Progressive conditions and Employment and Support Allowance

Along with a number of other MPs from across the political spectrum, I have been lobbying the Minister for Disabled People about the need to reform the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) for Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) for people with debilitating progressive conditions. Our lobbying has been supported by the Parkinson’s Disease Society and three other charities representing people who have severe progressive conditions.

We recognise that a key aim of ESA is to enable those who are able to work to find suitable employment. The government’s stated intention for reviews is to ensure that individuals receive the right level of support, taking into account developments such as changes in treatment and people’s ability to adapt to their condition.

However, evidence suggests that the current approach is failing to recognise the needs of people with progressive conditions, particularly those who have a clinical diagnosis that their condition is extremely debilitating and set to worsen over time.

Recent research conducted by the charities found that 45 percent of people with these progressive conditions who put in a new claim for ESA between 2008 and 2011 were unable to work at the time of the assessment but were deemed able to eventually return to work and many were given a prognosis “recommend return to work in x months” - a length of time based on a “recovery period”. This directly contradicts the definition of a progressive condition, which can only get worse over time.

In addition, no evidence was found that Atos healthcare professionals or decision makers sought to clinically justify the improvement or prognosis periods of “recovery”, for example through discussion with claimants. Indeed the research found instances of compelling medical evidence being disregarded.

This is just the latest example of the unsatisfactory performance of ATOS. It is little wonder that the National Audit Office and the Select Committee has been less than impressed with ATOS. Now we learn that ATOS wants to get out of its contract early, suggesting that the reason for this is the level of abuse it has received.

There is no excuse for threats against staff – that is unacceptable. But there is every reason for criticising ATOS’s performance. It is more likely that it wants to break its contract because it realises that there is no chance of it being renewed and that it can only make a profit by not doing the job properly. 

Have we reached the tipping point?

I’ve never been able to work out why the Conservatives proclaimed themselves as ‘the party of law and order’ as, under their watch, crime has always increased and they’ve consistently cut police numbers.

From 1997, crime fell by more than 40%. Both the crime statistics and the British Crime Survey – which each year asks thousands of people of their experience of crime, whether reported or not – agreed. It might have had something to do with the significant investment in additional police and PCSO numbers for neighbourhood policing.

Since 2010, the government has cut police numbers by more than 15,000. Despite claiming that frontline policing would be protected, more than 10,000 bobbies have been taken off the streets. South Yorkshire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire have 748 fewer police officers, a more than 10% cut. Yet, because of the government’s massive transfer of resources from the poorer north to the wealthier south-east, Surrey has 56 more police officers.

Despite the constant assertions by Home Secretary Theresa May that crime is falling, the government’s own watchdog has said that their statistics can no longer be relied upon. Notwithstanding that, the latest crime figures already show disturbing signs that a generation of progress in some areas is being reversed.

We now see worrying increases in muggings and shoplifting across the country, whilst violence against the person has increased in 16 police forces and violence without injury has increased in 19 force areas in England and Wales. In addition, the statistics do not record areas of growing crime, eg shoplifting, now at a 9 year high according to the British Retail Consortium.

And crime is changing. Fraud has increased by 34%, but we know this is just the tip of the iceberg because much online crime goes unreported. Yet no serious action has been taken by this Government to tackle online fraud and scams.

The Stevens Inquiry has now warned that we are in danger of returning to a discredited model of reactive policing. Association of Chief Police Officers’ President, Sir Hugh Orde, has warned we may now be at the tipping point. I fear they are both correct.

Devolution needs to be bold and radical

More accurately, since Scottish and Welsh devolution in the last decade, England is centralised. Does this matter? If we believe that decisions are best made, or even influenced, by those most affected by them, the answer is ‘yes’.

Localist solutions are better if there is recognition that different needs and views should be reflected in different service provision, even if there is a common policy framework or over-arching set of objectives. There is real concern about the growing disconnect between politicians who govern and the people who are governed.

Making decisions locally may help save democracy itself, if electors can see their votes change things.

There is unlikely to be an English Parliament. There is not going to be any re-creation of the regions. If devolution is going to occur, it will be through the development of enhanced powers and responsibilities for local authorities. Fundamentally, localism will only work if elected representatives are accountable for decisions.

Wider strategic decision making beyond individual councils is likely to come from councils coming together voluntarily. The process of creating combined authorities for city regions to oversee economic development across a travel-to-work area began in Manchester and is now being activated in Sheffield and Leeds.

