New figures on COVID deaths of younger disabled people ‘show need for vaccine action’
Younger disabled people are at a far higher risk of dying from coronavirus than non-disabled people the same age, even after allowing for factors such as underlying health conditions, according to previously unreported official figures.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures provide strong new evidence to persuade the government to rethink its “unforgivable” failure to ensure that younger disabled people are treated as a priority for the COVID-19 vaccination programme.
They also provide further evidence to support demands for an independent inquiry into the disproportionate deaths of disabled people during the pandemic.
Last month, widely-reported ONS figures on pandemic deaths of disabled people in England showed that disabled women with higher support needs (and aged between 30 and 100) were 40 per cent more likely to have died from COVID-19 than non-disabled women between 24 January and 20 November 2020.
This was after adjusting for factors such as underlying health conditions, or whether they lived in a care home or in a less affluent part of the country.
Disabled men with higher support needs – ONS describes them as “more-disabled”* – were 10 per cent more likely to die from COVID-19, after adjusting for all those factors.
But Disability News Service (DNS) has now confirmed with ONS that other data released last month** shows that younger disabled people were at an even higher risk of dying from COVID-19, in comparison with non-disabled people in the same age group.
The figures show that – after adjusting for health conditions and other factors – more-disabled women aged between 30 and 69 have been 60 per cent more likely to die from COVID-19 than non-disabled women in the same age group.
And more-disabled men aged between 30 and 69 have been 37 per cent more likely to die from COVID – after adjusting for health conditions and other factors – than non-disabled men in the same age group.
It has already been widely reported that disabled people have accounted for nearly three-fifths (59 per cent) of all COVID-related deaths during the pandemic, according to ONS.
Disabled campaigners hope the new figures will add to pressure on the government to ensure that younger disabled people are prioritised for the vaccine if they are not already viewed as either clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) to the virus (those in priority group four) or at higher risk of serious illness and death from COVID-19 (those in priority group six).
They say that the much higher risks faced by younger disabled people, in comparison with non-disabled people of the same age, means they must be prioritised for the vaccine.
Last month’s figures also showed the even higher risk faced by people with learning difficulties, with both men and women with a “medically diagnosed learning disability” 70 per cent more likely to die from COVID-19 than people without such an impairment, once all the various factors, including underlying health conditions, had been adjusted for.
The data on the difference in risk faced by younger and older people with learning difficulties is much less clear, but the figures show that people with learning difficulties of all adult ages remain at a far higher risk of death from COVID-19 than people without learning difficulties.
Freya Papworth, co-chair of the Women’s Equality Party’s disability and long-term health conditions caucus, said she had been “stunned” to hear that the latest stage of the vaccine rollout was going to continue by age, rather than disability and health.
She said: “The facts speak for themselves – disabled people are at a significantly higher risk of death, and we have heard hundreds of reports of people with chronic illnesses suffering an increase in their symptoms for months – for some, nearly a year – on from catching COVID.
“Our #LeftOffTheList campaign continues to collect signatures and stories from those who have been left in limbo – some rightly listed as CEV but not on the priority list, others desperately trying to get their condition recognised as being at higher risk.”
She added: “Too many young women in our women’s equality caucus have been left self-shielding without support, and with the added burden of having to advocate for themselves to their overworked and exhausted GPs.
“I would like to understand why, when we know that these women are 60 per cent more likely to die than their non-disabled contemporaries, the government still believes it’s right to vaccinate by age?
“I will watch my perfectly healthy partner, who has had a grand total of five sick days in the 10 years I’ve known him, get vaccinated before me as I am in my 30s and he is in his 40s, even though I am at much greater risk. How is that ‘following the science’?”
Fazilet Hadi, head of policy for Disability Rights UK, said the new figures “support calls for an independent inquiry into the deaths of disabled people”.
She accused the government of “playing catch up with safeguarding disabled people’s lives throughout the pandemic”.
