Successive British governments and other public bodies are failing to fulfil pledges they signed up to under a major international disability rights convention, campaigners have told a United Nations (UN) committee.

The committee is reviewing the United Kingdom’s (UK) progress in implementing the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – which the UK signed in 2009.   

A range of disability rights groups have submitted a “shadow report” to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities after extensive consultation with disabled people.

It argues that there is “little evidence that the UK government is consistently taking account” of the convention in developing policy and making decisions – and that ministers explicitly rejected it in developing key legislation such as the Care Act 2014.

Liz Sayce, chief executive of Disability Rights UK, said:

“When the UK ratified the convention in 2009 millions of disabled people hoped for a new era of equality, fair treatment and the opportunity to take full part in society, like all other citizens. Sadly, successive Governments have often failed to take account of disabled people’s rights when making policy; and have introduced some policies that actually make things much worse.

Examples are the 2008 expansion of compulsory mental health treatment to the community – which research shows has had no beneficial effects but has infringed human rights; and, more recently, cuts to social care, which have made it harder for many disabled people to live independently and take part in their communities.

 “Governments have introduced stand-alone measures that are helpful – for instance, recently making apprenticeships more flexible so more disabled people can get started on their careers; or introducing peer support to give more tailored employment help – but overall we are not seeing the ‘progressive realisation of rights’ that the Convention expects.

Liz Sayce added:

“Every day we hear about practices that fly in the face of the convention’s principles and that affect the chances of disabled people enjoying their basic human rights and being part of our society as equal citizens.”

With many health, social care and public transport services now devolved to local, regional or national organisations, the Government should do more to ensure public bodies and providers adhere to the convention, the report argues.

It says that access problems in buildings, on the street and public transport frustrate many disabled people and prevent them playing a full part in the community and earning a living.

Other concerns highlighted in the report include:

• More children in ‘special schools’ rather than mainstream education – aggravated by the failure to provide clear guidance on education and the public sector equality duty
• Rapidly growing use of compulsory detention and forced treatment powers contained in mental health legislation that are incompatible with the UN convention
• A massive shortfall in housing that meets the needs of disabled people; and, for many, no security of tenure
• The loss of investment in health and social care services which support disabled people to live independently
• Inadequate or no investigations into unexpected deaths of disabled people in the care of the state – particularly those with learning disabilities or mental health problems
• Delays in implementing requirements for reasonable adjustments that allow disabled people to work and use services
• Huge concerns about the level of hate speech and hate crime – aggravated by public figures and journalists using language that leads some to see disabled people as scroungers
• A tendency by public bodies to focus on processes rather than meaningful outcomes when fulfilling their legal duty to eliminate discrimination and promote equality.

Sue Bott, deputy chief executive of DRUK, who led on the report added:

“We have drawn on the experiences of disabled people across the UK to present a full picture of our daily lives and the impediments that prevent so many fulfilling their potential and living full, independent lives. Whether you look at the shockingly low average life expectancy of people with learning disabilities or the sheer poverty of disabled people, it is clear that progress towards real equality continues to be patchy and torturous.

“We urge the UK Government and the devolved administrations to work constructively with this welcome inquiry by a team of international experts. More importantly, they must then work with disabled people and act on the UN team’s conclusions and recommendations.”

The report – which combines two separate documents focusing on England and Wales and Scotland – was produced with support from the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Scottish Human Rights Commission. Disability Rights UK, Disability Wales and Inclusion Scotland led the work.

We spotted the following two posts in the Disabled People Against Cuts Facebook Group:

It appears that atos have started conducting surveys about assessments quite soon after the appointment. They ring and ask about the assessors conduct and if they felt that they were listened to etc. It would be wise to ask them to call back after the report has been received and the decision made as we are all too painfully aware of how badly people are being dealt with. If DWP and the contractors have been forced to do this because of the UN report an/or an internal issue about the number of complaints then, the only way they will get good feedback would be to make contact BEFORE people find out they were refused social security

Following on from my concerns about the telephone surveys atos have started doing after assessments, it has raised further issues. If people are being contacted before they have a copy of the report and a decision about their application, they will worry that, if they give negative feedback, they might receive a bad report and therefore not get the award. I have emailed my MP about this and would ask that others do the same asking that the only appropriate time for such a survey would be after the whole process is complete.

 A MAN collapsed and died in the street after being ruled “fit to work” and forced to sign on. 

