It gets worse before it gets better

I felt a bit guilty when I heard the ruling that the ESA Work Capability Assessment was unfair to people with mental health problems.

I've recently gone through the same process for depression. However - unlike the court claimants - I was lucky and spared the much-dreaded interview, and was fully successful in my claim.

Despite my experience, I wholeheartedly agree that the process is unfair on people with mental health problems. Here’s why.

I have a Masters in Social Policy, so I know a fair bit about benefits, and I did my dissertation on mental health, so I’m pretty clued up about that too. But there was no chance that I would have been able to fill out the necessary forms without an advice worker helping me over several sessions.

Fortunately I also happened to have a slew of evidence – GP notes, psychiatrist reports - from previous desperate (and failed) attempts to get appropriate housing and treatment. They were not easy to get and I found it distressing repeating ‘my story’ to stranger after stranger.

I had two advisers from separate organisations tell me that I should bring someone with me to the Work Capability Assessment interview – not for moral support, but to take notes due to regular reports of interviewers just making stuff up and ignoring evidence given.

Sorry, what? Seriously? Like the process wasn't already stressful and difficult enough, I also had to ensure I could protect myself against fraudulent reports made by the government against me. (no, paranoia is not one of my symptoms, but no prizes for guessing who would win that court case)

Luckily I was spared that misery, but that didn't stop me fretting about it for weeks.

The whole application was a complete nightmare to pull together, making my depression worse, when I just wanted to focus on pulling myself together. Getting better. So I wouldn't have to be on benefits.

Isn't that the point?

Work Capability Assessments discriminate against vulnerable claimants

So judges have ruled today in favour of two claimants with mental health problems who claimed  that the test for sickness benefit would discriminate against them. The law requires that the government should make reasonable adjustments to avoid discrimination. The judges at the Upper Tribunal ruled that the Work Capability Assessment puts people with mental illness, autism and learning difficulties at a substantial disadvantage.

Work Capability Assessment (WCA) tests, are designed to measure a person's entitlement to Employment and Support Allowance. ( ESA) They are supposed to determine whether someone is fit for work. They are run by a French company Atos on behalf of the government. They have proved controversial with the claimants being subjected to these assessments. In fact, according to the the government's Public Affairs Committee, the Department of Work and Pensions' decisions have been overturned in 38% of appeals.

Lawyers for the two individuals who won their legal challenge today argued that where the claim is from someone with a mental health problem, it should be the government's responsibility to seek additional medical evidence. Under the current system, evidence from a professional, such as a GP or a social worker,is expected to be provided by the claimants themselves. There is no obligation for the DWP to collect this evidence, even on behalf of the most vulnerable - apart from in rare cases.

Almost 20 000 people are assessed each week for ESA in England , Wales and Scotland - these are figures provide by the DWP. More than a third of these people are claiming primarily for mental health problems, meaning thousands of people each month are going through a process that puts them at a substantial disadvantage.

UK charities; Rethink Mental Illness, Mind and the National Autistic Society all intervened in the case to provide evidence based on the experiences of their members and supporters. Mind's chief executive Paul Farmer said: "The judgement is a victory, not only for the two individuals involved in this case, but for thousands of people who have experienced additional distress and anxiety because they have struggled through an assessment process which does not adequately consider the needs of those with mental health problems."

A spokesperson for the DWP said: "We disagree with today's ruling and intend to appeal."

Welfare to work - the new way, with the new government

I've spoken about the Government's much trumpeted Work Programme before, well the other day it was my turn. That's to say, I was asked to turn up for an interview with a training provider.

I was quite worried about this, having been through something very similar before: treated like I was a six year old, harried, badgered, and patronised by a government-appointed bunch of idiots who would have trouble walking an old lady across the road, never mind helping the long term unemployed to return to the world of work.

So I duly turned up at the appointed time, wondering quite what to expect. I had been assured by the dole office that I'd be able to continue with my voluntary work. This was after my adviser had consulted one of her superiors and they had deemed it "worthwhile experience". (their words not mine) So there I was, bang on time for my initial assessment armed with my CV and three jobs I was interested in, as requested and there was my personal adviser, suited and booted, all welcoming, so far so good.

Over the next fifty minutes he proceeded to bore me almost to tears. His need to record the most basic information took an age and then he proceeded to witter on about all the things he would be able to do for me. He then explained at great length the intricacies of how his company would be getting paid by the government. (As if I could give a stuff) One of the last things he covered was my CV. He said: "Don't worry about this, I'll re-do this for you for when you come in next time."

I'm not worried in the slightest about my CV, it's not bang-up to date, but it's quite well put together and says pretty much what I want it to say, on top of which if I wanted to improve it, he doesn't spring to mind as the first person I'd go to for advice. Relieved that the whole thing was over and done with at least for a fortnight, I trudged off thinking same-old, same-old and thinking that I'd have to put up with that sanctimonious tosser for goodness knows how long.

