Contents
Equality watchdog was told six years ago to launch inquiry into benefit deaths, but ignored advice 1
Disabled activists raise serious concerns over ‘toxic’ assisted suicide plans 7
Tories silent on why their ministers ‘sat on’ DWP research for six years 9
Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week 19
Equality watchdog was told six years ago to launch inquiry into benefit deaths, but ignored advice
The equality watchdog was first told by a senior member of staff six years ago that it needed to launch an inquiry into deaths linked to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), Disability News Service (DNS) can reveal.
But despite being shown significant evidence that the work capability assessment process and the sanctions system were linked with multiple deaths of disabled people claiming benefits, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) refused to act.
Instead, senior figures spent months discussing a proposal for an inquiry, and asking for that proposal to be redrafted.
A former senior EHRC staff member has told DNS this week that an inquiry was “never prioritised” by the commission when it clearly should have been.
DNS has spoken to Julie Jarman, who led on EHRC’s social security policy between November 2017 and March 2019, before later becoming its head of strategy.
It was her idea, after she joined EHRC, to launch an inquiry into deaths linked to DWP’s assessments and sanctions, particularly those claimants who had taken their own lives.
She believes the commission had all the evidence it needed to launch an inquiry in 2018, and that it could have forced DWP to produce secret reports that would have exposed the multiple flaws in the system that have continued to lead to deaths over the last six years.
Among that evidence would have been the secret peer reviews (later renamed internal process reviews) that DWP carries out when its actions are associated with the death of a claimant.
Between 2012 and 2022, DWP carried out more than 250 of these reviews, each of them written by DWP civil servants with access to the detailed circumstances in which a claimant had died.
The commission would have been able to analyse these reviews, as well as reports by coroners, evidence from families of those who died, and testimony from DWP civil servants and ministers.
Jarman said: “We knew about the peer reviews, and we knew we would have been able to access them.
“A statutory inquiry has a right to access that material.”
But Jarman told DNS that when she produced a written proposal to carry out an inquiry, she was repeatedly asked to redraft it.
She said: “I kept rewriting it and it kept being tossed backwards and forwards, and I would reword it again.
“At that time, that’s what they did if they didn’t really want to do something but they couldn’t find a good reason not to do it.”
She was never told that this was due to pressure from the Conservative government – which had by then appointed all the commission’s board members, and its chair – but she told DNS that senior staff were “nervous about rocking the boat”.
She said she was “really concerned” at the time because she knew from the evidence – much of it produced by DNS – that the links between DWP and the deaths of claimants were clear and needed full investigation.
Asked by DNS if an inquiry should have been prioritised by the commission in 2018, she said: “Of course it should have been. People were dying.”
In early 2019, the commission scrapped its work on social security, the area Jarman had been recruited to work on, and she moved instead into work on transport and education policy, before becoming the commission’s head of strategy.
EHRC was then prompted to look again at a possible inquiry in early 2020 after DNS reported on the death of Errol Graham, who starved to death after his employment and support allowance was wrongly stopped by DWP.
A few months later, the Covid pandemic meant EHRC had to put plans for an inquiry on hold and focus on health and social care, including the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on disabled people and other groups, such as people from an ethnic minority.
Jarman’s evidence means EHRC was being asked to launch an inquiry by its own policy expert a year before it began to receive letters from Labour MP Debbie Abrahams in 2019 to ask it to investigate deaths linked to its disability assessment processes.
It also confirms the commission’s continuing resistance to launching a proper, in-depth inquiry into the years of deaths linked to DWP’s actions and systems.
Jarman was a delegate to last month’s Labour party conference.
She asked Sir Stephen Timms, the party’s new social security and disability minister, at a conference fringe event if he believed there should be an independent regulator and service standards for the social security system, taking the role that Ofsted plays in education.
She told DNS this week that there was a shocking contrast between the expectations of service-users in the NHS and education and those in social security.
She said: “You have a sense that they have a duty to provide you with as good a service as they can – and that they have a duty of care – in education and the NHS, and that is simply not the case when it comes to welfare.”
Jarman welcomed the commission’s decision, earlier this year, finally to launch an investigation into DWP’s alleged unlawful treatment of benefit claimants under the Equality Act through the way it carries out work capability assessments and assessments for personal independence payment.
But she said: “The shame is that this could and should have been done six years ago, and action taken then might have prevented subsequent deaths.”
After seeing Jarman’s evidence, Linda Burnip, co-founder of Disabled People Against Cuts, told DNS: “It is disgusting that a commission supposed to protect the human rights of disabled people behaved in such an underhand way to avoid investigating deaths caused by DWP’s actions.
“They really aren’t fit for purpose.”
