FOI? Or just FU?
It seems Yr Obdt Srvt has become the victim of DWP game-playing that shows contempt for sick and disabled benefit claimants whose lives are threatened by poor decision-making.
You may be familiar with the following saying (or at least with the fact that George W Bush wasn’t): “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”
I mention this as a precursor to the following story, for reasons that should become clear.
Back in May, I sent another Freedom of Information request to the Department for Work and Pensions, again asking for an update of the ad-hoc statistical release Incapacity Benefits: Deaths of Recipients from mid-2012 (long-term readers will be aware a previous request was refused as “vexatious”).
In it, I pointed out: “A response to a previous Freedom of Information request (FOI 2013-IR665) stated that ‘Whilst we currently have no plans to directly update the ad hoc report on “Incapacity Benefits: Deaths of Recipients” published on 9th July 2012, the Department does monitor requests we receive for new statistics and consider whether we can produce and release analysis that will helpfully inform public debate. The Department is therefore looking at this issue with a view to seeing what statistics could be produced on a regular basis.’
“It went on to state that ‘the balance of the public interest test falls in favour of withholding this information. As I have explained above, statistics on this issue will be published in due course.’
“I have studied DWP release schedules extensively and in the 11 months since I made my request, I have found no publication of statistics on this issue… Was the DWP’s statement that ‘statistics on this issue… will be published in due course’ made in error?
“If this is the case, then there can be no public interest argument against disclosure of this information in response to either my previous request or any future request, as it is not set to be published as part of the DWP’s current schedule. I remind you that this is time-sensitive information; it is important that the data becomes public knowledge as soon as it is available, in order to inform government policy and avoid preventable fatalities in the future.”
If this was not the case, I continued, then – as at midday on May 28 this year, what was the date on which it is planned that the DWP will be publishing figures from November 2011 to those which are most up-to-date?
If no date of publication was set down, I concluded, then the DWP had a duty to provide an update, to me, immediately.
I reminded the Department’s FOI officers that an email from the DWP to the Information Commissioner’s office, dated October 21, 2013, stated that “we can confirm that the Department does hold, and could provide within the cost limit… the information requested.”
The substantive issue: A DWP statistical release in 2012 showed that more than 200 people were dying every week as a result of Iain Duncan Smith’s changes to assessment procedures for incapacity benefits – either they were put into groups where unreasonable demands were placed on them or the stress and anxiety of constant re-assessment was too much for their bodies to take. Many were driven to suicide.
Apart from acknowledging receipt, the DWP ignored my request. I therefore invoked my right to have it reconsidered, immediately after the legally-prescribed period ran out. By this time the DWP was already breaking the law.
Apart from acknowledging receipt, the DWP ignored my reconsideration request. Are you getting angry about this yet? Remember, it is about deaths caused by government policy. I therefore notified the Information Commissioner and requested a ruling on this matter.
The Commission responded late last month, saying the DWP had 10 working days to get a response back to me. Tomorrow was the deadline and the response arrived today.
You’re really not going to like it.
“Unfortunately there was a mistake in the response you were sent for FOI 2013-IR665. Due to an administrative error an Annex A (about the Public Interest Test) appeared at the very end of the letter. It was not intended for this response and as such there is no mention of it anywhere in the main letter.
“So the answer to your first question ‘Was the DWP’s statement that ‘statistics on this issue [incapacity benefits: deaths of recipients] will be published in due course’ made in error?’ with respect to the reply you received is yes. That statement was not intended to be part of the response and was therefore made in error. We therefore attach a corrected copy of the reply to FOI 2013-IR665 and apologise for any inconvenience caused.”
That is not good enough. There was no way I could have read that response without believing that I was being told updated statistics were to be published in the future; any other interpretation would have defied common sense.
Also, it makes a nonsense of what was said in the body of the response – that the DWP was working on releasing figures on a regular basis.
And it means one of two things: Either the DWP was lying then, when it said work was progressing on what could be published, or it is lying now, by saying the information about the public interest test was included in error.
