence between the Department and Professor Harrington regarding him “stepping down from the role of independent reviewer of the work capability assessment.”
The Government’s response to Professor Harrington’s second independent review
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/wca-review-2011-response.pdf
made it clear that 2012 would be his third and final review. We are extremely grateful to Professor Harrington for the work he has done to date, and look forward to receiving his third review.
... The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is aiming to appoint a successor to Professor Malcolm Harrington to undertake the fourth independent review of the Work Capability Assessment before the fourth review commences in 2013.
The Department is currently considering its options for the recruitment of Professor Harrington’s successor and their terms of reference.’
More disturbing was Grayling’s view which strongly implied that judges should ignore the law and base their decisions on a subjective, value based view about whether an appellant could do a job.
Basically the DWP and ministers are in denial about the poor standards of decision making and they really don’t like the Tribunals system.
From an earlier Rightsnet news item Chris Grayling was quoted as saying -
‘It’s in everybody’s interest that we get the work capability assessment right first time. We have put a huge amount of effort into trying to improve our decision making. I want a much better understanding of why judges often do not agree – and particularly why they believe the people whose appeals they uphold really cannot return to any form of work. It’s obviously better to help people back to work if we possibly can, rather than leaving them stranded on benefits for the rest of their lives.’
This was pretty much as he said it in the Panormama programme as well. It is sad that no one of any significant weight in HM Courts & Tribunal Service came forward to point out that the tribunals are not there to consider whether “they believe the people whose appeals they uphold really cannot return to any form of work”. They are there to apply the law as it stands to the facts of each case.
Also, why didn’t the reporter ask him to explain which jobs he felt some people who do not meet the threshold for the WCA could do? In the same way as the ATOS trainer made it clear her pupils were not actually considering a person’s ability to do any job in particular, it is not for the tribunal to consider what jobs a person could so, and neither Mr Grayling nor anyone in the DWP has to, or will, identify the work they consider someone could actually do (and perhaps more importantly, what jobs many employers in this difficult competitive labour market will take those people on to do).
If someone is in the WRAG, I presume they are not “stranded on benefits for the rest of their lives” - I thought that was the whole point of the WRAG. They should receive tailored and appropriate support to enable them to get back to work at some point.
I agree with Neil that the text of what he said indicates a frustration that tribunals are changing many decisions after the “huge amount of effort” they have put into improving decision making.
It was noticeable as well that, on the day there are two programmes on TV about the WCA, the Express at least (maybe others, I didn’;t see) had a front page headline spinning things the other way
I would have preferred a more rigorous distinction between:
1. The law is rubbish- ie the threshold of incapacity has been set too high (we had some of this where they made clear that one armed person does not get enough points from that impairment alone).
2. The rubbish law is rubbishly applied.
The difficulty with representatives having very high appeal success rates (well done by the way Neil!) is that it makes it look like if only they could apply the law correctly then things would be great.
Professor Harrington seems also to have ignored my point (1) for the most part.
Little doubt that Ministerial views are influenced by Judicial proceedings. That is the system of government we have. In relation to succes rates - I don’t achieve 90%. The numbers of appeals we do is punishing. We represent regardless and often where there have been problems dealing with others -and where we know there is unlikely to be a decision in favour of the appellant but the appellant want sto progress. On another issue we are having significant problems with those persons with learning difficulties falling foul of the process - on this matter I personally find it very distressing where the individual is often very vulnerable and so easily led.
I’ve just watched the Panorama programme and I didn’t think they did bad job. I can only agree with the comments made about Mr Grayling’s attitude to appeals and I wish he had been pressed a bit harder to answer the questions (where is Paxman when you need him, or should Mr Grayling just appear before Judge ...... of the FTT (fill in the name of your favourite judge here)
I can’t help but wonder if the instructions he has given to make reassessments less frequent is something of a smokescreen to cover the fact that the whole system is bogged down due to lack of capacity and couldn’t do the re assesssments anyway, it wouldn’t be the first time that a politician has taken advantage of a situation to make themselves look better for the press.
On a lighter note (it is after all Friday) has anyone noticed the resemblance between Neil’s picture on his website and that wizard of another type of keyboard Jools Holland. Are they related- I think we should be told!
[ Edited: 3 Aug 2012 at 10:03 am by Pete C ]On Tom’s point I’d entirely agree about the problems of people with learning difficulties but it was ever thus. I stopped doing tribunals in 2009 just as ESA was coming through and only ever dealt with about 6 ESA appeals. Some of the most appalling decisions were about people with immediately obvious (to me) learning difficulties. I think this is because of using health professionals to do the assessments. Learning disability is not a health problems, usually: so they have no reason to know anything about it. Educational psychologists are the people needed to assess those with learning difficulties.
Mind you, IB always had very high success rates at appeal, something people tend to forget.
Watched both of these yesterday (although strictly speaking, I was still on holiday!?)
I thought that the Panorama programme took a more analytical approach, although the Dispatches filming of the ATOS training for health-care professionals was very revealing and confirms what many people have suspected, insofar as their implicit approach to assessing ESA claimants under the WCA.
I felt that both programmes acknowledged that Labour started the WCA reforms, but there seemed to be an implicit assumption that the Coalition has somehow ramped things up recently. Given the fact that I was highlighting these exact problems in 2008, Incapacity tests raise concerns, I do find this a slightly revisionist view of what’s taken place. Disability Benefits Consortium also raised concerns and wrote to Ministers at the launch of the new WCA to express unhappiness with the new assessment and the impact which it would have on disabled people.
I also feel that the focus of the debate needs to be widened out beyond the WCA and ESA - there needs to be discussions about what is the actual purpose of the welfare state and social security benefits? What do we mean by work? What do we expect from claimants, in terms of contributions and responsibilities and entitlements? Otherwise, it’s far too easy for Mr Grayling to trot out meaningless assertions about people being dumped on ESA, about people needing to be helped to work, about appeal judges being somehow out of tune with what policy makers are trying to achieve.
Glad to see the issue finally securing some informed programme making though, rather than the usual hysterical tosh about saints and scroungers and so on. Pity that it was broadcast during the Olympics though, as I would imagine this has reduced viewing figures. Oh, and good to see Mr Bateman making some erudite points on the issue as well.
Yes, agree absolutely about widening the debate in the way Paul suggests.
This is a major issue which affects us all, but the media struggle to deal with it. There seem to be two issues. Firstly, how does a TV channel tackle such a dry issue and deal with its ratings at the same time? Real life stories might be a good route I would suggest. Secondly, in the case of the BBC, are they conflicted? They are funded by the licence fee payer, so surely have a duty to inform the public, but the money is doled out by the government. Still seems odd that both programmes went out in an Olympic week but maybe I’m just a total cynic…