So that's kind of what I think but there's been plenty of other people with something to say on the subject. Take the Social Market Foundation for instance; this is the think tank who are widely regarded as being behind the idea of the Work Programme in the first place. On their home page of their website the very first item reads: "The Government's flagship back to work programme at risk of financial collapse, says think tank." They go on to say: "over 90% of Work Programme providers will be at risk of having their contracts terminated by DWP even by year three of the scheme," The SMF don't mince their words: "it is no great surprise that a department led by Iain Duncan Smith (Secretary of State for Work and Pensions) and Lord Freud (Minister for Welfare Reform) managed to introduce a multi-billion pound jobs programme funded on the basis of wishful thinking and over optimistic predictions."

Chris Grayling, the Employment Minister within the DWP describes the Work Programme as "revolutionary", the Government publicity is similarly upbeat: "the centrepiece of the most sweeping welfare reform for 60 years, restoring the system to its founding principles, the most ambitious back to work programme this country has ever seen." The Home Editor for the BBC, Mark Easton is more circumspect: "it will be in the fine print of the contracts that the grand claims for the Work Programme will be decided."

Suffice to say it isn't only me that has doubts about the Government's Work Progamme, I'll leave the last word, for now, to someone who I suspect knows quite a lot about this matter; Kirsty McHugh who is the chief executive of the Employment Related Services Association. "But what about the economy? Where are the jobs going to come from?"

The cuts....

Well, we all knew it was coming sooner or later; news on the cuts. We get the full picture on 20 October. Details have been flowing out since the June budget, definite Government plans, so we've been told. These, and then non-stop speculation and conjecture from the written press and broadcast media outlets.

I've been expecting grim news for ages but that didn't stop me being furious on seeing George Osborne's pasty face on the BBC six o'clock news Thursday evening (9 September). He was telling us about an extra £4 billion in cuts to the welfare budget - I was seething. And then there's the look of utter distaste on his face as he patiently explains to the interviewer (Nick Robinson) why this situation just "cannot be allowed to continue". Apparently, he didn't even have the good manners to inform Ian Duncan Smith of what he was going to say. (Bear in mind that it's Duncan Smith's department that his latest announcement affects.)

He's making £4 billion in further cuts to welfare, in addition to the £11 billion announced in the June Budget. These are huge sums of money to cut from the poorest sector of our society.

The dole office always gives you a sheet of A4 saying "we have worked out how much money the law says you need to live on" so how come we all of a sudden need less? Is this bloke for real? How would some millionaire posh-boy have the faintest idea what it's like to get by on benefit? And then he's got the brass neck to say we're making a lifestyle choice!

Sure I can credit that some people will steer clear of shitty jobs being paid the minimum wage - it's a living wage that people need. In London the minimum wage is £5.80 per hour. The Living Wage Campaign have suggested £7.85. This has been set by the Greater London Authority. Were one to work a 40-hour week, the difference that makes to one's weekly pay is £82 gross.

It's just a fallacy that the feckless workshy have somehow bankrupted the country so therefore we must somehow claw back the money from them to prevent them making this "lifestyle choice".

So what's the Treasury doing to save money? I read in the Standard that they're getting smaller desks, so that they can squeeze more staff in - genius. "This is typical of the sort of savings we are looking for in other departments," a Treasury source told the London paper. In the same paper Nick Clegg further reassures us (Thurs 9-9) there is "no sword of Damocles that's going to come down straight away". This remains to be seen.

On the morning of 10 September it seems there were a few dissenting voices emerging after Mr Osbourne's appearance on the previous evening's news. The DWP said no agreement had been reached. In fact, Ian Duncan Smith was quoted on Newsnight on 15 September as saying he did not recognise the £4 billion cuts. Three Liberal-Democrat MPs crawled out of the woodwork vowing to vote against them and Bob Russell went on record as saying the Chancellor "was unethical". He went on, "it would be ethical to show an equal determination to tackle the cheats who avoid and evade tax".

This all seems a little late in the day, the saying; if you lay down with dogs you get up with fleas seems apt. George Osborne was unrepentant; "the welfare system is broken, we have to accept the welfare bill has got completely out of control."

Now, this statement baffles me. This man clearly has no idea how one goes about claiming benefits. He cannot know how many conditions one has to fulfil and prove umpteen times over to receive any benefit at all. I fail to understand how, when the rules are so stringent for every benefit one applies for, how it can get out of control.

Perhaps the figures are a little unpalatable to the Chancellor, but getting money out of the state in the form of benefits that one is entitled to is no mean feat. I think Mr Money-Bags Osborne should choose his words more carefully. Perhaps the phrase should have been: look this Government really doesn't like giving the state's money to the poor and needy and picking on them is a whole lot easier than getting big business to pay the tax that they owe us when they've got accountants and lawyers and stuff.