She said: “The joint committee on vaccination and immunisation has compounded this, with its largely age-based vaccination roll out.
“More proactive action needs to be taken by the NHS, to ensure that all at-risk disabled people are protected, especially as new variants continue to emerge.
“Many disabled people in vaccination group four who are clinically extremely vulnerable, and those in group six with underlying health conditions, still remain unvaccinated.
“In addition, there are younger at-risk disabled people not covered by groups four or six, who should be actively approached by GPs and included in group six.
“Disabled people who feel that they are at greater risk from coronavirus should consider approaching their GP, to ask for inclusion in group six.”
DNS asked the Department of Health and Social Care if the ONS figures showed there should be an adjustment in the vaccine rollout strategy to ensure that younger disabled people were further prioritised, but it had not responded by noon today (Thursday).
It is not known what might be causing the underlying extra risk of death faced by disabled people, once health conditions and other factors have been accounted for, but ONS suggested in last month’s release that it could at least partly be due to unfair practices or even discrimination within the NHS.
ONS told DNS last month that the evidence it had produced “warrants further investigation”, although three key regulators – the Care Quality Commission, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence –refused to say if they would investigate the ONS concerns.
*ONS examines the impact on those who described themselves as disabled people in the 2011 census, either by saying they were “limited a little” (less-disabled) in their daily lives or “limited a lot” (more-disabled)
**The data is included in table six
4 March 2021
Atos pays out for negligent PIP assessment after visit from debt enforcement officers
A court has forced a discredited government contractor to pay £2,500 compensation to a disabled woman, after a negligent disability benefit assessment left her in debt and experiencing significant mental distress.
Atos, which failed to defend the case, originally ignored the order to pay the compensation awarded by the county court but was eventually forced to pay up after being visited by debt enforcement officers.
Rebecca*, from Stockton-on-Tees, had decided to seek compensation from Atos for negligence and a failure of its duty of care because of the two-year ordeal she was put through after a face-to-face personal independence payment (PIP) assessment in April 2018.
The assessment led to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) removing all her PIP daily living support, which meant she also lost linked benefits including severe disability premium and council tax discount, although she did continue to receive a payment for PIP mobility.
She and her partner, John, who had accompanied her to the assessment, had been astonished when they read the report written by the nurse who assessed her.
Rebecca had described in detail the impact on her daily life of epilepsy and a resulting heart condition, anxiety, depression and memory problems.
She had told the nurse how she cannot manage her own medication, needs independent living aids to dress and wash, forgets what she has read before finishing a passage, needs help to pay her bills, and becomes anxious when mixing with people she does not know.
But despite the oral and written evidence she provided, the nurse assessor awarded her zero points for the daily living component of PIP.
Fortunately, John had recorded the assessment using specialist equipment he had provided himself – although Atos had twice forced Rebecca to postpone the test because the assessor was apparently not “qualified” to be recorded – and he says the recording showed how the nurse repeatedly misreported the information she was told.
Despite the recording being available to DWP, a mandatory reconsideration confirmed the decision to remove the daily living part of Rebecca’s PIP claim.
The decision plunged her into debt and left her needing counselling.
When her case was finally heard by an appeal tribunal in December 2019, the panel listened to the recording of the assessment and compared it with the nurse’s written report, and found unanimously in Rebecca’s favour.
They restored her entitlement to the enhanced daily living component of PIP, and extended her award to 2023. She was already in the support group of employment and support allowance.
It was the third time Rebecca had been forced to appeal to a tribunal after an inaccurate Atos assessment and DWP decision on her claim.
She eventually received a payment from DWP for the arrears she was owed for unpaid PIP and severe disability premium.
Even then, she was called for another face-to-face assessment just days later, and had to rely on an intervention from her MP, Alex Cunningham, to secure an admission from DWP that her PIP award was now not due to end until 2023, and an apology “for any distress the confusion may have caused”.