Mark Harrison, a member of the Reclaiming Our Futures Alliance (ROFA) steering group, said: “ROFA has been demanding the EHRC takes legal action against the DWP for the last four years for benefit-related deaths.
“Instead of taking decisive action to prevent more unnecessary and preventable deaths the EHRC have fobbed us off saying they were negotiating a section 23 agreement with DWP.
“We believed this was nothing more than a smokescreen for doing nothing and preventing any information being released.
“We suspected that the DWP would never sign such an agreement, we told the EHRC this, and we have been proved right.
“This demonstrates that the EHRC cannot be trusted to protect the rights of disabled people.
“We need a complete reset of our equalities legislation and accountable bodies.
“We need an independent human rights organisation which actually holds government to account.
“The jury is very much out if we will see any change in the EHRC or the DWP or progress under the new Labour administration.”
Activists have criticised the commission because the investigation it launched earlier this year will not take evidence from families, and it will only focus on events from January 2021 onwards.
The focus on just the last three-and-a-half years will mean the investigation may not consider evidence relating to some of the most high-profile and disturbing deaths linked to DWP’s failures, such as those of Philippa Day (September 2019), Jodey Whiting (February 2017), Michael O’Sullivan (September 2013), Roy Curtis (November 2018) and Errol Graham (spring 2018).
And it is also likely to mean a focus on the actions of just three work and pensions secretaries: Therese Coffey, Chloe Smith (who was in post for less than two months in 2022) and Mel Stride, who was in post at the time of July’s general election.
EHRC refused to comment this week on its failure to launch an inquiry in 2018, or on whether it regretted failing to act at the time.
But an EHRC spokesperson said in a statement: “In May 2024 we launched an investigation into the Department for Work and Pensions, due to concerns that the department may be failing to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people with learning disabilities or long-term mental health conditions during health assessment determinations.
“We are also assessing the department’s compliance with the public sector equality duty using our powers under section 31 of the Equality Act 2006.
“The investigation’s call for evidence closed in August and our investigators are now carefully assessing all the evidence received.
“We are grateful to all those that shared their evidence with us.
“As an independent and evidence-led regulator, we have a duty to assess all the information available to us.
“An investigation is the strongest possible action we can take and is not undertaken lightly.
“We have been working on this matter for a number of years, but in line with section six of the Equality Act 2006, details of our interactions with the DWP prior to and during the investigation are confidential.”
*The Department: How a Violent Government Bureaucracy Killed Hundreds and Hid the Evidence, John Pring’s book on the deaths linked to DWP, is published by Pluto Press
10 October 2024
Labour minister refuses to release three documents linked to DWP deaths, despite transparency pledge
A minister is refusing to release three documents that link the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) with the deaths of benefit claimants, despite criticising DWP only last month for “absurdly” refusing to comply with similar freedom of information requests.
Sir Stephen Timms, Labour’s minister for social security and disability, is defending his decision to keep secret a critically-important report on the impact of DWP errors on disabled claimants, and two other documents that link his new department with multiple deaths.
His decision not to release the information comes less than a month after he told Disability News Service (DNS) at Labour’s party conference that the new government needed to “open up what is going on in the Department for Work and Pensions to public scrutiny”.
He told DNS last month: “The department has absurdly refused to answer lots of the [freedom of information] questions that you have asked and that is something that we want to change… because public scrutiny is a good thing, and it puts pressure on ministers and on civil servants to have the consequences of what they are doing known about publicly.”
Both he and Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, criticised successive Conservative governments this week for hiding 31 DWP research papers, some of them for up to six years (see separate story).
Kendall told MPs that under her leadership DWP would “be honest about the problems that the country faces”, while Sir Stephen said the decision to release the papers was “a vital first step in rebuilding the trust in the department that was so shattered by the culture of secrecy, obfuscation and cover-up by Conservative ministers”.
He made those comments even though he is preventing the release of three key documents that link his new department with the deaths of disabled claimants.
Among those documents is a secret report, produced in 2022 by the previous government, that details the impact of DWP errors on “vulnerable customers”.
The report contains “worst case scenario” information about the impact of DWP’s errors, which it is desperate to keep hidden from the public as it could have “a negative reputational impact” on the department.
The information commissioner ordered DWP to release the report last November, arguing that there was a “strong public interest in understanding DWP’s approach to preventing future errors and safeguarding issues”.
DWP appealed that decision, and the case will now be heard by the information rights tribunal.
Despite his criticism of the department’s lack of transparency under Conservative leadership, Sir Stephen has dismissed the information commissioner’s ruling and insists there are “good public interest reasons” for refusing to release the report.