Google - a company so huge it has become a verb in the English language - doesn't like paying tax in England. They quite legitimately have managed to base their head office in Dublin specifically for the purpose of avoiding paying tax to the British Government. But I haven't heard George Osbourne on the telly telling us the tax system is broken. Vodafone, another company so proud about its connection to this country they used to sponsor both the English rugby union and cricket national sides, apparently owes £6 billion in tax. Question Time (23rd September) queried what Vince Cable was going to do about this.

The very morning that George Osborne was sticking the boot in to the poor, and the sick, and the elderly - again - there was someone on the Today Programme talking about tax. This person, who requested anonymity, worked for HM Revenues and Customs and was begging the Government to resource their department so that it would be able to do its job. Ie, to collect the tax, maybe not all, but so much more than they were able to at present. They iterated what I have said in my previous blog; that estimates of uncollected tax were upwards of £30 billion. And George Osborne wants £15 billion off the poorest! I only got an O level in Maths in 1981 so perhaps that's why none of this adds up to me.

I'm old enough, and perhaps old school enough, to believe in big government. I'm happy for the public sector to employ lots of taxpayers. It's an illusion that the private sector, (the Tories' beloved free market) is going to fill this upcoming gap in employment figures that will be directly caused by these "essential" cuts. (Let's face it, it's a moot point as to how much and how soon). And it's crass pronouncements like those from the Chancellor that inevitably raise class hackles.

What's the difference between a scrounger and a benefit cheat?

I ask this question because the other day (Thursday 12 August) the Sun ran a "campaign" to get members of, what they usually term, the Great British Public to grass-up people who they suspected of falsely claiming benefit. Now I don't know if this is an example of the silly-season that traditionally runs in the British press at this time of the year but knowing the Sun as I do (a notoriously hate-filled rag) I suspect not.

There was a follow-up piece that evening on Newsnight. Now, I would hazard a guess that most of us would regard Newsnight as perhaps a more reliable source of journalistic information than the Sun. It must be said, I do quite like their football coverage and I understand their racing coverage is excellent - I couldn't really comment as I know next-to-nothing about the gee-gees.

So let's return to Newsnight. There is £5.2 billion wrongly paid out in benefit. Of that amount £1.5 billion is attributed to fraud. Now I can quite credit that £3.7 billion is wrongly paid out in benefit by the DWP. I think we all know they couldn't organize a proverbial piss-up....One of the more startling figures that was brought up that evening was the fact that there are £16 billion of benefits that go unclaimed! We've all heard about the little old lady who doesn't know what she's entitled to claim for and people who are too proud to ask for Government hand-outs, but £16 billion?

The Con-Dem coalition government (or whatever they are called, I never quite know how to refer to them) glibly claim, at every available opportunity, that what they are trying to do is sort out the appalling financial mess Labour left behind. Now I have no party-political axe to grind here, nor am I an economist in my spare time, but I was under the impression that the responsibility for this world-wide financial crisis lay, by and large, with the bankers. That is to say the roots of this recession lay in the shady dealings of the financial sector. In what Nick Clegg called in his article at the weekend (15 August-Observer) "reckless irresponsibility". You have to read deep into his Observer article to see his acknowledgement of this, get him on the telly and it's all Labour's fault. All over the planet an unfettered financial services industry have landed us all in an almighty mess, world-wide.

So how come, in order to rectify the situation, we start off by kicking the poor and then go on to slash services that huge numbers of the general public need and use? Mr Clegg put in the Observer: "this government doesn't expect anyone to reach their verdict after 100 days. We expect to be judged on what we have achieved in five years. That should be a relief." Well, all I can say is that after 100 days this government has scared the living daylights out of many, and that hardly counts as relief.

We cannot know for certain where the axe will fall because we have to wait until 20 October for the results of George Osborne's considerations. There's been enough signposting for us to know that all manner of things are on the list and some things have already fallen by the wayside.

This government seems to be lining up traditional old Tory targets, for starters what they call big government and the arts and then there's the poor and benefit cheats and scroungers, none of whom can be held responsible for the current mess. All this is being done with the active collusion of the Liberal Democrats, who should be ashamed of themselves as the people being lined up for cuts are people they have traditionally stuck up for in the past. One sniff of government and the Liberal Democrats seem to forget their principles. So as I say the government seems quite happy to pick on the poor and the jobless. I've heard no mention of taxation apart from vague noises about a banking tax which seems a sop when you consider that by their own admission HM Revenue and Customs readily acknowledge that there is £40 billion tax that goes unpaid.

While all this is going on what is the Opposition up to? Well instead of building some kind of coherent opposition to these vicious cuts, the Labour Party have been all wrapped up in their internal bickering over who they are going to elect as their new leader.