Picklesgate: How Many DWP Ministers Have Lied to the House?

The revelation of Eric Pickles' January letter to the PM expecting 40,000 homeless families as a result of benefit caps and housing benefit changes looks like touching off a row in the Commons as to whether Tory ministers have been systematically lying to Parliament.

An article in the Guardian identifies a DWP report in February and statements in the House by Chris Grayling (Welfare Minister), Grant Shapps (Housing Minister), Maria Miller (Minister for Patronising Disabled People) as all stating that it is either impossible to quantify the number of affected households or that the problem will not get worse. Yet Eric Pickles' Community Department delivered precisely that quantification of the problem into the Prime Minister's hands in January.

Labour are expected to try and force an urgent question on the issue in Parliament today.

According to the DWP it does not accept the figures in the letter and "There might be some people who have to move to a less expensive area. But that doesn't mean they won't have anywhere to live. We are very optimistic about the behavioural change that this will bring about" Behavioural change? That would be us mere plebs not expecting to be able to continue living near right-thinking, posh Tory voters then?

The DWP spokesperson also said "We cannot carry on with a situation where people on benefits can receive more in welfare payments than hard-working families" But what if those people on benefits need that amount of money simply to survive while supporting family members with complex needs?

PIP

Last week Maria Miller - the minister for disabled people - said we needed welfare reform because "Well it can't be right that we have a benefits system where, under DLA, more people who are either alcoholics or drug addicts are in receipt of the higher rate of disability allowance than people who are blind."

The reason that more addicts will be getting High Rate Care (HRC) than blind people is because to get the higher rate care you have to need assistance 24 hours a day. Alcoholics will often need support during the night in case they end up so drunk they pass out and vomit. If someone passes out on their back and vomits they will aspirate their vomit and die so someone needs to be present to roll them into the recovery position if needed. Whereas blind people - unless they have additional medical complications - will typically sleep through the night. If they do have additional medical complications then they'll be the reason why they get HRC rather than the blindness. So that's why we have a system where more addicts get HRC than blind people.

The claim that Miller was trying to make in a roundabout way without actually saying so was that the welfare reforms are only going be targeting people with socially unacceptable impairments, by which I mean conditions that tabloid readers don't like, like alcoholism. She was trying claim, indirectly, that people with socially acceptable conditions will fare OK under welfare reform, that they'll protect the "most vulnerable."

I have osteogenesis imperfecta (OI). I've broken about 50 bones. OI is presumably one of the conditions Miller thinks the public finds socially acceptable so I would be one of the people that Miller was alluding to when she said that the most vulnerable would be protected. I get Disability Living Allowance. I get the high rate mobility (HRM) component and middle rate care (MRC) component.

I get HRM because I'm virtually unable to walk. I can walk a very short distance but only very slowly and with extreme pain and difficulty. My aforementioned osteogenesis means that a good many of my joints have been shattered so have extremely limited movement. The rest of my joints are held in place by tendons and ligaments of such poor quality that my 4kg cat can dislocate my knee by sitting on it. Because my tendons and ligaments don't do a good job of holding me up I fall over very easily, which is really not very safe in someone with brittle bones. Between the pain, the difficulty, the slowness and the danger involved in walking I'd be pretty much housebound without a wheelchair. I couldn't even walk as far as the bus stop at the top of my street (and it's a short street) before my knees had swollen up so much that I couldn't bend them for the rest of the day. My consultant orthopod has told me to walk less than the little bit I already do around the house because I'm causing permanent damage to my joints. I'm wearing them out and I'm only 32.

I then get MRC because I need constant supervision due to injuring easily. Activities during which I’ve broken bones include walking¹, sleeping² and eating³. So the government can't scrimp on my supervision by telling me to cut out risky activities cos, you know, eating and sleeping are essential for survival.

You'd think I'd be one of the people the government would consider "vulnerable," right?

Wrong.

Flicking through the draft criteria for DLA's replacement, the Personal Independence Payment (PIP), it looks like in future I won't be getting a penny.

The mobility component will no longer be assessed on your ability to "walk", it will be assessed on your ability to "mobilise". The difference being that they'll consider your ability to get around using a wheelchair. And if you can get around using a wheelchair your benefit will be denied.

If you could use a wheelchair if only you owned one you'll be assessed using an "imaginary wheelchair". And if you can use said imaginary wheelchair you will be denied the benefit that would allow you to buy an actual wheelchair made of proper materials and not just Miller's fanciful thoughts.

Then there's the "Daily Living" component which will be assessed on the following criteria:

1. Planning and buying food and drink;
2. Preparing and cooking food;
3. Taking nutrition;
4. Managing medication and monitoring health conditions;
5. Managing prescribed therapies other than medication;
6. Washing, bathing and grooming;
7. Managing toilet needs or incontinence;
8. Dressing and undressing; and
9. Communicating with others.

Notice how "needs supervision for safety reasons" has gone? Presumably so those addicts will lose the entitlement to supervision so they drown in their own vomit. But it'll also not only affect people like me who injure easily for physical reasons, it'll no doubt affect a huge number of people who currently get DLA due to mental health problems or conditions like epilepsy.

In short: I'm fucked. DLA is the benefit to cover some of the extra costs of disability. It doesn't cover many of those costs anyway and it looks like in 2013 I'm set to lose that little bit of money that allows me some semblance of independence and life.

Miller claims the system needs reforming because it's not helping the right people. I'm loathe to define myself as "needy" or "vulnerable" but thanks to these reforms I will become both. And please remember this post the next time you hear someone from the government claim that welfare reform is about "weeding out the scroungers" while "protecting the most vulnerable."

Edited to add: Over at The Broken of Britain there's a post detailing how to make your objections to the new PIP assessment criteria known. You can also write to your MP making your objections known.

---

¹ December 2008 I tore a tendon out of a metatarsal which pulled the tip of the bone off with it. This injury was the result of simply walking normally.
² In the early hours of 01/01/2000 I slept in an awkward position. I got woken up by blinding pain at about 4am. The awkward sleeping position had crushed not just one but several vertebrae.
³ As a child I caught my forearm on the edge of the table while eating dinner. This light tap caused my forearm to snap (I only have one forearm bone now where the radius and ulna have been broken so many times they’ve fused together).

Live Q&A With The Minister in charge of DLA

Just a quick note to let Where's The Benefit? readers know that Maria Miller, the minister in charge of disability living allowance, is going to be answering Guardian readers' questions about the proposed scrapping of DLA, and this could be an ideal opportunity for those of us with concerns to put forward our comments, worries and suggestions.

The consultation on reform of the DLA closes on 14 February. But before this happens, Maria Miller, minister for disabled people, is giving you the chance to ask her questions and put forward your thoughts on the proposals directly to her live online, on Wednesday at 1.45pm.

To ask Maria Miller a question, go to this page on the Guardian website, and post your question as a comment at the bottom of the article.

Demolition Of The Case For DLA Reform

This is a guest post by Rhydian Fôn James (mathematician and economist) and originally appeared on Benefit Scrounging Scum

Maria Miller, Minister for Disabled People, should immediately recall the Public Consultation on Disability Living Allowance (DLA) reform, and cease work on reform of this benefit. This should be done because the reasons given for DLA reform are not robust, with little evidence to support the case for reform and, importantly, no independent academic research. The use of the word ‘little’ refers to the two pieces of internal DWP papers used as evidence to build the entire case for reform – a footnote for one reference appears twice on consecutive pages. Thus the case for reform falls apart upon even cursory examination. As such, the consultation questions are deeply skewed and any answers will be likely to support wholesale reform. This is both unfair and unwise, and will cause hardship for many disabled people.

The wildest claim to support reform is that ‘evidence suggests that DLA can also act as a barrier to work’. This passage is footnoted, referring to “Disability Living Allowance and work: Exploratory research and evidence review, 2010, DWP Research Report No. 648” (RR No.648). This report also finds that “he main factor affecting the employment rates of disabled people is their disability or health condition” and that “a larger than average proportion of DLA recipients also appears to be affected by the specific types of impairment that carry the greatest employment disadvantage for disabled people” – yet these findings are not reported in the consultation paper, thus skewing discussion.

