Sick Benefit Claims

posted: 27/10/2010

Claims made yesterday by the Department for Work and Pensions that three-quarters of the people applying for the new Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) are fit for work are disputed by leading charities.

The official figures were published as the Government continues its plans to reassess everyone on the old style incapacity benefit (IB), which began in Burnley this month and will cover the rest of the country from early next year.
 

Claims distort reality

Charities say the department is distorting reality. A high proportion of these decisions are wrong and almost 40% of people who appeal win. Citizens Advice Bureau has published three detailed reports on serious failings in the system. We know that many people with HIV are being refused wrongly and winning their appeals. We know that NAT are producing a report on the experience of people with HIV with the new benefit and system.

Citizens Advice argues that instead of improving the lives of ill and disabled people, the “deeply flawed” benefit has brought misery for thousands.

The Department recently ordered an independent review of the assessment process because of the widespread problems and complaints.

In last week’s spending review Chancellor George Osborne announced further benefit cuts: most people will only be allowed to claim ESA for a maximum of a year. It plans to cut the benefit bill by at least £18bn.
 

New sick benefit is 'unfit'

Scotland’s acting chief executive at Citizens Advice, Susan McPhee said: “We said last year that ESA was unfit for purpose and we see no reason to change that view. We are still seeing case after case where people are being found fit for work even though their illness or disability restricts them from any type of work. ESA isn’t working for the most vulnerable. We need to protect people in times of suffering, not cause them further hardship.”
 

ESA has forced thousands of vulnerable people with conditions such as cancer, schizophrenia, HIV and Parkinson’s disease back into the job market after being declared fit for work, despite medical evidence from GPs and consultants saying different.
 

Citizens Advice Bureau evidence shows that the system isn’t working

• for people with cancer
• the assessment process isn’t working properly
• the administration of the benefit is poor

For new ESA claims from October 2008 to February 2010, the department for Work and Pensions says that the three quarters of claims that were refused and unsuccessful were made up of:

• Support Group (people who cannot work now or in the foreseeable future and need unconditional support) – the department nonetheless decided 6% were fit for work
• Work Related Activity Group (people who cannot work now but with the right help could work in the foreseeable future) – the department nonetheless decided 15% were fit for work
• Fit for Work - the department decided 39% of ordinary ESA claimants were fit for work and refused the claim for ESA. People can appeal and claim Job Seekers Allowance. 
• Claim closed before assessment complete, or assessment still in process: 39%

The department is fiddling the figures to say that claims where the assessment is still in progress are among the three quarters of the claims that were refused or abandoned. Any claim still being assessed hasn't been decided yet, it is not refused, abandoned or unsuccessful. Undecided claims could be almost 39% of the 75% that the department's press release claims 'are being found fit for work after undergoing the Work Capability Assessment or stop their claim before they complete their medical assessment'. The true figure for claims that failed might be as low as 36%.

Whatever the rate of refused claims, almost 40% of people who appeal the decision, win. That is a dreadful rate of expensive administrative failure.
 

Reviewing the system

Employment Minister Chris Grayling said:
" I am determined that we get the medical assessment right, which is why Professor Malcolm Harrington is undertaking an independent review in consultation with a number of charities representing disabled people and those with mental health issues. I am more than happy to take onboard any serious suggestions for changing the assessment as I want it to be as near to perfect as we can be. This is not about pushing the sick and disabled into jobs but giving those that can work the help to do so and those that can't more, not less, support."
 

Churches: Don’t blame the poor
Meanwhile, three of Britain's churches accused the chancellor, George Osborne, of exaggerating the scale of benefit fraud in last week's spending review speech, pointing out that official figures were lower than the £5bn claimed by Osborne. The president of the Methodist Conference, Alison Tomlin, said: "Exaggerating benefit fraud points the finger of blame at the poor. Let us be clear this recession was not caused by the poor, those on benefits, or even benefit cheats."

Sources
Guardian Scottish Herald 
Department for Work and Pensions Press Release

Asylum Charities Blamed by Minister

posted: 18/11/2008

Immigration minister Phil Woolas attacked lawyers and charities working for asylum seekers, accusing them of undermining the law and "playing the system". In an interview with the Guardian, Woolas described the legal professionals and NGO workers as "an industry", and said most asylum seekers were not fleeing persecution but were economic migrants.