He is refusing to order DWP to halt the tribunal, which will cost thousands of pounds of public money, but he now plans to contact the commissioner about the case.
The second document contains recommendations made between 2020 and 2023 by DWP’s secret internal process reviews, following deaths linked to its actions and failings and connected to its much-criticised universal credit system.
DWP appealed against a decision in July this year by the information commissioner that it should release the recommendations.
The department has previously argued that the “ad hoc release” of the information would “only serve to increase” the “misconceptions” and “incorrect views” held by the “general public”.
Sir Stephen has suggested that DWP will release this information “hopefully by the end of the year” – the department made a similar argument last December when it claimed it intended to publish them “at a future date” – but he has refused to halt the tribunal, a decision that will again cost thousands of pounds of public money.
And in a third transparency failure, he has refused to order his department to release information that would show what recommendations have been made to improve the work capability assessment (WCA) in the last five years, following the deaths of claimants.
He offered no defence of this decision, stating only: “I note you will be seeking a final review.”
The information about the WCA and its links with claimant deaths will be crucial as the new Labour government is likely soon to publish its own plans for the assessment, either in the next few weeks or in the spring.
When DNS asked DWP to explain the three refusals, in the light of Sir Stephen’s comments at the Labour conference, the department refused to comment.
But it did provide a background briefing note which said Sir Stephen was requesting that DNS clarifies the remarks he made at the conference to make it clear that he was referring to the previous government and not to DWP.
When DNS pointed out that his remarks had clearly referenced both “the department” and DWP “civil servants”, Sir Stephen said in an email that he was “referring to what the department was doing under the instructions of former Ministers”.
That was not made explicit in the comments he made at the conference.
Backtracking further from his conference comments, he then claimed that it “makes no sense to criticise the department when its decisions are made by Ministers”.
DNS pointed out that documents uncovered by DNS editor John Pring from the National Archives showed clearly how senior civil servants have been right at the heart of the “bureaucratic violence” inflicted on disabled claimants of benefits over the last three decades*.
DWP had not apologised for the incorrect briefing by noon today (Thursday).
*The Department: How a Violent Government Bureaucracy Killed Hundreds and Hid the Evidence, by John Pring, is published by Pluto Press
10 October 2024
Disabled activists raise serious concerns over ‘toxic’ assisted suicide plans
Disabled activists have raised serious concerns about “toxic” and “outrageously cruel” plans to bring forward a bill to legalise assisted suicide in England and Wales.
Labour MP Kim Leadbeater announced that she would soon be introducing a bill to the House of Commons that will seek to legalise assisted suicide for those who are terminally-ill.
As she came first in the ballot to introduce private members’ bills, she will be given priority with making progress with her proposed legislation, which will be introduced on Wednesday (16 October).
This could mean MPs being given a free vote on her bill by the end of the year.
But even as Leadbeater dismissed concerns that her bill could lead to a “slippery slope”, which would see it expanded to other groups, it emerged that more than 50 cross-party MPs are already pushing for eligibility to be widened to those who are “incurably suffering”.
Opposition to Leadbeater’s bill is already mounting among disabled people.
Among them is Freya Papworth, who supported legalised euthanasia before she became disabled, and considered it “nothing more than an individual’s right to choose their own death if faced with terminal pain and suffering”.
But she added: “Now that I am disabled and have spent time with other disabled people campaigning for basic rights, I cannot support the rather euphemistic ‘assisted dying’ bill.
“This country has been found to have committed human rights abuses against its disabled population due to the terrible consequences of decades of cuts to social welfare and social care.
“There is no safety net to provide an alternative to pain and suffering and so there is not a chance that disabled people won’t be coerced into this.
“As we have seen in other countries, it is mostly disabled women – already at double the risk of domestic violence – who are ‘choosing’ to die this way and yet no-one is offering a robust solution to how we safeguard against medical and familial coercion.”
Not Dead Yet UK (NDY UK), which leads disabled people’s opposition to legalisation in the UK, said it was “deeply concerned about the upcoming debate on the private members’ bill that would legalise assisted suicide in the United Kingdom.
“While proponents argue that this legislation would provide individuals with greater autonomy and choice at the end of life, we believe it poses significant risks to disabled people and other vulnerable populations.”
Among its concerns, NDY UK pointed to the risk of “coercion and pressure on disabled individuals to end their lives prematurely”; the impossibility of ensuring watertight safeguards; the need instead to focus on provision of universal access to high-quality palliative and social care; and how legalisation would “undermine trust in the doctor-patient relationship, particularly for disabled individuals and others who already feel their lives are undervalued by society”.