Lawrence Bond, 56, suffered a fatal heart attack shortly after leaving Kentish Town Jobcentre on Thursday. His sister, Iris Green, said that he was in obvious “physical distress” when he arrived at the offices in Kentish Town Road, adding that staff are faced with an “awful dilemma”. 

“I do feel really sorry for the people who dealt with him,” said Ms Green. “They face an awful dilemma of being the people responsible for ­collecting signatures for people signing on as fit for work, even when they can see people are very sick.”

Mr Bond suffered from prolonged health problems, including difficulty with mobility and breathing, associated with being heavily overweight. But his incapacity benefit, now known as Employment and Support Allowance, was cut following a second “work capability assessment”, which was carried out by American private firm Maximus in July.

A subsequent appeal was turned down and Mr Bond was awaiting the outcome of a second appeal at the time of his death, his sister said. 

Ms Green, said: “I realise that the reception staff have no clinical knowledge or responsibility for doing it, but the rules need to be changed so that they have the right and discretion when they see a human being turning up in physical distress to flag the situation up and ask for urgent re-assessment.”

Mr Bond, who lived in Gillies Street, went to visit a friend in Highgate after leaving the Jobcentre and was boarding the 214 bus in Highgate Road when he collapsed. Paramedics battled to revive him in the street, but he was pronounced dead at the scene. 

His sister said: “I think he suffered from anxiety all his life, but held down regular jobs and was never out of work from the age of 16 when he trained as a car mechanic, then did computer studies and went to companies fixing computers, photocopiers, cash tills – so he had his van which he felt safe in – but, of course, his diet was shocking so he put on weight.

“He lost his last long-term job two years ago and by then his weight and unfitness made him unemployable.”

Ms Green said his health deteriorated while he was unemployed, adding: “His anxiety was getting worse as he could not pay bills and was afraid to leave home to go to the shops. Two referrals his GP had made for mental health services had been lost and he said he felt annoyed about that.”

“He functioned very well when he had a job, and money, and a van and functioned as a productive tax-paying member of society, but he was frustrated that, although he was an intelligent person, he could not seem to get his needs met.

“The main thing is that they have the means to make sure this doesn’t happen again. We have such a tick-box society. If we can change that, then people can flag things up and really help someone.”

A spokeswoman for the London Ambulance Service said: “We were called at 4.57pm on Thursday, 12 January, to reports of an incident at Highgate Road.

“We sent an ambulance crew, three single responders in cars and an advanced paramedic to the scene. The first of our medics arrived at the scene in under seven minutes.

“Sadly, despite the best efforts of our crews, a patient died at the scene.”

A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions said: “The local Jobcentre had been supporting Mr Bond and our sympathies are with his family at this difficult time.

“ESA decisions are made following a thorough assessment and after considering all of the evidence, including that provided by a claimant’s doctor or other medical professionals. Anyone who disagrees with a decision can ask for it to be reconsidered, and if they still disagree they can appeal.”

With many thanks to Benefits And Work.

Feedback from Benefits and Work members about the shortened personal independence payment (PIP) renewal form suggests that following the DWP’s instructions could lead to the complete loss of your PIP.

Below, we outline the risks and how to reduce them.

PIP renewal process
From June 2016 the DWP began sending out a PIP renewal form (AR1) which is much shorter than the PIP2 ‘How your disability affects you’ form.

The AR1 form that asks you whether each activity has got:

Easier

Harder

No change

If you tick the ‘No change’ box for any activity, the form tells you do not need to provide any further details about the difficulties you have with that activity.

The AR1 form goes to a DWP case manager initially, rather than a health professional.

DWP guidance says the case manager “will compare the new information against the evidence from the previous assessment”. The case manager can also contact the claimant or carer for more information, but cannot send for more medical evidence.

If the case manager cannot make a decision, then all the information is forwarded to Atos or Capita for assessment by a health professional. According to the DWP the health professional will have access to the AR1, any additional evidence obtained by the case manager and “all relevant medical evidence”. What is not clear is whether the most recent PIP 2 ‘How your disability affects you’ form must be consulted by the HP.

The health professional will initially attempt to make their assessment solely on the papers.

Only if that isn’t possible will the claimant be required to attend a face-to-face assessment.

A decision will then be made by a case manager, purportedly based on all the evidence, but more usually based entirely on the health professional’s report.

Here at Benefits and Work we’ve had considerable doubts about whether just ticking a box is always sufficient to ensure that a PIP award continues. We have also been concerned about what evidence the health professional sees, in reality, if there is a face-to-face assessment as a result of completing an AR1 form.