Rebecca said this week that she was angry and frustrated at “having to explain every two to three years that my epilepsy is a chronic condition, with no known cure, and how it effects my day-to-day existence, while knowing that whatever I say I will once again have to go through another appeal and tribunal.
“The whole process of PIP assessments leaves me traumatised, humiliated, fearful and in a state of anxiety.”
She and her partner were so angry at the treatment she had received that they decided to seek damages through the county court system for the “mental distress, anxiety and hardship” the assessor had caused, and when Atos failed to defend the claim, the court awarded her compensation.
The court awarded her compensation at eight per cent of the arrears she had been owed, as well as another £1,000 in damages.
But Atos failed to pay the compensation and so John arranged for enforcement officers to visit the company’s offices in London.
The extra costs of paying for the enforcement officers meant Atos’s final bill for the negligent assessment reached about £4,500.
An Atos** spokesperson said this week: “We do not comment on individual cases.”
A DWP spokesperson declined to say if the case showed there were still problems with many assessors failing to carry out PIP assessments accurately and honestly, and with the overall PIP assessment system.
He also failed to say why the DWP decision-maker did not listen to the recording of the assessment at the mandatory reconsideration stage, even though Rebecca was claiming the assessor had lied in her assessment report.
He declined to apologise to Rebecca for her lengthy ordeal.
But he said in a statement: “We’re committed to making sure that people receive the support they are entitled to.
“Decisions are made using all the information that’s available to us at the time, including from a person’s GP or medical specialist.
“If someone disagrees with that decision then they have the right to ask for a review, as was the case here with [Rebecca].
“We have apologised to [Rebecca] for incorrectly scheduling a further assessment for her PIP claim. Her award remains in place until June 2023.”
John also lodged a complaint with the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC), but it has refused to launch a full investigation into the nurse’s conduct.
NMC told him the allegations were that the nurse had “failed to consider a substantial amount of medical evidence which had been provided, had failed to request any medical evidence and completed an incorrect assessment”, while her report was “negligently prepared” and she had “failed in her duty of care”.
It concluded that the allegations were so serious they could result in harm to patients if not put right.
But NMC was unable to obtain a copy of the recording of the assessment from Atos, while Rebecca’s copy had been destroyed by the tribunal after the hearing for data protection reasons.
NMC concluded that it was unable to prove the allegations and so would not investigate further.
John said he hoped the action they had taken would “do some good for some other person in the same position as Rebecca”.
He said: “Our last experience was just the last straw and I thought I’d have to try to do something about it.
“I feel many people who are successful at a tribunal would also be able to do this and get reimbursed for their poor treatment.
“If Atos or Capita had to be financially responsible for their actions, they may be a bit more particular with the process.”
Meanwhile, the minister for disabled people, Justin Tomlinson, has confirmed that Atos’s two PIP assessment contracts, and the contract for American outsourcing giant Maximus to carry out work capability assessments, will be extended until 2023 because of the pandemic.
DWP had been due to retender the contracts, with the successful providers due to take over from 1 August this year.
But Tomlinson told Vicky Foxcroft, the shadow minister for disabled people, on Monday that the “impact of COVID-19 meant that it was not possible to launch that procurement”.
This means, he said, that the Atos and Maximus contracts will be extended by two years, while negotiations were ongoing with Capita over a similar extension to its PIP assessment contract.
DWP published its intention to extend the contracts last July.
*Not her real name
**Atos delivers its PIP assessment contracts through Independent Assessment Services, a trading name of Atos IT Services UK
4 March 2021
Budget’s double blow to disabled people
The chancellor has delivered a double blow to disabled people after refusing to extend a vital £20-a-week social security “uplift” to those on so-called legacy benefits, and then failing to take any action to address the social care funding crisis.
In a budget speech of more than 6,300 words yesterday (Wednesday), Rishi Sunak did not mention disabled people, other than announcing he was extending existing funding for thalidomide survivors, and to announce £10 million to support armed forces veterans with mental health conditions.