NDY UK also warned of the “slippery slope” argument, as several other states and countries that have introduced assisted suicide initially only for those who were terminally-ill have later expanded it to allow it for people “with chronic illnesses, disabilities, anorexia and mental health conditions”.
Dr Miro Griffiths, co-director of the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds, although not speaking for the centre, said: “Any bill that proposes assisted suicide remains toxic and detrimental to the realisation of accessible and inclusive societies.”
Griffiths, speaking on behalf of the Better Way campaign, which opposes legalising assisted suicide, said Leadbeater could have used the opportunity of coming top of the ballot to try to improve provision of palliative care and hospice resources.
Focusing on assisted suicide instead, he said, would “further compound inequalities experienced by disabled people’s communities and individuals with health conditions.
“It will, also, destabilise approaches to suicide prevention.
“The state should never have a role in facilitating and – arguably – accelerating one’s death.”
The disabled people’s organisation Buckinghamshire Disability Service (BuDS) called on Leadbeater to withdraw her bill once it has had its first debate in the Commons, so there can be a Royal Commission on assisted suicide before any legislative changes are considered.
Andrew Clark, chair of BuDS, said: “As things stand, BuDS on behalf of disabled people strongly opposes any change to the law around assisted suicide.
“What we are seeing is a rush to change the law driven entirely by a multi-million-pound lobbying campaign by two or three organisations with a very strong ideological commitment to assisted suicide.
“Social media is full of slick statements; assisted suicide lobbyists attended all the party conferences; and MPs are being bombarded with campaign letters supporting assisted suicide.
“This is not the way to make a profound and difficult change to the law on murder and assisted suicide.”
He added: “BuDS, like many other organisations, demands a more thorough and comprehensive examination of all the issues around assisted suicide, and proper research into how people feel about it.
“The views of disabled people, who are most likely to be the victims of assisted suicide, have to be clearly heard and given due weight.”
Others expressing their opposition have included disabled Labour MP Marsha de Cordova, who said on Twitter: “Disabled activists urge Parliament to vote against the Assisted Dying Bill.
“Their real and legitimate fears must not be ignored.”
Disabled actor-activist Liz Carr, whose critically-acclaimed documentary about assisted suicide, Better Off Dead?, was broadcast on BBC1 in May, said on Twitter: “I made my BBC documentary Better Off Dead? to explain why me and many other disabled people oppose legalising assisted suicide.
“Some of us have very real fears based on our lived experience and based on what has happened in other countries where it’s legal.”
Disabled People Against Cuts also attacked the idea of the bill on Twitter, saying that pushing such legislation before the new Labour government had even talked publicly about disabled people and disability benefits was “outrageously cruel”.
And disabled journalist and author Lucy Webster said on Twitter: “Labour might want to think about the fact that the first thing it’s doing about disabled people is debate whether the state should be allowed to help us die.”
Last month, Labour’s health and social care secretary Wes Streeting said he did not believe that end-of-life care in England and Wales was good enough that terminally-ill people would not feel “coerced by the lack of support available” if assisted suicide was legalised.
Meanwhile, politicians in Scotland, Jersey and the Isle of Man are also considering legalising assisted suicide.
10 October 2024
Tories silent on why their ministers ‘sat on’ DWP research for six years
The Conservative party has refused to explain why its former ministers “sat on” vital research papers for up to six years while running the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).
Labour’s new work and pensions secretary, Liz Kendall, this week published 31 papers that had been commissioned by DWP under Conservative-led governments, but which she said were “hidden” and never released.
The papers covered key issues such as benefit assessments, universal credit, and pensions.
Many of the reports drew clear conclusions that the last two governments would not have wanted to be publicised.
One paper that has been “sat on” by DWP examines the barriers faced by universal credit (UC), employment and support allowance (ESA) and personal independence payment (PIP) claimants in accessing support with their health.
This paper found that mental ill-health was “the biggest apparent unmet health support need for this group”.
It found that claimants “without reliable support networks reported challenges in managing their health effectively”, but it warned that any support offered or signposted by DWP “must have no strings attached – it should be entered into voluntarily and not be seen to have any sway over an individual’s benefit claim”.
It concluded that it was “clear from the research” that parts of the claims process – the application and the assessment – “can cause challenges for claimants, which can have an impact on their health”.
A paper by the social research agency NatCen, which analysed the “health, social and economic profile” of ESA claimants, used data from the government’s 2014 Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey dataset.
It found that ESA claimants in 2014 “were worse off than people in employment across almost every aspect of life examined”, while the findings “highlight the importance of awareness among Jobcentre Plus staff that this is a population reporting high levels of stress, in which confidence was low and anxiety high”.