We asked for feedback from our members who had been through the process and below are some of the things you told us.

‘No change’ can lead to face-to-face
One thing that rapidly became clear is that simply ticking the ‘No change’ boxes does not guarantee that you will avoid a face-to-face assessment.

One member told us that they were still required “to have a face to face appointment even though I had ticked no change.”

Another member commented that they “completed the AR1 form stating things had not changed” but still had a face-to-face assessment. In addition:

“The assessor didn’t have my AR1 form, said he wasn’t familiar with the form and preferred to work from the original application form.”

The result was that even though our reader had arrived on a mobility scooter they had both components reduced from enhanced to standard rate.

In spite of the lack of evidence used by the health professional, things ended better for another member who also ticked ‘No change’:

“Assessor did not have AR1 form or hard copy of original claim.”

Nonetheless, both their enhanced awards were extended.

Deterioration may leads to face-to-face
It also appears that stating that your condition has deteriorated means that there is a real possibility that you will be required to attend a face-to-face assessment.

One member had completed the review form with their partner:

“The form says if there has been no change they do not need any further details as they had already got all the information they need, so we did as they said. We made it clear on the review form that his health had not got better in any way, but had in fact got worse and told them how. He was then sent for a medical assessment.”

Our member says they do not know what information the assessor had, though they did have some. But the result was that the award was reduced from enhanced rate for both components to standard rate.

Another member’s relative, who has a very serious condition, received the AR1 form:

“she filled in the form saying things were either the same or worse than before. She had an assessment at home and it was appalling . . . she went from the enhanced rate for the daily living section and standard rate for moving around to nothing at all.”

Another member had a similar experience:

“I indicated on the form that there had been no change in my ability to carry out activities, or I had worsened. However, I was then required to attend a face-to-face assessment at which the health professional in my opinion did not accurately report my conditions, resulting in my PIP being stopped.”

Things also went badly, though not quite so badly, for this member:

“Completed pip review form. On majority of activities ticked harder, gave explanation, ticked some no change, no easier.”

They were then required to attend a face-to-face assessment and had their mobility component reduced from higher to standard.

No face-to-face but award reduced
One member told us they had been obliged to appeal to get into the support group for ESA before undergoing a PIP renewal. They completed an AR1 form:

“I had stated in the form that everything has got worse, mobility is much worse! . . . PIP have gone by assessment that esa did but I don’t believe that they looked at further information I supplied.”

Their award of the enhanced rate of the care component of PIP was reduced to standard care

What is particularly alarming is that our member says that the decision was made without inviting them to attend a face-to-face assessment. Instead, the unreliable evidence from their overturned ESA assessment was used.

Increased award with minimal new information
One member’s partner managed to keep their award at the same level in spite of providing minimal information.

“Most of his renewal was answered with ‘No change’ but I did need to inform them of a change in his medication, 2 added ones and increased dosage for two of them. I also had to tell them that he was now suffering breathing problems which affected his walking.”

Our member received a telephone call from the DWP case manager asking further questions about their partner’s mobility. They were then informed that the claim would be renewed at the same rate without the need for a face-to-face assessment.

No change and additional information leads to same award
One member ticked ‘No change’ for each activity but also copied their written answers from their last PIP claim form onto the AR1. In addition they:

“provided an up to date note from my GP. I also provided up to date letters from friends/family stating there had been no change since they wrote in 2014, along with their original letters.”

The result was the same award again for another three years, although likely to be reviewed again in two years.

Conclusions
We can’t draw many firm conclusions from our limited anecdotal evidence.

However, it does seem clear that just ticking ‘No change’ does not in any way guarantee that you will have your award continue or be spared a face-to-face assessment.

It is also clear that explaining that your condition has got worse does not ensure that your award won’t be reduced or stopped altogether.

There also seems to be no consistency in what evidence health professionals use when making a decision. They may, or may not, look at your AR1 form or your previous PIP2 form.

The safest course
Your job when completing the AR1 is initially to try to convince, not a health professional, but a DWP case manager that your evidence is sufficiently accurate and detailed for a decision to be made. The purpose of the AR1 is to speed up the renewal process and cut costs by nor involving Atos or Capita. So there is pressure on the case manager to make a decision themselves where there is strong evidence to allow them to do so.

This is likely to apply whether you are arguing that your condition remains the same or that it has deteriorated. So, making your case as persuasive as possible, rather than simply ticking boxes, makes good sense.

