The Humble Petition of Mr Adrian Paul Miles of Wednesbury, West Midlands,
Declares that this Petition is a plea for our Government to reconsider the impact and implications of the Welfare Reform Act, as well as consider revising the Work Capability Assessment, as currently administered by ATOS Health Care, on behalf of the Department of Work and Pensions.
The Petitioner submits that the current Welfare Reform Act is fundamentally a very good idea, especially in its applaudably honourable and well-intentioned attempts at reducing this Country’s Benefit Expenditure, by getting people off Disability and Sickness Benefits and back into work.
However, as someone once said,
“The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions”.
Of course, many good intentions, in many cases, can lead to many good results. This is undeniably true in the case of the Welfare Reform Act, which has begun, and is very clearly continuing to help people off Disability and Sickness Benefits and back into the workplace. Of course, this is all very commendable and beneficial to our Society. However, the Petitioner is also compelled to submit that our Government, through the work of the Department of Work and Pensions and, in turn, through the delegated, contracted and sub-contracted work of ATOS Health Care, are also taking a significantly large minority of British Citizens on a rollercoaster nightmare of financial worry and distress which, in turn, significantly worsens their health.
What the Petitioner finds most alarming, is that tens of thousands, if not potentially hundreds of thousands of Mentally Ill, Sick and Disabled Benefit Claimants are being unfairly declared “Fit for Work”, when in fact they are clearly evidenced by both themselves and their own Doctors and/or their Psychiatrists and Medical Specialists as being “Unfit for Work”.
If this was a matter simply of a relatively low percentage of individuals being incorrectly assessed by sufficiently qualified and experienced Medical Professionals and being given a Work Capability Assessment score of, for example, say 10, instead of a more accurate and fair 15 points or so, then the Petitioner would not be submitting this Parliamentary Petition to this House.
Sadly, the undeniable reality is that numerous Benefit Claimants are being given zero or significantly low points by their ATOS Appointed Assessors and, upon Appeal, many of them are then given significantly more points. Furthermore, many of these Benefit Claimants are then found to be “Unfit for Work”, not just from the date of their Tribunals, but from the date of their initial Medical Assessment. If this was the case in a small percentage of circumstances, it may be reasonable to suggest it was simply a statistical blip. However, official statistics to date clearly evidence that the Work Capability Assessment is fundamentally flawed. This is particularly evident when it comes to Assessing Mental Health issues, or short, medium or long-term Variable Health Conditions, be they Mental or Physical.
Many of the Assessors are also very clearly insufficiently qualified or sufficiently experienced to make accurate and fair Assessments of many of the individual Benefit Claimants.
Therefore, with all due Honour and Respect, Your Humble Petitioner Prays, Pleads and Requests, that the House of Commons urges the Government to, as soon as practicably possible, LORD willing-
I.
Revise the current Welfare Reforms Legislation and the Department of Work and Pensions’ management structure and ethos to ensure that both accuracy and fairness are paramount in the Policies and Decision Making Processes of both ATOS Healthcare and the Department of Work and Pensions;
II.
Make consideration of, and reference to, Claimants’ Doctors’ and Psychiatrists’ Medical Records compulsory prior to and during Medical Assessments;
III.
That all staff employed, contracted or sub-contracted towards this purpose are sufficiently qualified and experienced, with Doctors and other experts or specialists used when necessary or appropriate;
IV.
The Appeals process is apparently currently taking between approximately five or six months to one year, thereby causing serious anxiety, as well as putting considerable stress, as well as considerable financial strain on Benefit Claimants and their families and friends. This suffering is, of course, particularly acute given that we are currently entering a cold winter period, where Claimants’ fuel and utility bills are likely to be significantly higher than usual. Please, therefore, kindly reduce this waiting period as much as possible;
V.
In addition, the Petitioner also requests that Government Legislation and Department of Work and Pensions Policy is put in place to provide reasonable financial compensation to all those who are later evidenced as “Unfit for Work”, having been previously unfairly declared “Fit for Work”. In particular, the Petitioner requests that further compensation should be provided by way of apology for those who were given either zero or very low points prior to their successful Appeal Tribunal Decision.
Your Petitioner remains Your Fellow-Citizen and Fellow-Servant for the Common Good of Our Country.—[Presented by Valerie Vaz, Official Report, 19 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 9P .]
[P001152]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, received 11 January 2013:
Entitlement to Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) is based on an individual’s functional ability rather than the condition itself. Anyone claiming ESA will undergo the Work Capability Assessment (WCA). The WCA was introduced to fairly and accurately assess entitlement to benefit. It was developed in consultation with medical and other experts alongside representative groups.
Unlike previous assessments, the Welfare Reform Act 2007 requires the Department to independently review the WCA for the first five years after its introduction. The first three Independent Reviews were carried out by Professor Malcolm Harrington, a highly respected Occupational Physician with the latest report published on 20 November 2012. Throughout the reviews Professor Harrington has reported that positive progress has been made, but in his latest report said there is still more to be done. We agree with Professor Harrington and will continue to work with stakeholders to ensure the WCA is as fair and effective as it can be.
A decision on entitlement to benefits is made by a Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) decision-maker, it is based on all the evidence available including that provided by the claimant themselves and from advice from an Atos healthcare professional (HCP). Claimants are encouraged to provide all evidence that will be relevant to their case, including medical evidence supplied by their GP or other medical professional, at the outset of the claim.
As part of the third independent review Professor Harrington recommended that
“Decision Makers should actively consider the need to seek further documentary evidence in every claimant’s case. The final decision must be justified if this is not sought”
The Government agreed to
“Provisionally accept the recommendation, subject to the caveat that we must first work to ensure it can be implemented in a cost effective fashion before taking a final decision” .
We are currently progressing this recommendation.
All HCP’s are registered with a professional body such as the General Medical Council or the Nursing and Midwifery Council and must have at least three years post-qualification experience. In addition, all HCPs are fully trained in disability assessment including specific training in assessing individuals with Mental Health conditions. AH HCP’s must be approved by the Chief Medical Adviser on behalf of the Secretary of State. Once approved, all HCP’s are subject to ongoing quality checks through audit, which the Department validates.
The Government appreciate that appealing against a decision of being found “Fit for work” can be stressful for claimants, and that reducing the timescales for processing appeals would help to alleviate the stress and anxiety experienced. The DWP has therefore allocated additional staff resource in recent months to deal with appeals. We are also working closely with Atos Healthcare and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service, to ensure that the overall process for handling appeals is dealt with more timeously and delays reduced.
It is suggested that when a Tribunal overturns a “Fit for Work” decision by a Decision Maker within the Department for Work and Pensions, the claimant should receive compensation. However, the reasons why Tribunals overturn DWP decisions are many and varied, and when a Tribunal overturns a DWP decision, this does not necessarily mean that the Decision Maker’s decision was wrong. For example, some decisions are overturned because new evidence is provided to the Tribunal which was not made available to DWP. We do not therefore agree with the suggestion contained in the petition, and do not intend to provide compensation in such cases.