More than half of the ESA claimants struggled with performing three or more activities of daily living, such as being able to wash, dress, take medications and get out and about.
And most ESA claimants were so poor that they were not able to save £10 a month, the report found.
The paper, which is believed to be more than four years old – and therefore preceded both the pandemic and the cost-of-living crisis – found that about one in five ESA claimants reported being cold at home during the winter, and that ESA claimants were more than three times more likely to experience this than people in employment.
A research paper that examined the experiences of disabled people who applied for PIP, but received zero points after being assessed for their eligibility, exposed how the “degrading” system and dishonest and unfair assessments left them “broken”, “numb” and “fuming” (see separate story).
Another paper suppressed by DWP examined why some people chose not to claim universal credit when they were eligible.
The paper, which is likely to be about two years told, found that for almost half (44 per cent) of those on “legacy” benefits such as ESA “paid work will not be a realistic goal even with support”.
It also found: “Those who are not currently able to work also fear that UC would result in them being pushed into work they are not ready for.”
One piece of research, probably about two years old, looked at UC claimants and those on legacy benefits such as ESA who had non-DWP debts.
Many of those interviewed had regularly borrowed money from friends and family to pay for food and bills, the report found.
The average amount of debt owed by UC claimants was about £4,700, with nearly all those in debt saying they had experienced anxiety and stress as a result, and many “specifically mentioning suicidal thoughts”.
Another report showed that using healthcare professionals with specialised knowledge about a claimant’s particular impairment or health condition – which is not currently standard practice – led disabled people “to report that they would feel more at ease during their health assessments”.
And a paper reviewing the effectiveness of the digitalisation of services – probably completed in 2022 – warns that such processes “may lead to more inequality” among claimants, while “DWP should ensure that vulnerable populations at the precarious end of the digital divide are not further excluded from the services that they were using prior to digitalisation”.
Another paper, probably hidden from public view for about a year, describes how the application and assessment process for disability benefits could be improved for claimants with fluctuating conditions.
Asked why Conservative ministers stopped releasing many DWP research papers from 2018 onwards – under work and pensions secretaries Esther McVey, Amber Rudd, Therese Coffey, Chloe Smith and Mel Stride – the party had failed to comment by noon today (Thursday) and refused to even acknowledge emails from Disability News Service requesting a comment.
Sir Stephen Timms, Labour’s new social security and disability minister, said the policy of the last government had been to publish all commissioned research reports within 12 weeks of receiving them.
He told MPs: “That policy was complied with until 2018, when ministers stopped complying with it, so we have had to publish all these reports today.”
He said Kendall’s announcement was “a vital first step in rebuilding the trust in the department that was so shattered by the culture of secrecy, obfuscation and cover-up by Conservative ministers”.
But his comments were overshadowed this week by his own refusal to release three separate sets of written information linked to the deaths of disabled benefit claimants (see separate story).
Asked by Disability News Service to explain why it stopped publishing many research papers within 12 weeks of receiving them, from 2018 onwards, a DWP spokesperson refused to comment.
10 October 2024
Research ‘sat on’ by DWP exposed how ‘degrading’ PIP system left disabled people ‘numb’ and ‘broken’
Research suppressed by the last government exposed how the “degrading” personal independence payment (PIP) system and its dishonest and unfair assessments left disabled people “broken”, “numb” and “fuming”.
The research, commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), examined the in-depth experiences of 29 disabled people who received zero points after being assessed for their PIP eligibility.
The report, by the research agency Basis Social, which was probably delivered to DWP about a year ago, is one of 31 research papers received by DWP over the last six years but not published by previous Conservative-led governments (see separate story).
The PIP report found that the most common reaction from the disabled people interviewed to beginning an application for the extra-costs disability benefit was one of feeling “overwhelmed”.
One of those interviewed, who had ME, and spent all but half an hour every day in bed, took three months to fill out his PIP claim form, but he said that when he tried to explain more about his case to the assessor, he was “cut off”.
Like all the interviewees, he was given zero points and so was found ineligible for any support with his disability-related costs.
Another of those interviewed was given no advance notice of her assessment and had to complete it outside the fast-food restaurant where she worked.
She had experienced historic trauma, but the assessor only asked her about her anxiety.
On learning she had received zero points, despite opening up about her traumatic past and the impact it had had on her mental health, she told researchers that she felt “numb” and that none of the information on her PIP form had been taken into account.
A disabled man with multiple sclerosis, who again received zero points, told researchers: “I felt personally that by me being completely open and honest about bad and good days I really thought that I would get a fair assessment out of it.
“They [the assessor] gave me the perception that they understood that, and it would be taken into consideration; but clearly it wasn’t.”