The reality is that we have no way of knowing what percentage of claimants who tick the ‘No change’ boxes are referred to a health professional, but clearly some are. If this happens to you and you have not given any details of your current difficulties on your form or provided any supporting evidence, then you are clearly at a huge disadvantage.

Even if the health professional ignores your detailed evidence, that doesn’t mean it was a waste of time. A tribunal will almost certainly read it and they will give particular weight to evidence that has been clear and consistent from the very start of the renewal process.

So, we would argue that the safest course of action is to give as much evidence as possible, both your own and supporting evidence, including medical evidence, regardless of what the DWP advise.

Our editor knows and loves people in similar situations. She can confirm without doubt that they are NOT fit for work!

Same Difference missed this last week, but you know what they say about old being gold…

The first benefits “fauxtrage” of 2017 is upon us, barely a week in. Harrumpher-in-chief Phillip Schofield decided that the best use of his time was to shake his head patronisingly at a woman who had the gall to buy two bottles of prosecco on her “Christmas bonus” – a pittance added to her benefits payments. This leaves the tabloids free to engage in their ceremonial monstering of someone who bought a tenner’s worth of fizzy wine while not being currently retained by an employer.

Moaning about the fecklessness of the poor is a national sport that predates the introduction of the chip shop – the patronage of which (“with my tax money!”) is likewise cause for public tut-tutting. “Would it not be better,” asked George Orwell in 1937, “if they spent more money on wholesome things like oranges and wholemeal bread or if they even … saved on fuel and ate their carrots raw? Yes, it would, but the point is that no ordinary human being is ever going to do such a thing.”

“Unemployment,” he continues, “is an endless misery that has got to be constantly palliated.” The disagreement on this issue is not on the misery of poverty and unemployment, but on the idea that alleviating that misery is a good thing. If the unemployed do not earn their money through hard labour, then they should be expected to earn through suffering.

Anything can be used as an example of the unemployed worker’s fecklessness. Fridges and microwaves can be used to suggest the poor aren’t “really” poor. The screed against the “massive flatscreen TV” is positively ubiquitous, which is one of those things that really demonstrates the kind of alienation from the realities of the consumer electronics market you only get among the middle class. I don’t even know where to go to buy a cathode ray tube TV these days, but I do know you can get a 43” flatscreen for under £250 at Tesco.

Back in 1844, Marx pointed out that “every luxury of the worker seems to be reprehensible, and everything that goes beyond the most abstract need seems a luxury”. We pretend to ourselves that our indignation at the poor buying tobacco or alcohol is rooted in our compassion, the same as Orwell’s contemporaries who insisted that they would be better off eating brown bread and raw carrots. But in reality it is a vicious reaction against the poor’s presumptuous insistence on experiencing life as if they were as fully human as the rest of us.

Some would say here that I have missed the most important thing. The woman Schofield excoriated on daytime TV was using “taxpayer’s money” for her luxuries. The poor, one might argue, should be as frugal as possible because, as Margaret Thatcher once said: “Sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”

Such analysis is as ubiquitous as it is wholly incorrect. We are not still living in the time of Joseph and his seven fat and seven lean years, where taxes were gathered in the form of bushels of grain and bolts of linen. That is simply not how an economy like ours in the 21st century works. When government restricts the flow of money through the economy this causes us material harm by stifling economic consumption and thus robbing us all of income.

Punitive benefits systems designed to force people to endlessly hunt for work that does not exist give the whip hand to employers. It pits those in work against the competition of those doing the rounds, photocopied CVs in hand, between every employer in town. The sub-inflation pay rises, wage theft and abusive conditions that plague many of the low-waged precariat – many of whom need to access the benefits system themselves to afford heat and shelter – must be endured without complaint or resistance because to do so would mark you out as a troublemaker who should be replaced from the swollen pool of reserve labour.

Workfare can see job vacancies that would otherwise have paid at least minimum wage being occupied by someone on benefits. The moral hazard in such situations is not that unemployed people may become accustomed to the luxury of being able to buy two bottles of prosecco a year, but that employers can use the constant threat of a miserable life on unemployment to keep wages and conditions nailed down to the floor.

It is hard not to suspect that this is intentional. The Tories have never been a party particularly in favour of paying wages to people. The danger to them of a benefits system that enables people to live with some semblance of humanity is that it provides a lower bound to how much they can extract from their workforce. A worker who can choose the dole is a worker with the power to say “no” to his boss, and such a sin cannot be tolerated.

Such miserliness creates a race to the bottom, a country where the standards of what constitutes a decent, human life are subject to constant erosion. Orwell, again, pointed out that it is the very performance of poverty that we expect from our underclass. “Our unemployment allowances, miserable though they are, are framed to suit a population with very high standards and not much notion of economy. If the unemployed learned to be better managers they would be visibly better off, and I fancy it would not be long before the dole was docked correspondingly.”

In other words, even if they hung old sacks at their window in lieu of curtains and ate cold beans by the light of recycled candles, if by this process they managed to save any money for a birthday present or a trip to the theatre this in itself would be considered frivolous waste. Such frugality would remain virtuous only if it demonstrated how much less they could get in benefits, how much more debasement a human body could tolerate before it gave up the ghost completely.

We are robbed as a society not by someone spending “taxpayer’s money” on fizzy wine at Christmas, but by the spirit of Ebeneezer Scrooge, begrudging every ha’penny that might reduce the immiseration of the poor and, in so doing, sucking sales out of our economy and bargaining down our wages. Our posturing about the feckless poor may well make us feel virtuous, but that is all it is good for.

Save

A Tory minister says she is “very happy to look at” an MP’s idea of making benefit assessors wear cameras to prove their tests are fair.

Labour’s Christina Rees claimed body-worn cameras would make “disputed” tests carried out by private fit-for-work firms more accurate.

Last month we revealed how taxpayers have handed Atos and Capita£500m assessing people for disability benefit Personal Independence Payment (PIP) since it launched in 2013.

Yet figures show 61% of 90,000 claimants who appealed against a PIP decision at a tribunal since 2013 won their case.

And 428,000 asked the DWP for a ‘mandatory reconsideration’ – the step before a tribunal – with 17% winning a change to their award.

Labour MP Ms Rees posed the idea of body-worn cameras during an exchange with Tory disabilities minister Penny Mordaunt.

She asked: “Would the minister consider introducing and funding mandatory use of body-worn cameras by all contracted out assessment providers?

“[This] will improve the accuracy and efficiency of the much disputed health assessment reports as well as safeguarding claimants and assessors.”

Ms Mordaunt replied: “There are detailed improvement plans for both PIP and ESA (disability benefit Employment and Support Allowance).

“But one of the things that is being looked at is how assessments are recorded.

“And if [Ms Rees] would like to write to me with any specific suggestions she’s had, I’d be very happy to look at them.”

Body-worn cameras to solve disputes are on the rise as the technology becomes cheaper.

Scotland Yard issued cameras to 22,000 frontline police officers in London last year saying they “speed up justice”.

People who feature in videos can request to view them under data protection laws up to 31 days after they have been recorded.

Ms Rees told the House of Commons such cameras have “proved to be very successful when used by emergency services across the UK.”

This is one of the saddest stories I’ve ever read. Please share widely.

A manager at the Department for Work and Pensions wrote to a seriously ill man’s GP and told him not to give him sick notes.

The letter said James Harrison had been declared “fit for work” and shouldn’t get medical certificates.

But 10 months after the DWP contacted his doctor without telling him, James was dead at 55.

His grieving daughter Abbie, 23, said: “It’s a disgrace that managers at the Jobcentre, who know nothing about medicine, should interfere in any way in the relationship between a doctor and a patient.

“They have no place at all telling a doctor what they should or shouldn’t give a patient. It has nothing to do with them.

“When the Jobcentre starts to get involved in telling doctors about the health of their patients, that’s a really slippery slope.”

Abbie said James had worked since leaving school at a community centre near his home. But his already poor health went downhill after the centre was shut down by austerity cuts.

He had a serious lung condition and a hernia before the centre closed, and developed depression and anxiety afterwards.

Abbie said: “He’d worked all his life. He wasn’t the kind of guy who knew anything about benefits.

“But as his health deteriorated, there wasn’t any chance he could do a job. He applied for employment and support allowance.”

James got ESA but only at the low rate of £70 a week, the same as jobseekers’ allowance. He was then sent for one of the DWP’s hated “Work Capability Assessments” – and declared fit for work.

Despite that decision, Abbie said James remained in constant need of medical help and had to go to his doctor regularly.

But the GP repeatedly refused to give him a sick note, and James began to suspect the Jobcentre were to blame.

Abbie said: “He really needed a note. He was too ill to go to the constant appointments at the Jobcentre and he didn’t want to be sanctioned.

“He became convinced the DWP had been talking to his doctor behind his back.”

Abbie didn’t believe James’s theory at the time and thought he was just confused.

But when she asked to see her dad’s medical records, she found a letter in his file from Julia Savage, a manager at Birkenhead Benefit Centre in James’s home city of Liverpool.

The letter was addressed to James’s GP. It said: “We have decided your patient is capable of work from and including January 10, 2016.

“This means you do not have to give your patient more medical certificates for employment and support allowance purposes unless they appeal against this decision.

“You may need to again if their condition worsens significantly, or they have a new medical condition.”

PhD student Abbie is furious that James had to waste time at his short doctor’s appointments pleading for a sick line he wasn’t going to get.

And she is sickened by the way the system treated her father at every turn.

She said: “I’d love to interrogate these DWP people the way they interrogated dad – ask them to explain the things they put him through.

“Dad wasn’t well. Who knows, maybe he could have improved if he’d been given some support, rather than subjected to suspicion and scepticism at every turn.”

Asked about the letter, a DWP spokeswoman said: “The GP would have been notified so they know the outcome of the assessment.

“And as the letter says, there’s no longer any requirement to provide a fit note unless the claimant appeals the decision, or their medical condition worsens or they have a new medical condition.”

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has vowed to use new devolved powers to end the misery of benefits tests in Scotland. She says she will create a system based on dignity and respect.

The Fight Will Go On

ABBIE told James’s story to campaign group Stop-Pip.org, set up to expose the Tories’ cruel fit-for-work tests.

The group were set by a Scots film director who records victims’ testimony and puts it online. He does not want to be named.

The director welcomed Sturgeon’s pledge to do away with the “fit for work” tests.

But he said: “We won’t be giving up.
I’ll continue filming people’s stories until things change across the country. I also want to see action from the Scottish Government, not just words.”

The Record endorses Stop-Pip’s work.

Spotted on Facebook. Please share widely.

With many thanks to Benefits And Work.

We’d like to hear from people who have been through the new PIP renewal process involving the shorter PIP Award Review (AR1) form. This is the form that asks you whether each activity has got:

• Easier
• Harder
• No change

We’re getting reports from members who indicated on the form that there had been no change in their ability to carry out activities. However, they were then required to attend a face-to-face assessment at which the health professional did not have a copy of their most recent PIP 2 ‘How your disability affects you’ form.

This means that the health professional is making an assessment with no written evidence from the claimant to refer to at all. The whole process rests solely on the questions that the HP chooses to ask.

So we’d really like to hear about your experiences, if you’ve completed the PIP Award Review form.

Did you say there had been any changes?

Did you have to attend a face-to-face assessment?

What was the outcome of your renewal?

You can respond by posting a comment below or emailing us office@benefitsandwork.co.uk

In this FOI request.

However they also refuse to provide the exact data- because to do so would be too expensive!

We at Same Difference are scared, readers, we’re very scared.

Very scary stuff. Bolding mine.

THE BLACK TRIANGLE CAMPAIGN has expressed its indignation at the new guidelines for assessors of benefit claimants who are at risk of self harm or suicide.

Concerned that the new guidelines could result in assessors forcing vulnerable people into work, the group has called on the Scottish Government to prevent their roll out in Scotland.

Additionally it has also referred the UK Government to a United Nations (UN) committee which carries out investigations into “grave and systematic violations” of the fundamental human rights of the disabled.

Speaking to CommonSpace, John McArdle, spokesperson for the Black Triangle Campaign in Edinburgh, said: “It should be blatantly obvious to anyone that this is playing Russian roulette with sick and/or disabled people’s lives. 

“We firmly believe this guidance permits of administrative acts that are in breach of UK domestic and international human rights law and treaty obligations. 

“It will lead to an epidemic of self-harm and suicide leading to a full-blown public health crisis in communities throughout Scotland and rUK.”

“I will be giving evidence in person to the Social Security Committee round table official session on October 6 and this extremely serious and grave issue will form a part of my formal submission on behalf of the Black Triangle Campaign.”

The new guidance suggests assessors may consider denying benefits to applicants at risk of suicide or self-harm as a way of benefiting them over the long term.

This is in contrast to the previous guidelines, where it was stated that someone who is at suicide risk should be placed in the designated Support Group. 

On page 252 of the new department of work and pensions (DWP) handbook it states: “If you conclude that finding a claimant fit for work would trigger risk of suicide or self-harm then you need to consider whether there are factors that would mitigate the risk if the claimant were found fit for work.

