Tag Archives: Nick Dilworth

Ministers think they have successfully hid the facts about the deaths of claimants. Have they?

What we're fighting for: It seems certain that Jacqueline Harris (pictured) died because her benefits were stripped from her after a one-question medical assessment. The DWP wants to hide the number of other people who are dying in similar circumstances.

What we’re fighting for: It seems certain that Jacqueline Harris (pictured) died because her benefits were stripped from her after a one-question medical assessment. The DWP wants to hide the number of other people who are dying in similar circumstances.

The Morning Star has published an interview with statistics expert Nick Dilworth about the DWP’s release of death statistics for incapacity benefits claimants. Some of the information needs correcting but this is an excellent article and should be publicised. The Tories want this sidelined – let’s keep it in the public eye.

“The media were misled over the right figures with the DWP issuing a wholly inadequate explanation. Most settled on 2,600 dead, which is a great disappointment to the real victims. They would be entitled to assume the number could be far higher given the scope for many simply not appearing because the DWP failed to provide a comprehensive and all-inclusive explanation.”

It’s important to remember those who’ve had a family member die and who wanted to hear the wider picture. Yet as Dilworth says, “bloggers were also reaching different findings, some making out there was no story while others implied it was a national outrage. Obfuscating the proof was what IDS wanted to achieve, with distraction being a key part of his strategy.”

Dilworth, unlike many commentators, refused to be drawn into this game, instead taking a step back to consider in depth what the figures revealed. He came to six key conclusions:

– The DWP data only related to claimants whose incapacity benefit or employment and support allowance ended because they died. A total of 81,140 people on either benefit died between December 2011 and February 2014.

It should be explained that this means the statistics do not include people who died after their benefit had been taken away from them – even though the Freedom of Information request to which this was a response (written by me) specifically asked for the total number of deaths of people who had had a claim during this period. In some cases, people died several weeks, or months, afterwards but the DWP decision may still be to blame for the death.

– The data lacked clarity over whether the correct total for those who died with a “fit for work” finding on their claim was 2,650 or 4,010. As a result, mainstream media issued press articles and headlines which deflected the serious issue raised regarding the fact people had died while deemed “fit for work.”

Again, this figure only relates to those whose claim ended because they died. Mr Dilworth goes on to mention the deaths of many other people who died outside the extremely narrow time period used by the DWP in its figures.

– Readers of the statistics were thrown a red herring by the DWP’s poorly worded explanation. As a result it was wrongly reported that people had died within two and six weeks of being found “fit for work.” The reference to between two and six weeks related only to aligning the date of death with the closure of the deceased person’s claim.

– Figures of between 2,650 and 4,010 only relate to people who had appealed. In 1,360 “completed appeal cases” this can only mean people who had successfully contested a “fit for work” finding, and then subsequently died thereafter. In the case of those who’d not had their appeal heard, the inevitable conclusion can only be they were still within the appeal system at the time of their death.

This is inaccurate. The figures related to people who had contested a “fit for work” finding, but we don’t know whether they were successful or not. If they died, and then their claim ended, then either outcome is possible; there’s nothing to stop a person who appealed unsuccessfully from dying due to the stress of the process (which would tend to indicate that the outcome of their appeal was wrong, also).

– The figures omitted those who’d been found “fit for work” and then either came off benefits or were claiming an entirely different benefit. This left a considerable question mark over the usefulness of the statistics for those who were owed real answers. These were not provided by the generalised issue or age-standardised mortality figures — which excluded large numbers of claimants who made more than one claim for the same benefit (repeat claims were specifically excluded).

It can reasonably be assumed that a large number of those found fit for work would have gone on to claim jobseekers allowance (JSA). What is known from separate Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures is that between December 2011 and February 2014, 7,645,130 people came off JSA — of which only 3,241,885 found work. An incredible 2,402,755 are recorded as “failed to sign on.” It leaves considerable scope for anyone dying not to be included in the figures at all because the jobcentre won’t have any reason as to why their claim ended.

Just so. And there’s no reason to expect everybody who was kicked off ESA to have claimed JSA because it a condition of claiming JSA that you have to be, in fact, fit for work – and many of those whose ESA had been removed would have failed the test.

Dilworth says: “One such person who won’t be included in the DWP’s ‘fit for work’ death statistics is Michael O’Sullivan (aged 60.) He died after having to claim JSA after being refused employment support allowance. Tragically Mr O’Sullivan took his own life after being found ‘fit for work’ twice by the DWP’s heartless back-to-work regime.

“A coroner has confirmed the suicide verdict is to be directly linked to the work capability assessment process. It is astonishing so many of the media articles associated with deaths and these tests cite suicide, stress or some other strong indicator that the deceased was seriously affected by the decision on their claim.

“Invariably these show all too often people are attempting to navigate the DWP’s bureaucratic appeal process and so it is tragic that in some of these cases the unfairness of the ‘fit for work’ decision is only corrected at a posthumous appeal, by which time it’s sadly too late.”

He continues: “Other death cases which can in some way be related to fit for work findings include those of Jacqueline Harris, 53; Ms DE, in her late 50s, who was the subject of a very detailed study by the Scottish Mental Health Commission; David Barr, 28; Colin Traynor, 29; Graham Shawcross, 63; Shaun Pilkington, 58; Edward Jacques, 47; Tim Salter, 53; and David O’Mar, 58.

“These 10 deaths are striking in that they almost all relate to people who have not only been found fit for work but have also had to battle with the DWP to reverse a decision which they thought was unfair.

“IDS, when speaking with the Press Association, declared his overriding objective in these reforms was all about ‘saving lives.’ Clearly that’s not happening: it beggars belief that a duff set of statistics is enough to answer the deep probing questions demanded of these perilous reforms. He owes everyone a decent explanation, particularly those who have lost someone dear, and still have no answer as to what it was that went wrong.”

A suicide in a family or a death triggered by intense pressure and stress can permanently scar loved ones. These are the people who deserve to hear the truth, not simply data within such tight parameters as to be virtually meaningless.

“It’s very much IDS’s modus operandi for the DWP,” Dilworth says, “to respond to a potential outrage by throwing people off the scent, ensuring the media divert attention from the blatant, systemic failure in IDS’s department. However, now we know how much data has been withheld, we must demand the full figures are released.”

Source: Morning Star :: DWP’s claimant death cover-up

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

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:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Shouldn’t we call time on the Work Capability Assessment?

150209fitforwork

On the day Mrs Mike was at first supposed to take a new Work Capability Assessment, then told it was cancelled (then received a letter confirming this – and then this writer attended the centre to make sure), Ekklesia has published a piece by Bernadette Meaden asking whether there’s any point to the process at all.

She writes: “It’s important to remember that these assessments are not a ‘medical’, as the public may believe. They are officially described as a ‘functional assessment’: they assess people as if they are machines, to see which bits are working and which bits aren’t. They disregard many medical symptoms such as pain and exhaustion, which is why people who are obviously seriously ill can be assessed as ‘fit to work’, why so many people appeal their decision, and why the government’s own expert adviser, Professor Malcolm Harrington, once described the WCA as ‘mechanistic and inhumane’.

“Not all the people who have been through a WCA will have been given a face-to-face assessment. Some will have received a decision based on their completion of the lengthy and complex ESA50 form, and supplementary information they have supplied. But for all who have been assessed, whether face to face or via bureaucracy, it will have been an added stress at a time when they may be coming to terms with a life-limiting diagnosis, or going through unpleasant treatment.

“To have your doctor say you are unfit to work, but to have the decision as to whether you will receive support in the hands of a medically unqualified DWP Decision Maker is not conducive to anyone’s health.”

Surely, she suggests, the only way all of this stress and effort can be justified is if the WCA found that people who were actually fit for work had managed to get themselves onto an incapacity benefit instead – but this is not what the figures show.

After no less than 4.8 million stress-inducing assessments (and remember, stress can kill), “the numbers receiving Incapacity Benefit and Employment Support Allowance have barely changed, and in fact have reduced at a slower rate than they did in the years prior to the WCA being introduced”.

The 4.8 million figure comes from Nick Dilworth, who blogs on the excellent iLegal site.

He writes, “the most recent DWP figures for the tougher than tough Work Capability Assessments” show that “until November 2012 an average of 28,500 claimants a month were being found ‘fit for work’ [when adding the totals for those claiming Employment and Support Allowance as a ‘new’ claim, those who had been re-assessed, and also those undergoing conversion from older incapacity benefits to the newer allowance]. However, since then the numbers found fit for work have steadily decreased to an all-time low of just 1,600 claimants recorded for the month of December 2013 (the most recent DWP figure available).

“It’s almost as if they don’t want anybody being found fit for work these days,” he writes. “One thing is for certain, it will all change once Maximus gets going properly after March 2015. Little wonder ESA appeals have fallen, eh?”

At least it suggests that people aren’t simply giving up on the system, as is happening due to the JSA sanction system.

The random factor in all of this is the fact that we are dealing with the Department for Work and Pensions, which is notoriously untrustworthy when dealing with claimants.

Why do you think this writer had to seek confirmation that Mrs Mike’s new assessment had been cancelled in triplicate? It was the only way to make absolutely sure. Having fallen foul of the DWP’s hair-trigger benefit cancellation machine in the past, we weren’t going to let it happen again.

But Mrs Mike is lucky in that respect – she has the services of an able-bodied and articulate carer. How many of the 28,500 who were found fit for work every month until November 2012 could say the same thing?

Having attended Mrs Mike’s original Work Capability Assessment back in mid-2012, this writer knows that she found the experience of having to carry out physical tasks for an unqualified “healthcare professional” both painful and humiliating. She spent the following three days on the sofa, unable to move because of extreme pain – and the DWP put her in the work-related activity group and told her she should be better in a year.

And now it’s 2015; she still isn’t better and this writer had to humiliate several DWP representatives when they tried to claim otherwise and cut off her benefit lifeline. Again, how many people who were thrown off the WRA group had someone who could do the same?

Now, Nick tells us this is just the deep breath before Maximus turns up and tries to knock the wind out of all our sails.

As Ms Meaden suggests, wouldn’t it be better to get rid of the Work Capability Assessment and replace it with something else?

Nick is a member of New Approach, an organisation calling for that to happen.

Please have a look at the website and consider giving it your support.

Follow me on Twitter: @MidWalesMike

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have enjoyed this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

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:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
suggesting alternatives to failed government policies.

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook