Government announces Enquiry into IB migration to ESA and WCA to be investigated

hrafndot
hrafndot Posts: 2,155 Forumite
edited 18 June 2011 at 10:50PM in Disability money matters
The Work and Pensions Committee have launched an inquiry into the migration from Incapacity Benefits to Employment and Support Allowance, including the Work Capability Assessment. To submit written evidence see the terms of reference below.

ESA replaced incapacity benefits for people making new claims from October 2008. To be eligible for ESA, a person must usually undergo a Work Capability Assessment (WCA).

The introduction of ESA in 2008 was initially limited to new claimants.

Existing incapacity benefit claimants are now being reassessed under the Work Capability Assessment. The process will last until 2014 with around 1.5 million people being reassessed.

Reassessment commenced on 11 October 2010 with a trial in Aberdeen and Burnley. At the end of February, Jobcentre Plus began a limited introductory phase, and will move to full national reassessment of incapacity benefit claimants from April 2011.

Short submissions (no more than 3,000 words) are invited from interested organisations and individuals.

The deadline for submitting evidence is 14 April 2011.

Full terms of reference and further information about submitting evidence can be found on the Inquiry page.

Taken from www.parliament.uk

Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) replaced incapacity benefits for people making new claims from October 2008. To be eligible for ESA, a person must usually undergo a Work Capability Assessment (WCA).

The introduction of ESA in 2008 was initially limited to new claimants. Existing incapacity benefit claimants are now being reassessed under the Work Capability Assessment. The process will last until 2014 with around 1.5 million people being reassessed.

Reassessment commenced on 11 October 2010 with a trial in Aberdeen and Burnley. At the end of February, Jobcentre Plus began a limited introductory phase, and will move to full national reassessment of incapacity benefit claimants from April 2011.

In particular, the Inquiry will focus on the following issues:

· The Department’s communications to customers going through the assessment and whether the information, guidance and advice provided by the Department and Jobcentre Plus is effective in supporting claimants through the process.

· The Work Capability Assessment including: the assessment criteria; the service provided by Atos staff; the suitability of assessment centres; and customers’ overall experience of the process.

· The decision-making process and how it could be improved to ensure that claimants are confident that the outcome of their assessment is a fair and transparent reflection of their capacity for work.

· The appeals process, including the time taken for the appeals process to be completed; and whether claimants who decide to appeal the outcome of their assessment have all the necessary guidance, information and advice to support them through the process.

· The outcome of the migration process and the different paths taken by the various client groups: those moved to Jobseeker’s Allowance, including the support provided to find work and the impact of the labour market on employment prospects; those found fit for work who may be entitled to no further benefits; those placed in the Work Related Activity Group of the ESA, including the likely impact of the Department’s decision to time-limit contribution-based ESA to a year; and those placed in the Support Group.

· The time-scale for the national roll-out for the migration process, including the Department’s capacity to introduce changes identified as necessary in the Aberdeen and Burnley trials.

· Short submissions (no more than 3,000 words) are invited from interested organisations and individuals.

[FONT=&quot]The deadline for submissions is 14 April 2011.[/FONT]

Comments

  • So we're 'customers' ?? No Sir. Im not a customer.
    The DWP = Legally kicking the Disabled when they are down.
  • cit_k
    cit_k Posts: 24,812 Forumite
    Why only short submissions?

    I know the whole thing is a waste of time tick box excercise anyway, but at least they could bother to pretend views will be taken into consideration.

    3000 word limit for something as complex as ESA, the migration, procedures, appeals, decision making and ATOS?

    They are not even pretending they are listening anymore, its a farce.
    [greenhighlight]but it matters when the most senior politician in the land is happy to use language and examples that are simply not true.
    [/greenhighlight][redtitle]
    The impact of this is to stigmatise people on benefits,
    and we should be deeply worried about that
    [/redtitle](house of lords debate, talking about Cameron)
  • hrafndot
    hrafndot Posts: 2,155 Forumite
    cit_k wrote: »
    Why only short submissions?

    I know the whole thing is a waste of time tick box excercise anyway, but at least they could bother to pretend views will be taken into consideration.

    3000 word limit for something as complex as ESA, the migration, procedures, appeals, decision making and ATOS?

    They are not even pretending they are listening anymore, its a farce.

    Agreed;and your cynicism is reasonable. However if they steam ahead in their usual manner I think chaos ensues (which I also think is their intention).

    All avenues of complaint/appeal have to be exhausted before, for instance, a request for Judicial Review could be made.

    And I think it may come to that.
  • deeplyblue
    deeplyblue Posts: 151 Forumite
    cit_k wrote: »
    Why only short submissions?

    I know the whole thing is a waste of time tick box excercise anyway, but at least they could bother to pretend views will be taken into consideration.

    3000 word limit for something as complex as ESA, the migration, procedures, appeals, decision making and ATOS?

    They are not even pretending they are listening anymore, its a farce.
    I find myself reluctantly agreeing with the WPC - which is not what I'm used to.

    Short submissions are best. If everyone writes the sort of lengthy screed that I tend produce, then the committee would only be able to read the opinions of a few people.