Either way, it seems clear that the intention was to stop my request from progressing any further.
Let’s move on to the really insulting part. Today’s response states, and I quote verbatim:
“We can confirm that we do intend to publish further statistics on this topic and these will answer a majority of your questions. As the statistics are intended for future publication this information is exempt from disclosure under the terms of Section 22 (Information intended for future publication) of the FOIA. This exemption is qualified, and is therefore subject to a public interest test. The public interest test is where the Department considers whether the balance of the public interest falls in favour of withholding or disclosing the information requested.
“Arguments in favour of disclosure: There are public interest arguments in favour of disclosure of this information at the present time. Disclosure would for example improve transparency in the operations of the Department.
“Arguments against disclosure: There are public interest arguments against disclosure of this information at the present time. These arguments include that it is in the public interest to adhere to the existing publication process for official statistics, which includes time for the data to be collated and properly verified.
“It is also in the public interest to ensure that the publication of official information is a properly planned and managed process, to ensure that the data are accurate once placed into the public domain. It is also in the public interest to ensure that the information is available to all members of the public at the same time, and premature publication could undermine the principle of making the information available to all at the same time through the official publication process.
“On this occasion, the balance of the public interest test falls in favour of withholding this information. As explained above, statistics on this issue will be published in due course.
“We do not have a planned publication date at this stage but we will pre-announce the agreed date.”
That’s right – having apologised for misleading me into believing that updated information was to be produced when it wasn’t, the DWP went on to say that updated information was to be produced, but it wasn’t going to provide that information to me – even though no publication date has been set – for precisely the same reasons, to the letter, for which it had just apologised.
I get the impression that someone in Caxton House is trying to be funny.
What a big joke – to put off a Freedom of Information request about thousands of needless deaths with an excuse that has already been used wrongly, on the basis that it was wrong then but it isn’t now.
No. Not funny.
Pants: Iain Duncan Smith
The situation is reminiscent of one mentioned in an article earlier today, wherein someone blew the whistle on Iain Duncan Smith’s expenses claim for underwear so he called her into a meeting and reduced her to tears with a show of belligerence. The substantive issue was of no interest to the man we call RTU (Returned To Unit); his only worry was that it should be hidden from the public. The same applies here.
As mentioned at the start: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. I won’t be fooled again.
The information is held by the DWP, and could be provided easily enough.
The public interest test cannot be applied to my request as the DWP has not proved that statistics on this issue will be published in due course. For this to apply, a publication date would have to have been provided in the response and none was forthcoming.
Therefore I conclude that the DWP’s response is false and will be appealing to the Information Commissioner again – and to the First-Tier Tribunal if necessary. The tribunal is likely to take a very dim view of this as, after a previous hearing, its members stated that “we have considerable sympathy for the appellant”.
We have to prove that these people are not above the law.
Follow me on Twitter: @MidWalesMike
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
Buy Vox Political books and help us
expose DWP attempts to hide the facts!
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
You can make a one-off donation here:
Mike really appreciate your tenacity and efforts in trying to obtain this information it is axiomatic this will be withheld until this shower leave office as a release of such would be incriminating and the destruction of the tories forever, I ONLY WISH.
I truly believe any such information will be destroyed if this shower get kicked out. It’s comparable to the Nazi’s releasing statistics on the holocaust.
What I can’t understand is why someone with a gram of compassion working at the DWP must know about what is happening. WHY can’t they under anonymity get this out in the open as they can’t sleep at night knowing what is happening surely.
A phone call or a letter to an authority or even the guardian could have the desired affect, someone with one ounce of compassion that’s all it would take.
Excellent post. Shocking to see such stalling, lies and obfuscation from a Government Department, but exactly what I expect of Iain Duncan Smith. This deranged criminal MUST be brought to justice.
I have followed numerous FOI requests for over a year now and this experience appears to be the default position by the DWP on any serious set of figures they don’t want to produce,
Perhaps a review of the number of such requests needs to be undertaken – I’m sure the Tribunal would find this particularly interesting?!
They really must have something to hide, the RTU, Idiotic Demented Sociopath must be bricking it and you can bet that any information will not be released before the next general election. All I can say Mike is keep up the excellent work and please on behalf of those people like myself who are not up to par, do not give up.
Buried in here released today are some death statistics, the DWP must have missed:-
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/342968/stats_summary_aug14_final.pdf
There were 1.11 million benefit exits for Employment and Support Allowance and incapacity benefits (625 thousand for ESA, 487 thousand for IB), this includes people leaving IB through Incapacity Benefit reassessment; 34 thousand for Bereavement Benefit/Widows Benefit (BB/WB); 505 thousand for Income Support (IS); 511 thousand benefit exits for State Pension (SP); and 257 thousand benefit exits for Pension Credit (PC) in the year to February 2014.
(By the way thanks for changing back to the old way making comments, I search in vain for how to register yesterday.)
Those aren’t deaths – they’re people who’ve signed off for one reason or another.
Read between the lines:-
this includes people leaving IB through Incapacity Benefit reassessment; 34 thousand for Bereavement Benefit/Widows Benefit (BB/WB);
Good luck with it Mike, don’t let em grind you down, its typical IDS blaggotry! He’ll weasel words his way out of anything if allowed, you’ve got my backing for what its worth, I really want to know what these figures say – the release of them will kill off any chance of reelection for the tories I’m sure, so they need to be published!
The FoI Act is being disregarded with the same contempt have they for UK, EU, and international law, and contempt for the people of the UK.
That is not to say that your efforts are in vain. Because your dedication and tenacity and sheer guts in going after these figures is the main proof we have that the situation is as appalling as suspected, if not worse. The sinister repeated refusal to release this information shows the DWP has become a killing machine.
It is not just an artefact of policy, but must now be seen as a part of the policy. The fear of having to say that our own government is a brutal killer of it’s own people is overwhelming for the establishment. They are the ones stunned into silence, into complicit support.
You have our heartfelt gratitude and support and of course we share your anger at this latest manoeuvre. They may not want to participate, but the FoI is one way of getting these issues into documented, legal proof of the cover-up.
The grotesque and deliberate cause of “death by DWP/IDS” is of such monumental significance that the proof will have to be wrung from them, like water from a dirty rag. You have all our support, on behalf of the oppressed. I only wish we could find the material means to help you continue your amazing and tenacious fight.
As a disabled man I thank you for your tenacity in holding with this issue. Is there anythingI/we can do to support you in this?
Not at the moment!
Readers supporting me in my last FOI request gave the DWP an excuse to cause a lot of trouble!
Mike, I once again offer my services if you need a Mackenzie Friend to assist. You know my e mail address so just drop me a line if you need my help.
Thanks. I have a feeling it may come to that!
No problem…. (hums fight the good fight!) :-)
Could we all make an application for this data en mas
NO!
You’d be refused – vexatious request.
Start a 38 Degrees or Avaaz petition?
Thanks for all you are doing – well done!
x
These figures are going to go away like just like the names of the people who are involved in the government abuse scandal.
IDS will take these figures to hell with him along with McVey and Fraud.
I agree that there has to be someone among them all that has some compassion towards the disabled and long term sick. I know if it was me in their place then I would do the right thing, and that is to let it slip to the public in one way or another.
The whole thing stinks which makes it an extremely high number of deaths of innocent people who happened to be disabled or ill – in effect, they were killed by IDS and Co.
Are you really surprised? As Mr Angry said, the only really surprising fact is that there isn’t one pleb with enough courage or empathy to leak the information. I’m voting Green next year as they seem to be the only party that says anything which makes sense. The system ain’t broke, it’s working as intended, keeping you running in circles whilst they rob you of everything you hold dear. It’s called a Plutocracy.