A woman with PTSD told the researchers: “The whole process is degrading. It feels like people are judging you and that the system is set up to refuse people.”
Another disabled person awarded zero points told the researchers that he would not appeal the zero points decision because he had been left feeling “broken”.
An autistic woman said the zero points had left her “fuming”.
She said: “I went down there, gave an interview and in confidence told her that I struggle with basic things and then for her to say I don’t need any support was kind of like a slap in the face.”
Another interviewee said he had struggled to communicate how being autistic, with depression and anxiety, impacted his day-to-day life, because the assessor had been “unsympathetic and intimidating”.
He said he had been “furious” when the decision letter arrived.
He believed the assessment report contradicted the medical evidence he had submitted.
The researchers concluded: “When reflecting on what they wished they had done differently, participants wished that they had sought support, provided (more) evidence, made their case fully, and were more directive in their assessment.
“They also wished for the ability to choose the channel of their assessment (eg phone, video or face-to-face), and to speak with someone throughout the process.”
Asked why Conservative ministers stopped releasing many DWP research papers from 2018 onwards – under work and pensions secretaries Esther McVey, Amber Rudd, Therese Coffey, Chloe Smith and Mel Stride – the party had failed to comment by noon today (Thursday) and refused to even acknowledge emails from Disability News Service requesting a comment.
Liz Kendall, announcing the publication of the PIP paper and 30 others on Monday, told MPs they had been “sat on by the previous government”.
Asked by Disability News Service to explain why it failed to publish the 31 papers under the last government, a DWP spokesperson refused to comment.
10 October 2024
Kendall’s comments show new bill to order banks to ‘spy’ on benefit claimants will be based on Tory plans
Comments by Labour’s work and pensions secretary have confirmed that “farcical” and “prejudicial” plans for a new fraud bill – ordering banks to “spy” on the bank accounts of benefit claimants – will be based on draft laws prepared by the last government.
A comparison between a written statement on anti-benefit fraud measures made this week by Liz Kendall, and a press release issued by the Conservative government in November 2023, shows striking similarities.
Disabled activists warned yesterday (Wednesday) that the government’s plan “upends presumption of innocence and our privacy rights” and “does not respect the privacy of benefit claimants”.
They warned earlier this year that the Conservative plans would treat disabled people like criminals and further erode trust in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).
Those measures – which would almost certainly have involved the use of artificial intelligence – would have given DWP powers to force banks to scan all their accounts to find people receiving benefits.
The banks would then have had to report anyone who triggered what were seen as potential indicators of fraud to DWP.
Under current rules, DWP can only request details of a bank account holder’s transactions if there are reasonable grounds to suspect them of fraud.
Kendall told MPs this week in a written statement of Labour’s plans for a new fraud, error and debt bill.
This statement appears to confirm fears by disabled activists and allies such as Big Brother Watch that Labour’s plans would replicate those of the last government.
Kendall told MPs that the new bill would “require banks and financial institutions to examine their own data sets to highlight where someone may not be eligible for the benefits they are being paid”, which would “help DWP identify incorrect payments, prevent debts from accruing for the claimant and help identify where there may be fraudulent activity”.
And she insisted that banks “will only share very minimal information, and this will only be used by DWP to support further inquiry, if needed, into a potential overpayment”.
Last November, a Conservative-led government’s press release said its legislation would “allow regular checks to be carried out on the bank accounts held by benefit claimants to spot increases in their savings which push them over the benefit eligibility threshold”, which would “help identify fraud [and] take action more quickly”.
The government insisted then that “only a minimum amount of data will be accessed and only in instances which show a potential risk of fraud and error”.
Kendall also said this week that the measures would be “legal, proportionate and targeted” and would “safeguard taxpayers’ money”.
Last November, Sir John Whittingdale, the minister for data and digital infrastructure, told MPs that the Conservative proposals were “targeted and limited” and would enable DWP to “save the taxpayer a significant amount of money”.
Yesterday, Rick Burgess, a spokesperson for Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People (GMCDP), which campaigned against the last government’s proposals, said: “We reject the idea that mass algorithmic spying on people receiving benefits is proportionate.
“It also upends presumption of innocence and our privacy rights.
“It is treating disabled people on benefits as an already suspect population which is clearly a prejudicial perspective.
“The DWP remains an unsafe institution; that is the prime issue the secretary of state should be addressing.”
Caroline Collier, from Inclusion Barnet’s Campaign for Disability Justice, said Kendall’s statement “seems to confirm our earlier concerns”.
She said: “It does not respect the privacy of benefit claimants, who are disproportionately likely to be disabled.
“It is an intrusive and unnecessary measure – and bound to be error-prone, causing benefit suspension, hardship and debt.