The West Lothian question has been a distraction from the creation of a dynamic democracy, fit for this century, where subsidiarity is the principle that is applied appropriately but differently in different parts of the country. We need to be more relaxed about asymmetrical governance.

Is fundamental devolution a real possibility? There is increasing cross-party agreement in Parliament that councils are capable of delivering far more than their existing powers and responsibilities allow. Unfortunately, the current coalition government has supported localism in name only; it has no core delivery strategy.

Furthermore, this government has consistently fudged the issue as to whether localism is about transferring powers to locally accountable and elected bodies or simply, as part of its objective of having a smaller state, creating new organisations such as free schools, which have little or no accountability. The decision to pursue single purpose elections, such as for police and crime commissioners further muddles the picture. If Whitehall silos are a problem, why create new silos at a local level?

Subsidiarity cannot stop at the town hall. Up and down the country, councils of all political persuasions have developed devolved influencing, decision-making and budget-holding arrangements appropriate to their local communities. Quite rightly, there is no one-size-fits-all model but a variety of approaches to suit local circumstances.

When more powers are transferred to local level, there will still be a need for overall national approaches on some issues. Minimum standards may be thought appropriate in education or care. Councils could deliver these, while enabling local variations in delivery and additional improvements according to local wishes.

Innovation and new ways of working are more likely to occur in a multitude of local authorities than in one Whitehall department. People, locally and nationally, will still want to know that they are getting good value from devolved services. Therefore, localism must bring with it an expectation of continuous improvement, tools for performance evaluation and transparency in outcomes.

Devolution needs to be bold and radical, going beyond those services traditionally within local government’s remit. There is a crying need for policies on economic development, skills, training and transport infrastructure to be determined locally, better related to local circumstances and the needs of local businesses.

The key issues in any devolutionary settlement are:

• Councils have to be at the heart of localism, not bypassed by it;
• Although serious consideration should be given to a more formal constitutional settlement, defining central-local relations, it is a cultural change that is required. We will have to ditch the notion that the secretary of state is responsible for everything – a challenge for the press, the public and politicians;
• Localism will require the devolution of fund raising as well as spending. Linking economic development to financial returns for councils and their communities makes economic as well as political sense;
• There will still need to be a mechanism for the redistribution of resources within England. Why not give that responsibility to local government itself, as is the case in Denmark?
• Councils will require more freedom, within prudential financial guidelines, to borrow for long-term investment as well as to raise revenue;
• Challenging the postcode lottery and arguing positively for a postcode choice has to be at the heart of any new approach. It is ironic that our centralised governance structure has managed to produce inequalities in income, gross domestic product and service delivery far greater than in far more decentralised countries.

This article first appeared in the Local Government Chronicle on 6 February 2014

http://www.lgcplus.com/briefings/devolution-needs-to-be-bold-and-radical/5067669.article

Rising insecurity

The majority of working households are facing the biggest cost of living crisis in a generation. Prices are increasing, real wages are falling and for many hard-working people there is rising insecurity in the workplace.

Months ago, Ed Miliband highlighted the excessive profits being made by energy companies and promised a price freeze, with other interventions to make the market competitive. Cameron and Clegg lambasted that promise, whilst claiming that all was well. Yet now, the Energy Secretary has written to the regulator, OFGEM, saying that the profit margins made by the "Big Six" energy companies when supplying gas are much higher than previously thought. It makes you wonder where he and OFGEM have been as the statistics being used have been public for many weeks.

Then, David Cameron has been making much of some statistics which suggest that employment has been rising. However, an analysis of those statistics reveals a massive increase in self-employment, zero-hours contracts and part-time working. It is little surprise that the number of people who say they feel insecure at work has doubled since he became Prime Minister.

That insecurity has been compounded for households with the lowest incomes as the real value of the minimum wage has fallen and support from working benefits continues to be cut. Both employers and employees need flexibility but this shouldn’t mean people should lack job security and have to be flexible about being able to afford the weekly shop.

That’s why we should ban those zero-hours contracts which simply exploit workers, end the scandal of false self-employment, strengthen the National Minimum Wage and incentivise employers to pay a Living Wage through ‘make work pay’ contracts.