In fact, though the report claims that there exists a “perception of disability permanently precluding work is prevalent among individuals with disabilities not already in employment”, there is no evidence cited in the report that suggests DLA could be a barrier to work. The section and all references to it in the consultation paper could be interpreted as an attempt to misdirect, and should be removed forthwith. Further, it should be noted that the consultation commits the statistical crime of confusing correlation with causation. Whilst RR No. 648 does provide evidence that low employment is correlated with claiming of DLA, this in no way implies that one causes the other.

It could be suggested that the lack of evidence pointing to a need for reform has meant that misdirection was used in an attempt to convince the public that DLA reform is necessary. In particular, the graphs presented as Figure 1 and 2, on page 8 of the consultation paper, used to show the DLA caseload increasing at an alarming rate, are flawed in many ways, not least in the fact that no baseline is established for when take-up of DLA by people with disabilities plateaued after its introduction in 1992/93. There are further issues regarding the number of Pensioners as the report ignores demographic trends to show that there is a dramatic increase in claims by people over State Pension age. This is particularly questionable since a Pensioners’ eligibility for DLA would usually depend on their receipt of DLA prior to this – otherwise, they would be eligible for Attendance Allowance. This is not made explicit in the consultation paper.

Figure 2 is also misleading as it could be read carelessly as showing that 8% of the population claim DLA. I am loath to interpret this as intentional misdirection but it is, at the very least, a sloppy drawing of graphs. Another example of sloppiness is the first sentence of paragraph 15 of the first chapter, on page 7 of the consultation paper, reading “In just eight years, the numbers receiving DLA has increased by 30 per cent.” This sentence is utterly meaningless and a misuse of statistics although, once again, I do not wish to interpret this negatively. Yet another example of the spurious use of statistics is Table 1 on Page 9 which presents the “Distribution of current caseload by rate combination”. This table appears between two paragraphs – 16 and 17 – arguing that the current system is too complex and the benefit is not understood. This is an odd, and potentially misleading, place for this data to be displayed.

Beyond misuse of statistics, sloppy presentation of data and lack of evidence, there are further points to be queried. Whilst RR No. 648 does give evidence that DLA is complex and not understood by all claimants, as suggested in paragraph 19 on page 10, this is surely grounds for improving the current system rather than expensively replacing it with an entirely new one. Likewise the assertion, in paragraph 18 of page 9, that there is no system to check that rewards remain correct. The statement that “Two-thirds of people currently on DLA have an indefinite award, which means that their award may continue for life without ever being checked to see if it still reflects their needs” is a rhetorical tautology. Indefinite awards are given to claimants with conditions that will not improve. Whilst it is not unreasonable that medical advances in the treatment of a certain condition should prompt re-evaluation of those cases, this could be achieved by augmenting DLA rather than replacing it.

The core argument of the consultation paper is that DLA is a benefit not fit for purpose. Paragraph 9 on page 6 of the consultation paper states that: “DLA is a benefit that provides a cash contribution towards the extra costs of needs arising from an impairment or health condition.” The arguments presented in paragraphs 14 and 15 of page 8, claiming that the benefit is not fit for purpose, do not touch upon the original purpose of DLA or offer any argument as to why it is failing to meet its original purpose. The information presented is that the DLA caseload and expenditure is a “lot more than was originally expected” and the aforementioned misuse of statistics on the increase in DLA claims. No arguments are presented as to why this means that DLA is not fit for purpose. The only way an argument can be construed is to look at the issue with a preconceived idea that there is an acceptable level of DLA claims prior to evaluating the health and impairment of claimants.

Finally, paragraph 2 betrays this preconception by stating: “We believe that now is the right time to reform DLA”, yet offers no qualification or reasoning for this belief. Paragraph 3 continues by saying that: “We must ensure that our resources are focused on those with the greatest need”, with no qualification or definition of the term “greatest need”. This could be pointed to as a suggestion that those with “lesser needs” will have to struggle unsupported with their impairment, and that the definition of needs is at the whim of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

The arguments above demolish the case for reform presented in the consultation paper, dealing with each point made in the consultation paper. It raises serious questions about the competence of the Minister responsible and the Secretary of State that a consultation paper for reform has been based on such a shocking lack of evidence, preconceptions about benefit claims and abuse of accepted statistical methodology.