“The basic right to privacy expected by people in the UK should be respected unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed.
“Random fishing expeditions are unacceptable.”
The civil liberties campaign organisation Big Brother Watch, which has led opposition to the proposals of both the Conservative and Labour governments, said it appeared from Kendall’s statement that Labour’s plans would closely mirror those of the last government.
Susannah Copson, legal and policy officer for Big Brother Watch, said: “Liz Kendall’s statement does nothing to assuage concerns over Labour’s resurrection of Tory plans to spy on the nation’s bank accounts – plans they resisted in opposition just months ago.
“However, this U-turn puts Labour on course to decimate privacy rights in the UK.
“Millions of innocent people will be dragged into the net of algorithmic surveillance but it’s particularly disabled people, carers and countless others on the poverty line that will face the threat of intrusive investigations and even wrongful benefit suspension when these systems go wrong.
“The government should learn lessons from the Horizon scandal, not risk replicating it with those in our social security system – they must drop these surveillance plans for good.”
Mikey Erhardt, policy and campaigns officer for Disability Rights UK, said it was “farcical for the Labour government to be resurrecting Conservative legislation that was roundly defeated during the last parliament.
“The minister’s statement confirms that yet again, we are living under a government pursuing ever more surveillance of our lives, another government happy to gamble [with] our lives by subjecting us to increased benefit sanctions and reduced rights.
“Disabled and working-class people deserve better than the risk of our vital support being wrongfully suspended, forcing us to deal with laborious appeals processes.
“The problems with this new bill go far beyond the reach of any new technology – they come directly from how those working in Westminster look at our social security system.
“Instead of seeing the social security system as an essential public service they see costs that, unlike disabled people, they can avoid paying.”
10 October 2024
DaDa’s 40th anniversary arts festival will be ‘rage-filled’ demonstration of battle for disability equality
A disability arts organisation that became an “international game-changer” is to celebrate its 40th anniversary with a “rage”-filled international festival programme, to demonstrate how disabled people still often face neglect and discrimination.
DaDa has chosen “RAGE” as the theme for next year’s DaDaFest International 40 festival, after disabled artists spoke of their frustration at the “continued uphill battle for equity and inclusion”.
Zoe Partington, DaDa’s interim chief executive, said too many decisions were “still taken without involving disabled people”, who were often “neglected, ignored and discriminated against at the highest levels”.
She pointed to “huge” waiting-lists for Access to Work; the lack of accessible transport; a failure to provide mental health support for people with chronic health conditions; and continuing problems with disability benefits assessments.
But she also pointed to failures within the arts and culture sector, which was “still not employing disabled people at every level”, and had funding systems so “onerous you need a PhD to fill the forms in”.
Partington said disabled artists and disabled communities were “raging that the gaps in society are still so wide, and we are still so far from equity and representation at all levels in art, culture and heritage”.
DaDa is now celebrating 40 years of “artistic excellence, activism, advocacy, creativity, collaboration, conversation and celebration”, she said.
Liverpool-based DaDa was founded by John McGrath and Mandy Colleran in 1984 as Arts Integrated Merseyside, then a branch of Shape Arts, before it became the independent North West Disability Arts Forum (NWDAF) in 1986 and was then renamed DaDa in 2008.
DaDaFest was launched in 2001 to promote disabled artists in mainstream venues and present their work as having equal artistic value and political and social impact, and featured artists from across the UK, and soon also attracted international artists.
It also worked to remove barriers for disabled audience members by offering British Sign Language translation, audio description, and support with transport to and from venues.
Among its successes have been supporting Liverpool City Council on policies around access to services and transport; helping ensure the redevelopment of Liverpool’s Everyman led to it becoming one of the most accessible theatres in the country; working with the city’s Unity Theatre for more than 20 years on changing perceptions of disabled artists; and sharing expertise internationally, most recently on projects in Indonesia and Brazil.
Ruth Fabby, the charity’s former long-serving chief executive and artistic director, and now a DaDa patron, said DaDaFest had caused a “cultural shift” across Liverpool’s arts venues, but also “quickly became an international game changer for disability and Deaf arts”.
She told Disability News Service that DaDaFest allowed “great and risky work informed by the living experience of disability, with the underlining principle that ‘no-one’ should be unable to access the arts”, with “effort, planning and budget” invested to ensure access was “a creative priority”.
Fabby, now an arts consultant, performer and writer, said: “The festival showcased the work of artists who were unable to get into the usual venues, creating opportunities for so many, from [actor and broadcaster] Liz Carr, [comedian and writer] Laurence Clark to [dancer and choreographer] Claire Cunningham.