But he failed to extend the uplift of £20 a week given to universal credit claimants at the start of the pandemic to those on “legacy” benefits such as employment and support allowance (see separate story).
This means that an estimated 1.9 million disabled people will continue to miss out on the £20-a-week payments.
Instead, Sunak said he was extending the current uplift for six months and claimed in his speech that the government’s “response to coronavirus has been fair, with the poorest households benefiting the most from our interventions”.
Marsha de Cordova, Labour’s shadow women and equalities secretary, said it was “unbelievable that the chancellor has once again neglected disabled people’s financial support”, and she branded the decision “unacceptable discrimination”.
Dr Rosa Morris, who has personal experience of the work capability assessment and has completed a PhD examining the assessment process and disability benefits, suggested that work and pensions ministers were trying to use the uplift to force people onto universal credit.
She said on Twitter: “It’s an absolute lie that the poorest households have benefited most from the government’s COVID support.
“Those on legacy benefits still aren’t getting the £20 uplift and the government are now trying to use this to force those people to move onto universal credit.”
The chancellor’s failure to act came as the government’s own social security advisers, the social security advisory committee, called in a new joint report with the Institute for Government, published the day before the budget, for the government to address this unfairness.
Stephen Timms, the Labour MP and chair of the Commons work and pensions select committee, also criticised the failure to help people on legacy benefits, including many disabled people and carers, who he said had received no additional support to help them through the pandemic.
He said: “In this budget, the government has once again ignored their needs.
“It cannot be acceptable that people are excluded from support simply because – through no fault of their own – they are claiming older benefits.”
There was also anger at Sunak’s speech failing to include any mention of social care, despite the pandemic further exposing the country’s worsening independent living crisis.
Fazilet Hadi, head of policy for Disability Rights UK, said: “With the National Disability Strategy soon to be published, it is seriously worrying that the government didn’t do anything to tackle the big issues facing disabled people such as poverty, lack of social care and barriers to employment.”
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said in his response to the budget: “Although the chancellor spoke for almost an hour, we heard nothing about a long-term plan to fix social care.
“The chancellor may have forgotten about it, but the Labour party never will.”
Last month’s health and social care white paper said the government would bring forward “proposals” later this year, but it has been making such pledges since promising that a social care green paper would be published by the end of 2017.
There was also no mention of social care in the main budget document.
The chancellor did announce a “lifetime commitment” to continue the thalidomide health grant in England beyond 2022-23 when the existing funding runs out.
This means, according to the budget document, an initial payment of £39 million for the first four years after the current grant runs out, with future funding then confirmed every four years “following an assessment of need”.
The funding pays for the cost of personalised support such as personal assistants, adaptations to homes and vehicles, and wheelchairs, for those with impairments caused by the drug being taken by their mothers during pregnancy between 1958 and 1961.
The funding is administered by the Thalidomide Trust, which also manages compensation paid by the firm that marketed thalidomide in the UK.
There are separate arrangements for thalidomiders in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There are more than 400 people in the UK who currently receive support.
Rowland Bareham, a thalidomider and chair of the trust’s National Advisory Council, said earlier this week, when the Treasury first announced the new funding: “I know that, like me, thalidomide survivors across England will be delighted and relieved that the government has guaranteed funding for their whole lives.
“Since it was introduced in 2010, the government health grant has made an enormous difference to the quality of our lives – helping us to manage our high levels of pain and maintain our mobility and independence without risking further damage.”
Disability News Service asked the Treasury why it had not extended the universal credit uplift to those on legacy benefits, and why the chancellor had failed to address the social care funding crisis in the budget, but it had not responded by noon today.
Meanwhile, outside the budget, regional growth minister Luke Hall announced today what he described as “a new £30 million fund” to increase the number of Changing Places facilities across England.
The funding will be used to install Changing Places toilets in existing buildings in England.
But Graham’s department later confirmed that this was the same Changing Places fund that was announced in last year’s budget, and again last July, when ministers agreed to change the law to ensure that all new large public buildings in England – such as shopping centres, sports stadiums and cinema complexes – would have to include a Changing Places accessible toilet.