    I quite agree that the issue is complicated and contentious, but if we all shout loudly it doesn't mean that they will understand how strongly we feel. They will just be deafened.

    For an individual, the best tack is to choose one or two issues which are the things you feel most strongly about, and write about those - and if you keep it down to under 3000 words then they may read more of it.

    For a group the best tactic is split the task up, so that some members concentrate on one issue, while another group tackle something different.

    I think some American group produced a guide for this sort of thing - can't remember who - but they said something like
    • be polite
    • be brief
    • stick to the point
    They found this produced the best results when trying to convince politicians who don't want to wade through pages of rage and pain about life in general and one company or system in particular.

    This post is now about 350 words long (including the quotation at the top), and already a lot of people will have decided not to bother reading it, because it's too long.

    Imagine it's 10 times this length, and that you have 50 such to read for that part of your day given to this task and not to other business which makes up part of an MP's job.

    Does brevity seem appealing now?
  • MrsManda
    MrsManda Posts: 4,457 Forumite
    To follow Deeply_blue,
    I confess I am one of the people who skim read this thread because the blocks of text do not encourage readership.

    Clear, concise points means that it is easy to understand what the author wants.

    I've dealt with complaints and queries which have run to 3-4 pages where it takes 10-15 minutes to read the document yet by the end you have no idea what the issue is and what the author would like done about it.

    Multiple this thousands of times and you realise how much work is involved.
  • cit_k
    cit_k Posts: 24,812 Forumite
    ESA legislation and all the associated caselaw, guides, documents etc are not brief, neither are the tribunal services nor ATOS's stuff.

    They can find the time and energy to get of their backsides and earn some their wage when it comes to passing legislation and awarding contracts etc - but suddenly, keep it simple when people are alllowed a chance to point out the system stinks?

    If they are incapable of wading through as many long documents as it takes for as long as it takes, then they are in the wrong job, and its a disgrace they are being paid a wage to make important decisions and rulings if they are that incompetant.
    [greenhighlight]but it matters when the most senior politician in the land is happy to use language and examples that are simply not true.
    [/greenhighlight][redtitle]
    The impact of this is to stigmatise people on benefits,
    and we should be deeply worried about that
    [/redtitle](house of lords debate, talking about Cameron)
  • hrafndot
    hrafndot Posts: 2,155 Forumite
    Mrs Manda,

    I'm terribly sorry if my thick blocks of text didn't catch your interest. I simply conveyed information, tidied up formatting and put white space in. It will be moderately good news to some.

    Its highly relevant to those who are going through it at the moment and not very interesting at all if its not happening to you. C'est la Vie!
  • diolch
    diolch Posts: 272 Forumite
    I'm not being cynical, but does anybody really believe that the politicians will care or read these submissions?

    If the comments before and after the TUC march are anything to go by, they said that nothing will change because of the march, that is not how business is done. We cannot have people marching up and down and expect us to change our direction because of it!

    So no it won't make any difference, everybody had that opportunity at the last election and they blew their chances. We reap what we have sowed!!
  • hrafndot
    hrafndot Posts: 2,155 Forumite
    edited 4 April 2011 at 11:37PM
    I don't agree. Women's suffrage won the vote. There are countless successful protests during the past 60 years,history; Greenham; poll tax riots; Vietnam; current proposed sell-offs and "reforms"..

    The way it is moving now is that people are aware that journalists are the gatekeepers in reporting protest and the news of protest will inevitably be distorted.. Since the days of climate change protests the protestors have become their own gatekeepers via Twitter and Blogs.

    You will find this increases proportionately when people feel disenfranchised. See, for instance this paper from University of East London.
  • deeplyblue
    deeplyblue Posts: 151 Forumite
    hrafndot wrote: »
    I don't agree. Women's suffrage won the vote. There are countless successful protests during the past 60 years,history; Greenham; poll tax riots; Vietnam; current proposed sell-offs and "reforms"..

    The way it is moving now is that people are aware that journalists are the gatekeepers in reporting protest and the news of protest will inevitably be distorted.. Since the days of climate change protests the protestors have become their own gatekeepers via Twitter and Blogs.

    You will find this increases proportionately when people feel disenfranchised. See, for instance this paper from University of East London.
    I agree that sometimes protesting makes a difference. However, I do not think that the Women's Suffrage movement won the votes for women. School books these like to make it look that way to get girls interested in history.

    It is usually reckoned, however, that what won the vote for women was World War I. When mass conscription for men came in, the arms factories would have shut down without a massive mobilisation of the female labour force. The government had to get women to behave in a way that had previously been considered a man's role - go out to the factories, do difficult and sometimes dangerous work, manage the whole of the household and still bring up the children!

    Employers too had seen that women could/had taken on the responsibilities they thought could only be handled by men.

    So the law makers were viewing women's rights in a whole new way. This is not to say that the Suffragettes didn't contribute to this, but that they were not the only or even, I think, the main reason why women got the vote just as soon as the fighting in Europe was over.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.3K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.4K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 606.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.7K Life & Family
  • 247.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards