No rubberstamping? ATOS decides

The assessment process for Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), has been the subject of severe controversy and debate for a number of years.
The WCA (Work Capability Assessment) forms an integral part of the decision process and is administered by ATOS.
The WCA itself has come under attack with even the BMA calling for its suspension as far back as 2012.
It has been found in court to discriminate against people claiming on the grounds of mental health and despite some improvement since its initial implementation is said to continue to cause harm to many claimants.
Although ATOS is responsible for administering the test, the DWP has set its conditions and parameters. The DWP and ATOS have always denied that there are "targets" to meet as to how many claimants should pass the test. However it has become clear that "norms" have caused the same effect.

After administering the WCA ATOS staff issue a recommendation to the DWP as to whether the claimant should be assessed as Fit For Work, or put in the WRAG or Support Group.
The final decision rests with the DWP decision maker who we are told also has access to "further information".

Throughout the past few years the government has strenuously denied that ATOS decides who gets ESA. For example on July 22nd 2013 Lord Freud addressed the House of Commons and said:

"Assessment reports, such as those provided by Atos, form only one part of the WCA process, which has a number of checks and balances built in to ensure the right decision is reached for claimants. After the Atos assessment DWP Decision Makers make the final decision on claimants’ benefit entitlement based on all evidence provided during the claim."

It was therefore interesting to read this FOI request which gives the number of final DWP decisions compared to the number of provisional ATOS decisions.

A few short calculations reveal that the DWP follows the ATOS recommendations in 91% of cases.

This hardly seems to back up the claim that the ATOS process only forms a small part of the assessment process with plenty of "checks and balance". Instead it seems a rubber stamping exercise.

The fact is, for all intents and purposes, ATOS decide who is eligible for ESA at the WCA stage, with all the flaws mentioned above.

Notwithstanding this, there are some further troubling questions raised by the data.
Further scrutiny of the figures reveals that 98% of overturned decisions are in the claimant's favour, raising questions on whether ATOS are being too harsh in their assessments.

Furthermore, FFW recommendations are far more likely to be upgraded (16%) than a WRAG recommendation (4%). While this could partially be due to the structure of ESA itself, it also raises the possibility that DWP decision makers are concentrating more on FFW recommendations than WRAG.
Given that WRAG is time limited to one year for contribution based ESA, not to mention the requirements imposed on people in the WRAG including the threat of sanctions, this is a serious issue.

All of these issues: the potential over harshness of ATOS recommendations, the possible lack of investigation on the part of DWP decision makers and the possible concentration on FFW recommendations at the expense of the WRAG, should be investigated at the earliest opportunity.

Extremist? Moi?

Extremist: a person who advocates fundamental political, economic, and social reforms by direct and often uncompromising methods.

Wow. That sounds pretty scary. I'm thinking violent demonstrations, perhaps even possible terrorist activity from people making unreasonable and impossible demands.

But actually apparently I'm talking about myself, which I have to say comes as a bit of a surprise.

For the past couple of years I've been involved in some disability activism. This has taken various forms. Posting on this blog is one. Writing to my MP is another. Signing petitions such as the WoW petition which simply asks the government to do an impact assessment on disabled people of their welfare reforms is yet another.

My main success has to be of course the Spartacus Report, aka "Responsible Reform". Using government data this carefully constructed 40 page long report contradicted the government report which claimed disabled group's responses to a consultation were in favour of replacing the disability benefit DLA with PIP.

I may have been the main co-author, but it was written and coordinated with a number of other fellow disabled people (all names in above link). It was then shared by thousands of disabled people all coming together in unison to publicise it on Twitter, trending as #iamspartacus, forcing government and media to take notice. 

The research itself was well received and acknowledged. It has been used countless times in Hansard and investigations by committees such as the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Following this the We Are Spartacus network was born. With my failing health I am much less involved, but there have been other great people to take up the task.  

Further reports were researched and written, from responding to further consultations, to analysing the effects of the implementation of PIP to warning about problems implementing a cap on social care in Worcestershire. These were also well received and used. 

Members of the group are now involved in discussions with politicians in an attempt to improve policy, including forming part of the Labour Taskforce.

It was therefore a surprise in today's Opposition Debate involving the Cumulative Impact Assessment to hear the We Are Spartacus group being called "an extremist group" by Paul Maynard MP.

I understand that being criticised and disagreed with may not be pleasant, but lying in bed with a laptop, looking up government figures and statistics and then writing long winded polite reports pointing out potential flaws in disability policy is rather a long way from extremist activity!

We were not the only ones singled out. We were joined on the naughty step by Pats Petition and the WoWpetition, who had the temerity to set up a petition asking for the Cumulative Impact Assessment. Both have been signed by 49,000 and 65,000 people respectively, presumably also all extremists. 

Astonishingly we were later to be joined by the independent, non partisan Citizen's Advice Bureau who were accused by the Minister for Disabled People Esther McVey of being biased and left wing. They had made the mistake of recently criticising government policy.

It is fairly obvious that pointing out problems or flaws in disability policy is enough to be publicly smeared in the House of Commons and labelled biased, left wing, or extremist. This is not conducive to constructive dialogue, which is essential if any progress is ever to be made.

There is much anger following these insults. It is my worry and my suspicion that this may, in fact, be intentional. Some people are now wondering aloud if they should "act like extremists", saying after all, that if that is what the government wants, that is what it should get.

This is extremely dangerous. Any foolhardy act will only give fuel to the government's allegations. They will then in all righteousness be able to refuse to engage in any further dialogue.

It is therefore vital at this point to keep calm and ignore the insults that keep coming our way. In the mean time we must continue to do what we have always done: expose the facts and try to find new solutions. Let them call us extremists for it if they must. And if that really is the new definition of extremist, then so be it. I have done nothing to be ashamed of. In fact, I am proud of it.

Note: In a bizarre twist, when pushed on his "extremist" slander by Anne McGuire, Paul Maynard MP started angrily talking about special schools. This is strange because WeAreSpartacus has never had anything to do with this issue in any shape or form that I am aware of... Weird!