“Have you considered the benefits of employment weighed against any potential risks? Remember that there is good evidence that people in work have better health outcomes and are at lower risk of suicide.”

Campaigners say that the idea of “mitigation” does not take in to consideration the medical facts of an applicant’s situation, but rather focuses on getting them to work as quickly as possible without proper support.

Before the changes the Support Group would be used as a way to provide extra aid to those with disabilities or mental health problems, and as a group received a higher rate of benefit.

From December 2015 to March of this year there was a drop in the percent of benefit claimants accepted in the Support Group, going from 56 per cent of applicants to 33 per cent.

However, between December 2015 and March 2016 the number of applicants accepted into the Work Related Activity Group, which pays lower benefits and requires claimants to undertake work related activity regardless of health status, climbed to 19 per cent from 8.

McArdle added: “It is incumbent upon us to urge the Scottish Government to recognise that this development presents us with a public health emergency and therefore to urgently take any and all steps at its disposal to arrest the roll out of this advice in Scotland. 

“We ask that representations and protest be made to the British Government and ministers at the earliest possible time. 

“We cannot stand idly by while the lives of Scotland’s chronically ill and/or disabled people are wilfully and recklessly placed in mortal danger.”

With many thanks to Benefits And Work.

In relation to obesity, the report reveals that just 1,600 ESA claimants have obesity as their main disabling condition – a tiny proportion. It also points out that employment rates for people who are obese is as high as for the general population. Only severely obese people have significantly lower levels of employment.

However, this does not prevent Black from wanting to target obese claimants on the grounds that

“Obese and severely obese people are over-represented amongst the sick and disabled” and that “there are as many as approximately 800,000 recipients with a main disabling condition for which obesity could have been a contributory factor.”

Black recommends that “the Government commissions research to investigate the impact of obesity on the working population and the extent to which obesity plays a role in health-related benefit claims, in particular long-term ones.”

The research, Black says, will help the government to understand the “the true labour market costs of the obesity epidemic and help build a case (if justified) for further societal, employer and government action.”

Claimants know only too well the kind of societal and government action they can expect: hate campaigns whipped up by the DWP press office and the media against obese claimants to justify whatever mandatory work or training programmes the DWP believes will cut claimant numbers.

You can download the full report from this page.

With many thanks to Benefits And Work.

The Investigatory Powers Bill, which is about to become law with virtually no opposition from MPs, gives a huge range of agencies, including the DWP, the right to see an individual’s entire internet browsing history.

Senior Executive Officers in Fraud and Error Services at the DWP will be able to see a list of every website claimants have visited in the past year, although the details will not include the individual pages that claimants have visited on a particular website.

Considering the large amount of benefit claimants who regularly visit Same Difference, we find this idea a very scary one. Considering the amount of articles we publish which say unpleasant things about the DWP and its policies, we are more than a little bit relieved to see that individual pages will not be revealed to them!

With many thanks to Benefits And Work.

The Motability scheme may be opened up to claimants who do not get the enhanced rate of the mobility component, Penny Mordaunt, minister for disabled people, told MPs last week. The change is one of three major improvements that Mordaunt claims she is planning to make.

In the course of a debate on ESA and PIP on 30 November Mordaunt told MPS that she was discussing a number of changes to PIP with the DWP.

One change would enable PIP claimants to keep their Motability vehicle whilst they are appealing a decision that they are no longer entitled to the enhanced rate of the mobility component of PIP. This should include claimants who lose their Motability entitlement when they move from DLA to PIP.

Mordaunt also wants to change the rules that mean that claimants who are out of the country for more than 13 weeks, other than for medical treatment, generally lose their entitlement to the PIP mobility component.

Most surprisingly, Mordaunt claims that she is “exploring options to allow those who are not in receipt of the higher Motability component to have access to the Motability scheme.” It is not clear how this would work, given that the standard rate of the PIP mobility component would not come close to covering the cost of a Motability vehicle.

The relevant passage from Mordaunt’s comments is:

“We have been discussing with relevant Departments ways to enable PIP claimants to keep their vehicle pending appeal, and we are exploring options to allow those who are not in receipt of the higher Motability component to have access to the Motability scheme. I am also exploring how claimants who are out of the country for extended periods can be better supported. We have a plan and the Treasury’s blessing. This week I have written to Motability to ask for its help in delivering that plan. I anticipate that the plan will require some changes to its processes, but I know that it will do all it can to help us in this matter, as it has in the past. We have a remarkable and unique partnership with Motability, and I hope in my tenure to maximise that.”