The disability charity Muscular Dystrophy UK was quoted in the press release from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), and referred to “today’s announcement of £30m worth of funding” as “fantastic news for disabled people across England who need Changing Places toilets”.
The charity later admitted that it knew that the funding had been announced in last year’s budget, but it refused to explain why it failed to mention this in the MHCLG press release.
An MHCLG spokesperson said in a statement: “This is funding that the government originally announced in the March 2020 budget however due to COVID response and lock down it was not possible to deliver it in 2020.”
Changing Places toilets include facilities with extra space and equipment such as hoists and changing benches for disabled people who cannot use standard accessible toilets.
4 March 2021
Treasury rejects delivery of last-ditch appeals for £20 uplift
The Treasury and Downing Street have rejected deliveries of appeals from disabled people for ministers to pay attention to their urgent need for an increase in their benefits, after the evidence was delivered to their front doors.
Personal accounts from disabled people of how the pandemic has left them in desperate financial straits were delivered by courier to the Treasury, 10 Downing Street, and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).
The deliveries were part of Monday’s #20More4All day of action, organised by Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) with support from mainstream grassroots groups and unions*.
They were hoping for a last-minute change of mind from the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, who delivered his budget yesterday (Wednesday).
They reminded the chancellor that a £20-a-week uplift had been handed to universal credit recipients last March, at the start of the pandemic, but has never been extended to those on so-called legacy benefits, such as employment and support allowance (ESA).
Despite their efforts, Sunak failed to use the budget to extend the uplift to those on legacy benefits (see separate story).
This means that an estimated 1.9 million disabled people will continue to miss out on the £20-a-week payments.
Early in the crisis, work and pensions secretary Therese Coffey said that extending the uplift to those on legacy benefits like ESA and jobseeker’s allowance (JSA) would risk the “safety and the stability of the benefit system”.
She is now advising legacy claimants that they could switch to universal credit if they want to benefit from the uplift, even though many would be worse off under the new system.
Those in the ESA work-related activity group or on JSA are set to receive a rise of just 37p a week in April to help meet the annual increase in the cost of living, which, DPAC said, does not reflect the rising costs that disabled people have faced during the pandemic.
Copies of the testimonies from claimants of legacy benefits were delivered in postbags placed on empty wheelchairs, alongside items that represented the struggles that many disabled people are facing during the pandemic, including a blanket, an empty purse and an incontinence pad.
All three deliveries were rejected by the government departments, although DWP did accept a letter and a report collating the testimonies and other evidence that demonstrated the need for the uplift to be extended.
Many of the disabled people who described why the uplift was needed spoke of their “soaring food costs”, including the extra costs of needing to have food delivered during the pandemic, and how they have “to choose between eating and heating”.
One said: “I would be able to bathe more and have my heating on. And be able to eat three times a day instead of two times.”
Another said: “I would be able to afford all the toiletries and cleaning products that I need and buy second-hand clothes to replace the ones I have with holes in them.”
A third claimant said simply: “On chemo… need to eat properly.”
Another said: “The last year has been so tough, coping with illness during a pandemic, lockdowns and isolation have made me worse than I already was which is challenging enough, but not getting the uplift like those on universal credit just heaped on more stress as well as adding a sense of worthlessness and that you simply just don’t matter.
“Abandoned whilst hearing daily claims about throwing their arms around the whole nation and leaving no one behind, just so cruel and unjust.”
The testimonies had come in emails to DPAC and in response to a survey set up by DPAC Sheffield and disabled campaigner “Ben Claimant”, and another by the Unite Community union.
Linda Burnip, co-founder of DPAC, said the survey results showed how necessary the uplift was.
She said: “People, especially those in the work-related activity group [of ESA], who are being forced to live on a measly £74 a week, are being left to starve or freeze.
“Even in austerity-struck Tory Britain, this is totally unacceptable.”