In that way, we can tackle the cost of living crisis and the stress from rising insecurity at work, by building an economy that works for working people, rather than participating in a race to the bottom. It’s what good employers want as well.

Don’t just nod, ask

The House of Commons is about to consider the Government’s third Deregulation Bill in three years.  

Of course, if you don’t have a strategy to address cost of living issues or to implement a proper industrial strategy, a de-regulation policy is a very poor substitute, but it might give you some populist media headlines.

Of course, it is absolutely right to remove unnecessary regulatory and legislative burdens from individuals, civil society, businesses and public bodies. But deregulating knitting yarn and the erection of public statues will not help create one new business or good job. In fact, the government’s own assessment of the impact of this Bill estimates that it would only save British businesses and civil society £10m over ten years - hardly a salvation for the UK economy.

Regulation and de-regulation has to be a continuing, dynamic process. We no longer need laws that specify a minimum chimney size to ensure that a small child can fit inside, but my constituents are desperate for new regulations that would ensure that they are not persistently called when they’ve registered on the Telephone Preference Scheme to say they don’t want those sales calls.

Whenever you hear someone calling for less red tape, I’d advise that you don’t just nod your head and agree. Ask them to be very specific about what it is that they’re proposing.

I’ve been keeping a little list of the things that some politicians and business organisations actually mean when they talk about ‘needing deregulation and cutting red tape’. It includes doing away with:

• the minimum wage

• statutory maternity pay

• the requirement to pay agency workers the same terms as employees

• guaranteed minimum holiday terms

• all health and safety legislation

and so on.

So, if you nod your head and think these people have splendid proposals, you might just want to think again very quickly.

Get it sorted

Constituents bring all sorts of consumer problems to me to ask if I can help sort them out. They include unexpected rises in bills, being tied into contracts, being mis-sold goods or services and a range of other practices that make them feel they’ve been cheated or left short changed.

Problems range wide and far, such as landlords who charge additional fees to tenants or try to change lettings contracts, issues with insurance policies and pensions fees, builders and contractors who fail to complete works, problems with goods and tickets bought online, and even supermarket special offers that are more expensive than the original product. I can’t start to claim to solve them all, but I’ve certainly learned lots about the law on these issues.

In the UK, consumer law has developed piecemeal over the last thirty years. It is now complex, ambiguous and has simply failed to keep up with technological change. As a result, both consumers and businesses find it difficult to understand their legal rights and obligations.

After consultations in 2011/12, the government published a draft Consumer Rights Bill (CRB) last June. If implemented, it will be the biggest overhaul of consumer law for decades.

CRB sets out a framework that brings together consumer rights covering contracts for goods, services, digital content as well as the law about unfair terms in consumer contracts. In addition, CRB proposes changes to the powers that regulators, such as Trading Standards Officers, have to investigate breaches and to enforce the law. It also proposes easier ways for consumers and small businesses to challenge anti-competitive behaviour.

So, in preparation for scrutinising the CRB to see if it is fit-for-purpose, MPs will be interested to hear about problems you are having with goods and services. What has caused the problem? What could have prevented the problem arising in the first place? When things went wrong, why couldn’t you get it sorted and what redress were you seeking but didn’t get?

Make sure you speak up now. There may not be another big review for decades!

If you want to find out more about the issues and what is being proposed, go to:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/SN06588/draft-consumer-rights-bill

No hand guns in Britain. They’re banned for a reason.

UKIP leader Nigel Farage has called for our firearm laws to be relaxed, calling the current ban on handguns "ludicrous”. He says that as long as you promise to keep your handgun in a locked box you should be able to have a gun licence and keep a handgun.

Farage didn’t score highly on analysis when he said that Tony Blair’s Labour government had introduced our gun laws. Actually, they were introduced by John Major’s Conservative government in 1996 after the Dunblane massacre when Thomas Hamilton shot and killed 16 young children and a teacher, before killing himself.

Quite why - given our economic, social and environmental challenges – Farage thinks this is a priority over the cost of living issues I don’t know. Suffice it to say that I’ve never had a constituent lobby me to demand that every adult should be able to keep a handgun. I have had many lobby me to get even tighter gun laws and give tougher punishments for those who have one unlawfully.

We have a low gun murder rate in the UK, but it’s still too high. In the USA, with the type of gun laws that Farage demands, you are 36 times more likely to be murdered with a handgun. Is this seriously what we want for our country? I think not.