"The system is played by migration lawyers and NGOs to the nth degree," Woolas said. "By giving false hope and by undermining the legal system, [they] actually cause more harm than they do good."

It is the latest in a series of controversial public interventions by Woolas since he was appointed immigration minister by Gordon Brown in the October reshuffle.

NorthWest MP is in BNP hotspot

Woolas is Labour MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth and grew up in Worsthorne, just outside Burnley. Race is lively politics in Oldham, where in the 2001 election, days after racially motivated riots in the town, the British National Party (BNP) picked up 5,091 votes in his constituency, 11.2% of the total. In 2005, BNP support shrank to 2,109 votes.

Comments "absolutely extraordinary"

Immigration lawyers said Woolas's anti-asylum comments were "absolutely extraordinary".

Sophie Brown, chair of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association (Ilpa), said: "Lawyers can only work with the law. To say they are undermining the law is an extraordinary comment to make."

Asylum seeker wins appeals but minister still  claims the person has "no right"

In one case, Woolas said, an asylum seeker had won the right to stay after going through six layers of appeal. "That person has no right to be in this country but I'm sure that there is an industry out there [with] a vested interest."

However George House Trust points out that the judges in this case clearly disagree with Woolas and accepted s/he has a right to be here. Woolas may dislike the judges’ decisions but we live in a democracy where the judiciary are there to independently interpret law made by Parliament, and we don’t not live in a state where arbitrary decisions affecting people’s lives and wellbeing are made to suit ministers and officials. Asylum law, rules and the application system all heavily favour refusals and rejections already. Only a minority of asylum claims are accepted.

Woolas concedes there are some harrowing, genuine cases of people fleeing persecution, which he claims are undermined by economic migrants. He recounted how another asylum seeker visited his constituency office in Oldham: "One lady showed me the scars on her thighs from where the soldiers had raped her, so I know," said Woolas, "but I cannot take a decision on that lady's behalf if I am fogged by cases that are misusing the law."

Appeals are vital safety net

Donna Covey, chief executive of the Refugee Council, said the appeals process was a vital safety net for asylum seekers who are "criminalised" on arriving in Britain. "Having your asylum claim rejected does not make you an economic migrant. For some nationalities, such as Eritreans and Somalis, almost half of refused asylum seekers have their cases upheld on appeal. These are people who would be in danger of persecution such as murder, torture or rape if sent back to the repressive regimes they are fleeing."

Woolas has raised the rhetoric at a time when the asylum issue has substantially diminished. At the peak there were more than 76,000 applications a year, in 2000; last year there were fewer than 24,000.

Woolas told the Guardian the "primary purpose" of immigration policy was to reassure the public that the government was in control of immigration. "The public recognise that we don't know the exact numbers. They see the asylum backlog and what they fear is that we don't have any control over the system," he said.
He argued he was not pandering to the far right by raising concerns about asylum seekers. "You can only stop it being seen as a problem when you can convince the public you're in control of it."
 

Source 

The key part of the interview:
 

No amnesty
Woolas rejects the idea of an amnesty for unauthorised immigrants and asylum seekers. "Spain is on its fourth one-off amnesty and the result of that is more dead bodies on the beach of people coming over from Africa." It is "difficult", he says, but "most asylum seekers, it appears, are economic migrants". In Britain, asylum seekers are given "false hope" by NGOs and migration lawyers. "By giving false hope and by undermining the legal system [they] actually cause more harm than they do good."

So he believes that Britain's asylum system is exploited by migration lawyers and NGOs? "The system is played by migration lawyers and NGOs to the nth degree." In one case, an asylum seeker won after six layers of appeal. "That person has no right to be in this country but I'm sure that there is an industry out there that is a vested interest."

He jabs his finger as he recounts desperate asylum seekers visiting his constituency office. "One lady showed me the scars on her thighs from where the soldiers had raped her, so I know, but I cannot take a decision on that lady's behalf if I am," he almost shouts the word, "fogged by cases that are misusing the law." The European Convention on Human Rights, he says, "is meant to protect people from persecution. It is not meant to be an open-borders immigration policy."
 

Interview