The Department for Work and Pensions is launching an opportunity to work in collaboration with Jobcentre Plus to shape the support for disabled people and those with a health condition in partnership with the third sector. This was announced in Improving Lives: The Work, Health and Disability Green Paper, which was published for consultation on 31 October.

The new Community Partner role will build on expertise within Jobcentre Plus and strengthen the understanding of the needs of disabled people and those with health conditions to ensure that support can be tailored according to customer requirements.

As a Community Partner you will have experience and/or expert knowledge of disability, and enhance services to meet the needs and aspirations of disabled people and those with a health condition. You will bring specialist knowledge to enhance disability understanding, support the development of a national network and build local relationships with specialist organisations.

Applications for Lead Community Partner roles will remain open until Friday 16 December. Roles will be appointed on either a secondment or fixed-term appointment basis for one year, with a possible extension for a further 11 months.

For more information and to request an application form, please email Community.Partners@dwp.gsi.gov.uk or call 0207 867 3186/07747472709. Applicants should also contact for applications in an alternative format.

Thousands of families with disabled children have lost out on up to £4,400 a year in tax credits after an administrative blunder by the authorities.

The error in processing their claims meant an estimated 28,000 families whose children qualified for disability living allowance (DLA) during 2011-14 missed out on an additional tax credit premium of between £60 and £84 a week.

The government revealed in the autumn statement this week that it had set aside £360m over six years to ensure these families receive child disability tax credits in future. However, the payments will be backdated only to April, meaning individual families may have lost out on entitlements totalling up to £20,000 over the past five years.

The non-payment of the tax credit premiums appears to have been a result of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) failing to inform HMRC about families’ eligibility for the award over a three-year period.

The charity Contact a Family called for a compensation fund to be set up to help the families, saying it was not their fault that they lost out on what collectively amounted to tens of millions of pounds in entitlements.

“One thing is certain: this isn’t the fault of families. When you tick a box on a government form indicating you are in receipt of tax credits you reasonably expect it’s there for a reason – and there’s a process in place that allows government departments to share this information,” said the charity’s head of policy and public affairs, Una Summerson.

Families who are responsible for a disabled child or young person are eligible for a higher rate of child tax credit if the child is in receipt of a disability benefit such as disability living allowance (DLA) or personal independence payment (Pip).

Although it is technically the responsibility of the claimant to inform HMRC directly that they receive DLA or Pip for their child, in practice the tax authorities have endeavoured to update the claim automatically using information supplied by the DWP.

When a family applies to the DWP for a disability benefit on behalf of their child, the form asks whether they are in receipt of tax credits. If they state that they are, and the application is approved, the DWP would normally pass the information directly to HMRC.

HMRC regards the data-share as an “extra safeguard” to ensure that the extra child disability amounts are paid even when claimants have not directly notified them they were in receipt of the benefit.

However, between 2011-2014 a processing error described officially as “a gap in the data feed between DWP and HMRC” meant awards were not automatically updated.

Despite the large sums of money involved, the tax credits correction was referred to without explanation in the main Treasury autumn statement report, with only sketchy details of the error buried in a supporting document on policy costings.

Robin Williamson, technical director of the pressure group Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, said: “The amounts payable for disabled and severely disabled children within child tax credit are significant and it is concerning that such a large number of people have missed out on claiming these payments potentially for a number of years.

“It is important that HMRC work closely with DWP to ensure that the data feed works in future so this situation does not happen again.

“Although the claimant has a legal obligation to report changes to their circumstances, we often encounter claimants who quite reasonably assume that this kind of information is shared within and between government departments. This is certainly happening more frequently and means there is a confusing landscape for claimants and a mismatch between the legal framework and the operational practice,” he said.

Summerson said: “We are pleased with the announcement that, for these families, their awards will be amended and the extra amount paid from April 2016. This is something we’ve been campaigning on.”

The error occurred during a period of intense upheaval at the DWP when the then work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, was pushing through over 30 separate reforms including universal credit while at the same time cutting the department’s administrative budget by 18% and reducing staffing by nearly a quarter.

A National Audit Office report, published in 2015, was critical of some aspects of the DWP’s handling of what the department described as the “most fundamental change to the social security system in 60 years”. The report noted that: “Recent reforms have stretched the department’s ability to manage programmes”.