Nothing that Nigel Farage says now surprises me. Last week, he completely disowned UKIP’s 2010 election manifesto, which he had ordered to been taken off UKIP’s website. He called it ‘486 pages of complete drivel’. His attempt to distance himself from it was a little surprising, given that he’d written the foreword, co-authored the summary of these ‘straight talking’ policies, and then helped launch it, as is shown in the video of the event.

Farage was correct in saying that his manifesto was drivel, but none of those policies was as dangerous as ‘handguns for all’. Just say no.

Increase the Minimum Wage: it’s a no-brainer

This year marks the fifteenth anniversary of National Minimum Wage (NMW). It has boosted pay at the bottom without leading to a loss of jobs, and now has wide industry support as a result.

Before it was introduced, some people were paid as little as £1 an hour.  For example, the Low Pay Unit found someone working in a chip shop earning just 80p an hour. It also found a factory worker earning £1.22 an hour and a residential home worker earning £1.66 an hour.

When the NMW was being proposed, there was widespread opposition from business organisations and from Conservative and Liberal Democrats. Neither David Cameron nor Vince Cable like being reminded of their opposition, as they both claimed that a NMW would inevitably lead to job losses and increased unemployment.

More recently, a number of Conservative MPs have tried to scrap or diminish the policy.  In 2012, Andrea Leadsom MP said that businesses with three employees and fewer should be exempt from minimum wage, as well as regulation like maternity and paternity rights.  Leadsom said:

“I genuinely think we have to focus on deregulation. …..No minimum wage; no unfair dismissal; no maternity or paternity rights; no national insurance or employer pension contributions; a flat rate of tax; no red tape.”

Dominic Raab MP has called for the minimum wage to be suspended for 16-21 year olds. Philip Davies MP said employers should be allowed to pay disabled people less than the NMW. Another group of Conservative MPs have argued that employees should be allowed to opt out of the NMW altogether.

For the first decade of its life, the NMW increased at a faster rate than inflation. NMW generally increased above or in line with average earnings. Following years of rising inequality, the lowest earners began to catch up with middle-earners after the introduction of the NMW.

However, since 2010, the value of the NMW has fallen by 5% in real terms. If the minimum wage had increased in line with inflation over this period, low paid workers would be earning 32p an hour more than they are now. Today the UK has the second highest rate of low pay in the OECD, with more than five million workers paid less than the Living Wage in the UK.

Just as worrying is that the Government has completely failed to ensure proper enforcement of the minimum wage so that vulnerable workers are protected.  Despite annual Ministerial statements that employers flouting the law would be named and shamed, they haven’t named a single one yet.

Despite the pitiful number of enforcement staff, since 2009, HMRC has investigated 10,777 firms for allegedly breaking the law on low pay, collecting £15.8m in arrears payments and imposing £2.1m in fines. In the last 4 years, just two employers have been prosecuted for paying below the NMW, despite an estimated 300,000 people being paid less.

It is little wonder that many frustrated job-seekers feel that they are being undermined by people being paid less.

Of course, there always has to be a balance between wage growth and the impact on employment. However, it is clear to me that urgent action should be taken to restore the value of the NMW and to enforce it. This would actually cut public expenditure, as there would be savings from lower tax credits and benefit payments, as well as increased tax revenues.

It’s a no-brainer really. 

Incapability Assessment

In 2007, the then Labour Government introduced Work Capability Assessments (WCAs)[1] – a new way of assessing an individual’s abilities and disabilities, capacity to work and entitlement to benefits. Quite rightly, the under-pinning assumption was that everyone should be assisted to work if they are able, recognising the support that might be required, and providing the appropriate benefits to help an individual with a disability to play a full part in society.

Unfortunately, since 2010, the coalition government decided that the primary purpose of  WCAs is to ‘get people off benefits and into work’.[2]  However, the government forced through assessment processes that weren’t fit for purpose and contracted out the assessment process to the multi-national company ATOS, whose performance has been a disaster - a catalogue of long delays and poor decisions, causing misery and fear to thousands of people across the country.[3]

Crisis meetings between ATOS and DWP revealed that recruitment failures had left the company with a severe shortage of doctors.[4] This compounded the widespread incompetence in the delivery of work capability assessments which lead to 40% of ATOS’s decisions being appealed, and one in every three appeals being upheld. Thus, one in every seven decisions has been demonstrated to have been wrong. In addition, last May, the courts have determined that the processes disadvantages people with mental health problems, learning disabilities and autism, and, in December, the Court of Appeal threw out the government’s appeal against that judgement.[5]