Jennifer Jones, founder of DPAC Sheffield and herself on legacy benefits, said: “I cried reading the replies; so many people who feel just like me – forgotten, unwanted, or a burden – stated that they would wish the extra support for only the most basic necessities.
“To eat three meals a day, to be able to wash themselves and their clothes and to keep warm. We’re not asking for the moon on a stick. Support us to live.”
Ben Claimant, who is also on legacy benefits, said: “For me the comments quite clearly demonstrate how much the extra £20 is needed for the most basic of human needs.
“In a wealthy country, even after spending 10 years living through and being affected by austerity, it is deeply troubling that disabled people and families with dependent children are missing out on meals and cutting back on heating.”
A DPAC spokesperson had said on Monday: “The government often claims to protect what it calls ‘the most vulnerable’, but once again it is precisely those who are ‘most vulnerable’ whose needs are being ignored.
“This has created a two-tier social security system, giving the distinct impression that disabled people’s suffering is of no concern to this government.
“We’ve heard denials that the pandemic has led to extra costs for disabled people, so we thought we’d explain it in a very clear way.
“The response we got today demonstrates that the government has absolutely no interest in even knowing what the right thing to do for disabled people is.”
Disability News Service asked the Treasury why it had not extended the uplift to those on legacy benefits, but it had not responded by noon today.
*People Before Profit, Homes For All, The People’s Assembly, Unite Community and the National Education Union’s disabled members’ committee
4 March 2021
Anger over disability survey’s ‘degrading’ and ‘insulting’ relationship question
The government’s Disability Unit has caused widespread anger after asking non-disabled people – in a survey that will influence its new disability strategy – if they would be “happy to have a physical relationship with a disabled person”.
Disabled campaigners described the question as “downright degrading”, “insulting”, “appalling” and even “low level eugenic thinking”.
The survey was launched on 15 January and the responses received up until the end of last week are supposed to be influencing the government’s national disability strategy, which is expected to be published this spring.
More than 14,000 people have so far completed the survey, which has already led to a series of disabled-led letters to ministers from disability organisations and allies, criticising it for being rushed, inaccessible, over-long and poorly-planned.
But the anger and frustration with the government’s approach hit new heights this week after the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire asked on Twitter: “Why is this question being asked in the government’s survey which will help formulate their National Strategy for Disabled People?”
One of the letters already sent to ministers to raise concerns about the survey came from Bristol Disability Equality Forum (BDEF) and National Federation of the Blind of the UK (NFB UK)*.
BDEF’s Laura Welti and Sarah Leadbetter, NFB UK’s national campaigns officer, spoke to the BBC about the relationships question and the wider concerns about the survey this week.
Leadbetter told Disability News Service (DNS) later that the question was “disgusting” and showed the government’s “disdain”.
She said: “It shows that they do not value disabled people in society.
“It seems a very odd question to put into something that’s going to set out a framework for years to come for disabled people.”
She said: “Why is that question being asked? It should not be there in the first place.
“What has this got to do with having support and having accessible transport and getting out and about after COVID and making lives better for disabled people?”
Leadbetter said the survey was not well structured and had “not been put together properly” and was “not checked properly”.
She said the flawed survey shows that “the government have made up their minds before they get all the results in and they don’t really want to change anything for disabled people”.
A member of one of the government’s own regional stakeholder networks, Sam Margrave, was another who said he was “disgusted” by the question.
He said on Twitter: “I feel sick. It’s made me cry. Sickening.”
He told DNS later that he believed the problems were caused by the failure to embed disabled people and their voices at the heart of government.
He said: “I am concerned that the questions weren’t developed by disabled people. That there don’t seem to be disabled people leading this work.
“It’s not enough to just speak to disabled people, not that that’s happening – we need disabled people to be employed in the civil service and have a seat at the top table.”