“I didn’t realise how we led with this until I visited another [US] disability arts festival and saw access was by and large not even considered.”
Across 13 DaDaFests since 2001, other artists featuring in the festivals have included musician Dame Evelyn Glennie, comedian Francesca Martinez, poet Amina Atiq, theatre-maker and comedian Jess Thom, artists Tony Heaton and Rachel Gadsden, and artist-activists Bobby Baker and Liz Crow.
International artists have come from countries such as Indonesia, India, Mali, Congo and South Africa.
Partington said DaDa wanted its festival to “continue to provide an equal, radical and open space for artists to flourish, share work and debate the solutions to the issues we face together through artistic excellence, expression and engagement, to offer valuable networking opportunities for disabled artists… [and] provide a high-profile UK platform exclusively for new and existing work by disabled artists and activists”.
DaDaFest International 40 will run from 8 to 31 March 2025.
10 October 2024
DWP sets strict April 2025 universal credit deadline for all disabled people receiving tax credits
Disabled people who receive any kind of tax credits will only have until next April to transfer onto universal credit, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) confirmed this week.
The department announced this week that all claimants of “legacy” income-related benefits who receive tax credits – including child tax credits – will have three months from when they receive a migration notice to lodge a claim for universal credit.
But it also warned that all tax credit “customers” would have to move onto universal credit by 5 April next year, when tax credits will close for good.
Many of these claimants will receive child tax credits as well as other “legacy” benefits such as income-related employment and support allowance (ESA), jobseeker’s allowance or income support.
Although all these legacy claimants will be given three months to make a claim for universal credit, DWP has previously made it clear that it will extend the deadline for individual claimants if they can provide a good reason.
But those deadlines will not extend past 5 April 2025.
DWP made it clear to Disability News Service (DNS) this week that all such claimants – including many who receive both ESA and child tax credits – would have to meet the 5 April deadline.
But DWP also confirmed that the migration process would be slower for those not receiving any form of tax credits.
It said it did not plan to finish issuing migration notices to all claimants of legacy benefits until December 2025, with a final deadline for all households to move to universal credit by March 2026, about 18 months away.
Sir Stephen Timms, Labour’s social security and disability minister, called on claimants of legacy benefits to not “delay with responding to your migration notice”.
He said: “We are committed to ensuring a smooth transition and customers will have the full support of DWP staff to help manage this change.”
The continuing push to complete the final migration of legacy benefit claimants onto universal credit comes as concerns continue to mount about the new system’s safety.
This week, work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall released 31 DWP research papers that were “sat on” by the last government.
They include research, likely to be about two years old, which showed that those eligible for universal credit who chose not to claim it “fear that UC would result in them being pushed into work they are not ready for”.
The concerns about universal credit include reports by coroners following two deaths of claimants that were both linked to flaws in the system, and particularly the pressure it puts on people in mental distress and those with mental ill-health.
The PCS union has described universal credit as a “dangerously flawed system” in which “the most vulnerable continue to slip through its cracks”.
DNS reported in May how a survey by the Commons work and pensions committee – then chaired by Sir Stephen – found two-thirds of DWP staff still do not have enough time to deal with safeguarding concerns “carefully” and “correctly”, despite years of deaths of benefit claimants linked with the department’s actions and failings.
And last month, Sir Stephen told DNS at Labour’s annual conference that there were “features of universal credit which are problematic, and they need to be fixed”.
He said there were problems with universal credit that DNS was “rightly highlighting, and that you have highlighted very consistently over a lengthy period now and have frequently been denied by the department, but they have carried on happening”.
He added: “I think you’ve been onto something very important.”
10 October 2024
Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week
It is “high time” to axe outdated language and contradictory rules from laws on disabled children’s social care, according to a minster. The Law Commission, which was asked by the government to review the laws in England, has now launched a consultation. Children and families minister Janet Daby said: “It’s high time that outdated and offensive language and confusing and contradictory rules are axed from our legal system for good – saving social workers hugely valuable time that can be better spent improving families’ experiences.”: https://www.localgov.co.uk/Time-to-axe-contradictory-care-laws-minister-says/61258
Almost all the care homes shut down for endangering children or “vulnerable” adults were run to make a profit, according to a study examining the long-term impact of outsourcing care to the private sector. Research published by Oxford University reveals that 98 per cent (804 out of 816) of the adult care homes closed by the Care Quality Commission in England to protect disabled, mentally-ill and older people from harm between 2011 and 2023 were operated by private companies. Only 12 homes were run by either local authorities or charities: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/oct/06/private-firms-ran-almost-all-care-homes-forced-to-shut-for-breaches-in-england
10 October 2024
News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com
