The Secret Cuts, Part Four: Personal Independence Payments

Continuing their series on the Coalition's secret cuts, Kate Belgrave and Alan White investigate the problems arising from outsourced face-to-face assessments. Does the DWP even know what its policy on recording PIP face-to-face assessments is? And why ca

For a long time now, employment and support allowance claimants have demanded the right to record their face-to-face assessments with outsourcing firm Atos. As well they might. With a recording, people are able to demonstrate beyond doubt what was said at assessment – an important facility, in light of Atos' much-discussed form in returning fit-for-work decisions and reports that ignore a claimant's true circumstances and shared details. No wonder the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) recently turned down a FOI request to find out how many people have died while going through the assessment process.

The number of Employment Support Allowance (ESA) appeals (which continues to skyrocket) has long proved concerns about Atos' inability to accurately assess fitness for work. Recently, judges in the Upper Tribunal held that the Work Capability Assessment process disadvantages people with mental health problems because they can have greater difficulty than others in explaining to the Atos assessor how their condition affects their fitness to work. The DWP could seek further evidence from claimants’ doctors, but has refused to take this step (and is even appealing the decision. Charming). It’s issues like these that mean recording matters.

It’s a pity people have to fight so hard to get the DWP and Atos to agree. At the end of last year, disabled man Patrick Lynch and Public Interest Lawyers took the government to court over its failure to offer a recording of his ESA face-to-face assessment. He'd been found fit for work in a decision which was later overturned.

“When I went for my first Work Capability Assessment in 2010, the doctor carrying out the assessment said things on his report that was not true to my condition and I was refused ESA on his word,” Patrick told us. “If there was a recording, I would have had proof of what was said. It’s important to get this right in the first place.”

Campaigners have won some concessions. At some point, apparently, there will be a note on paperwork sent to claimants to advise them that they can ask to have their assessment recorded. We’d be interested to know if people notice this happening. There was also a commitment from the DWP to offer an ESA assessment recording to anyone who asked for one (if there are recorders available - apparently, there are still only about 50 nationwide, as Mark Hoban revealed to Sheila Gilmore MP in the House of Commons).

Recordings have to be carried out on “official” dual-CD recording equipment – people still can’t bring their own recording equipment unless it can dual-produce a CD or cassette: “If you wish to use your own equipment, you must be able to provide a complete and identical copy of the recording to the healthcare professional at the end of the assessment. It should be in CD or audio cassette format only. Mobile phones are not suitable for this purpose,” says Atos’ advice. Atos changed its advice when the court action was lodged in December 2012. Before the action, Atos would not postpone appointments if recorders weren’t available, as this screenshot shows. Now, it will defer an appointment for four weeks.

The DWP refused to offer universal recording for ESA assessments on the grounds that there wasn't enough demand. A 2012 Disabled People Against Cuts survey would appear to contradict this, to say the least – it showed that the overwhelming majority of people wanted ESA face-to-face assessments recorded. It also showed that the majority of respondents weren’t aware that they could ask for a recording - which, as DPAC points out, could affect demand. Campaigners like Jayne Linney fought for the right for a recording for many months. Kate's experience collecting information about recordings last year would suggest the idea was popular as well. The DWP is apparently “evaluating” demand at the moment.

Campaigners continue to fight for people's right to record their assessments on their own recording equipment (like phones and dictaphones) and for those recordings to be admissible when people challenge fit-for-work decisions.

*

And now there’s a bizarre situation regarding the recording of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) face-to-face assessments. PIP is replacing the Disability Living Allowance. (“Replace” is a polite way of putting it - “a means of cutting” is more accurate: the government plans to cut expenditure for this essential benefit by at least 20 per cent as it removes DLA). There have already been a number of concerns about the new criteria on movement, with a consultation launched by the DWP after it faced a judicial review.

Atos and Capita have contracts worth about £540m to carry out PIP assessments. Atos won the contract despite failing to deliver the number of assessment centres required, meaning claimants will face longer journeys on public transport. Atos told the Government that it had an “extensive” network of 16 NHS trusts, two private hospital chains, and four physiotherapy providers, all of which it said would provide sites where assessments would take place. Since it won the contract, all but four of the NHS trusts and both of the private healthcare providers dropped out, which has sparked outrage. The contract will now be referred to the National Audit Office.

Prior to this, Esther McVey angered campaigners when she said that audio recordings of PIP assessments would not be offered by Atos or Capita (see this 18 April 2013 transcript), even though Capita seemed willing to offer them and in spite of this 4 April response document.

And the advice also appeared to directly contradict a response that the DWP emailed to Kate three days earlier on April 15 2013, as part of a correspondence that sought to confirm whether people with hearing impairments could request a video recording.

The statement in that email from the DWP regarding audio recordings was: “the situation is the same for PIP as it is for ESA. A DWP spokesperson said: "All customers are entitled to an audio recording of their assessment.” Video recording is not permitted. This is to ensure the safety and privacy of staff and other customers."

Surprised to hear this, given the information in the response document, Kate asked for more information:

“To clarify - official video recordings are not offered to people with hearing impairments (even if Atos carries them out themselves on official equipment) but audio recordings are offered for ESA and will be offered for PIP?”

The DWP's response was:

The situation for audio recording for ESA remains the same, as detailed in all previous correspondence. Arrangements for PIP are the same. Video recordings are not permitted.

Confusing, to say the least. We’d be interested in hearing your latest, or other updates. And why can’t people request video recordings if they need them?

This recent freedom of information request suggests that people won't be able to ask for a recording of their PIP assessment in the way they supposedly can for ESA WCAs. According to that document, though, claimants can make a recording of their assessments themselves – if they can “provide a complete and accurate copy of the recording to the HP at the end of the consultation. Acceptable formats for such recordings are restricted to CD and audio cassette only. Mobile phones and laptops are not suitable mediums for recording consultations.”

In other words – you can make a recording if you have special equipment which allows for dual CD production. Which nobody does, of course. That equipment is expensive for anyone and particularly if you're on a benefit.

Tessa Gregory, Solicitor at Public Interest Lawyers, says that there could be legal challenges in this:

The DWP have committed to offering audio recordings to all individuals undergoing a WCA assessment so their refusal to offer the same to those undergoing PIP assessments just doesn’t make sense and will certainly be open to challenge. Given the huge impact these assessments have on peoples’ lives, it is imperative that recordings are offered. As Capita stated in their bid, audio recordings “provide reassurance, transparency and an audit trail” – all of which surely the DWP will welcome.

Campaigners remain at loggerheads with the department over the issue of recording both employment and support face-to-face assessments and PIP face-to-face assessments. Campaigners say all PIP claimants must have the right to have their face-to-face assessment recorded – a key safeguard against people’s health conditions being misreported or ignored altogether in an assessment process widely criticised for inaccuracy.

Disabled People Against Cuts says:

The DWP continues to defy logic.” Never was a truer word spoken. “If recordings were freely available, surely the cost of the increasing number of ESA appeals and potential PIP appeals would be less to the public purse, as well as lessening some of the fear and misery of those undergoing these unfair and degrading tests - we can only conclude the DWP has a great deal it wishes to hide.

You can read more articles from Alan White and Kate Belgrave's Secret Cuts series here

We would like to hear from people who have been affected by any of the issues raised in this series. Please email thesecretcuts@gmail.com

A protester wears an "Atos Out" sign during a demonstration at the Department of Work and Pensions. Photograph: Getty Images during a demonstration at the Department of Work and Pensions. Photograph: Getty Images
Getty Images
Show Hide image

Is there such a thing as responsible betting?

Punters are encouraged to bet responsibly. What a laugh that is. It’s like encouraging drunks to get drunk responsibly, to crash our cars responsibly, murder each other responsibly.

I try not to watch the commercials between matches, or the studio discussions, or anything really, before or after, except for the match itself. And yet there is one person I never manage to escape properly – Ray Winstone. His cracked face, his mesmerising voice, his endlessly repeated spiel follow me across the room as I escape for the lav, the kitchen, the drinks cupboard.

I’m not sure which betting company he is shouting about, there are just so many of them, offering incredible odds and supposedly free bets. In the past six years, since the laws changed, TV betting adverts have increased by 600 per cent, all offering amazingly simple ways to lose money with just one tap on a smartphone.

The one I hate is the ad for BetVictor. The man who has been fronting it, appearing at windows or on roofs, who I assume is Victor, is just so slimy and horrible.

Betting firms are the ultimate football parasites, second in wealth only to kit manufacturers. They have perfected the capitalist’s art of using OPM (Other People’s Money). They’re not directly involved in football – say, in training or managing – yet they make millions off the back of its popularity. Many of the firms are based offshore in Gibraltar.

Football betting is not new. In the Fifties, my job every week at five o’clock was to sit beside my father’s bed, where he lay paralysed with MS, and write down the football results as they were read out on Sports Report. I had not to breathe, make silly remarks or guess the score. By the inflection in the announcer’s voice you could tell if it was an away win.

Earlier in the week I had filled in his Treble Chance on the Littlewoods pools. The “treble” part was because you had three chances: three points if the game you picked was a score draw, two for a goalless draw and one point for a home or away win. You chose eight games and had to reach 24 points, or as near as possible, then you were in the money.

“Not a damn sausage,” my father would say every week, once I’d marked and handed him back his predictions. He never did win a sausage.

Football pools began in the 1920s, the main ones being Littlewoods and Vernons, both based in Liverpool. They gave employment to thousands of bright young women who checked the results and sang in company choirs in their spare time. Each firm spent millions on advertising. In 1935, Littlewoods flew an aeroplane over London with a banner saying: Littlewoods Above All!

Postwar, they blossomed again, taking in £50m a year. The nation stopped at five on a Saturday to hear the scores, whether they were interested in football or not, hoping to get rich. BBC Sports Report began in 1948 with John Webster reading the results. James Alexander Gordon took over in 1974 – a voice soon familiar throughout the land.

These past few decades, football pools have been left behind, old-fashioned, low-tech, replaced by online betting using smartphones. The betting industry has totally rebooted itself. You can bet while the match is still on, trying to predict who will get the next goal, the next corner, the next throw-in. I made the last one up, but in theory you can bet instantly, on anything, at any time.

The soft sell is interesting. With the old football pools, we knew it was a remote flutter, hoping to make some money. Today the ads imply that betting on football somehow enhances the experience, adds to the enjoyment, involves you in the game itself, hence they show lads all together, drinking and laughing and putting on bets.

At the same time, punters are encouraged to do it responsibly. What a laugh that is. It’s like encouraging drunks to get drunk responsibly, to crash our cars responsibly, murder each other responsibly. Responsibly and respect are now two of the most meaningless words in the football language. People have been gambling, in some form, since the beginning, watching two raindrops drip down inside the cave, lying around in Roman bathhouses playing games. All they’ve done is to change the technology. You have to respect that.

Hunter Davies is a journalist, broadcaster and profilic author perhaps best known for writing about the Beatles. He is an ardent Tottenham fan and writes a regular column on football for the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 05 February 2015 issue of the New Statesman, Putin's war