Among others responding on social media was disabled journalist, actor and presenter Adam Pearson, who told ministers he was “assuming this is an error that ‘slipped though the cracks’ and you don’t intend to use this low level eugenic thinking to inform your disability strategy”.
Disabled author and campaigner Dr Amit Patel said the question was “downright degrading for disabled people” and was “actively accentuating the them Vs us narrative of disabled Vs non-disabled”.
Another disabled campaigner, Jon Attenborough, said: “I have no confidence in the UK government delivering a National Strategy for Disabled People not least because of absolutely appalling, inappropriate questions like this in their national survey.”
And the grassroots disabled people’s organisation Bristol Reclaiming Independent Living described the survey as “inaccessible, intrusive, and unethical”.
A government spokesperson said: “We have already received over 14,500 insightful and informative responses to the UK Disability Survey, with each answer helping to shape the National Strategy for Disabled People.
“This survey is one part of our extensive engagement programme. We have used a number of methods to ensure views of disabled people are reflected in the National Strategy.
“This includes ongoing discussions with over 200 organisations through forums, workshops and cross-cutting groups, as we gather as wide a range of views as possible.”
Asked if the question on relationships had now been removed, he said: “The question on relationships has not been removed and as with all questions within the survey, was developed to ensure that we gather as wide a range of direct insight and lived experience from disabled people, carers and the general public as possible.”
*So far, 120 organisations have supported the letter, and others can add their support here
4 March 2021
DWP brands DNS ‘vexatious’ for seeking truth about impact of universal credit
Disability News Service (DNS) has been branded “vexatious” for trying to secure a key unpublished Department for Work and Pensions document that could finally show how many disabled people are expected to lose out in the move to universal credit.
DNS has been trying for nearly 18 months to use the Freedom of Information Act to secure updated figures showing the true impact that universal credit will have on disabled people claiming benefits.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has issued contradictory statements and blocked attempts to force it to release “internal analysis” which it has admitted carrying out and which it has used to estimate how many disabled people would gain from the move to universal credit.
In its latest attempt to secure the information, DNS asked only for a copy of the internal analysis.
In its response, DWP described how the analysis was carried out, but failed to include a copy of the document.
When DNS asked the department to review its response, as it had not provided a copy of the analysis, it responded this week by branding the request “vexatious” and insisting that there was “no additional recorded information to respond to your request”.
This would mean that it has either destroyed its internal analysis, had lost it, or had failed to record it at all in a document.
It adds: “A request may be treated as vexatious, if compliance would create a significant burden in terms of expense and distraction, if a request is designed to cause disruption or annoyance, if a request can otherwise fairly be characterised as obsessive or manifestly unreasonable, or if the request has no serious purpose or value.”
It also makes clear that “it is the request which is treated as vexatious not the person making the request”.
And it describes the task that DWP staff are being asked to perform – providing a single document that has been referred to repeatedly in the House of Commons – as “grossly oppressive in terms of the strain on time and resources”.
It then adds that it is also treating every one of the previous freedom of information requests made by DNS on this subject as “vexatious”.
It is believed that hundreds of thousands of disabled people will lose out financially by the time the rollout of universal credit is complete.
Ministers including Therese Coffey and Justin Tomlinson have repeatedly claimed that around one million disabled households will receive a higher entitlement under UC than they would have received under the previous “legacy” benefits system.
But every time they repeat the figure, they fail to say how many disabled households are expected to receive a lower entitlement under UC.
The most recent DWP equality impact assessment, published nearly a decade ago, in November 2011, suggested that the number of disabled households gaining financially from UC would be at least matched by the number losing out (with about 800,000 households in each group), with disabled people who are out of work particularly likely to lose out.
But DWP recently told the Office for Statistics Regulation that the figure of one million households came from later “internal analysis carried out to look at the impacts of a proposed policy change”.
DWP is claiming that this analysis “did not estimate how many people would lose out in the move to Universal Credit”, but only those who would gain.
But despite DWP admitting the existence of this analysis, it has refused to release it.
4 March 2021
News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com