By May 2011, 63% of initial claims were taking longer than 91 days to process. By the second half of 2011 this had risen to 77% and by the first eight months of 2012 this figure stood at 82%.[6] Last week, the government was forced to admit that ATOS is failing to meet 63 of its 96 Employment and Support Allowance targets - which require ATOS to process all ESA applications within 35 working days.[7]

Things are so bad that the government has stopped publishing performance data. The October 2013 statistical release for Work Capability Assessments did not include either the statistics for the assessment of existing Incapacity Benefit claims, nor the outcome of appeals of initial WCAs. And these statistics still haven’t been released.

This is not surprising given that the July 2013 release had revealed

“to date 39% of all Fit-for-Work decisions have been appealed against. 70% of initial Fit-for-Work decisions appealed against were upheld after challenge; and 30% of initial Fit-for-Work decisions appealed against were overturned after challenge”.[8]

The Department of Work and Pensions’ Annual Report was published in December. It confirmed:

“5.5.1 A particular example of the control challenge around commercial suppliers identified above is the number and quality of Work Capability Assessments undertaken by Atos Healthcare, in support of both Employment and Support Allowance and the programme to reassess Incapacity Benefit claims. The number of assessments has fallen consistently short of demand... 5.5.3 The work by Atos Healthcare to improve quality further reduced the volumes of completed assessments. This further increased the numbers of cases awaiting assessment.”[9]

It’s clear that it is the government and the contractor it chose which need incapability assessments, not the unfortunate people who are trapped in this wretched process.

________________________________________

[1] Welfare Reform Act 2007

[2] Welfare Reform Act 2012

[3]https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224808/esa_wca_summary_jul13_v0f.pdf

[4]https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224808/esa_wca_summary_jul13_v0f.pdf

[5] http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/1565.html

[6] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/265351/work-capability-assessment-year-4-paul-litchfield.pdf

[7]http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm140106/text/140106w0002.htm#14010631000011

[8]https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224808/esa_wca_summary_jul13_v0f.pdf

[9] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/264555/dwp-annual-report-accounts-2012-2013.pdf

Still bonkers!

I’ve consistently described the badger cull as bonkers. First, because there is a huge amount of contradictory evidence about whether badgers give TB to cattle or cattle give it to badgers. Secondly, because there is also no scientific evidence that culling badgers actually deals with the problem of TB in cattle; indeed a past trial showed it could actually make things worse.

Now we have the proof that the badger cull has been a complete humiliation for the government, who have turned their backs on evidence-based policy. It has been bad for farmers, bad for taxpayers, and bad for wildllife.

Not only have the pilot culls been incredibly ineffective, they may have actually increased Bovine TB in and around the pilot areas. According to leading independent scientists, the decision to extend the cull together with the failure to cull 70% of the population may have increased the spread of Bovine TB through badger ‘perturbation’. Culling low numbers of badgers, over a prolonged period, during the winter months, is associated with increased TB.

In October this year, commenting on the complete failure to get anywhere near the 70% figure, the Secretary of State Owen Patterson said that ‘the badgers have moved the goalposts.’ He might as well have said ‘the badgers have removed my brain cells’!

Now we have even more confirmation that the very basis of these pilot culls, that badgers are the major cause of transmitting TB to cattle, is flawed. This government has repeatedly over-played the extent to which badgers are responsible for spreading TB across England. Recent research by Prof. Christl Donnelly showed that herd-to-herd transmission of bovine TB in cattle accounts for 94% of cases, while around 6% of infected cattle catch TB directly from badgers. Far from badgers spreading TB, it appears that it is overwhelmingly due to cattle movements.

So, the government needs to stop all cull activity, review the scientific evidence, publish all the documentation – including the costs – of pursuing its flawed policy to date, and start to work to work with farmers, wildlife groups and leading scientists to take forward an alternative strategy to eradicate Bovine TB. This would include tackling TB in badgers focussed on badger vaccination; and enhanced cattle measures, including compulsory post-movement testing, a comprehensive risk-based trading system, and more robust bio-security on farms.

Make everyone a little happier Mr Patterson, by making this your New Year’s Resolution.