PriceWaterhouse Coopers - the world’s largest accounting and consultancy firm - yesterday announced that it had recruited former Health Secretary Alan Milburn to head up a board overseeing its healthcare practice. Milburn commented  “…my aim is to bring together a panel of industry experts to drive change across the health sector and PwC growing presence in the health market.”

The move flags up PwC’s intention to take greater advantage of the expansion of health privatisation. It's a logical fit. Though driven most recently by the Health & Social Care Act, and started under Thatcher, the moves were of course helped on their way by some of Milburn’s own market initiatives. Privatisation is already big business for PwC and the other ‘big four’ accountancy firms. Globally, PwC claim to have “acted on more privatisations than any other financial adviser, from steel and heavy manufacturing to utilities, public transport, health and education services.” They have been extensively involved in the negotiation of PFI deals in the UK.

Along with the rest of the ‘big four’, PwC has been taking advantage of the latest NHS restructuring to obtain public sector contracts. They received £852,875 last year to advise 6 CCGs in outer North East London. They advise on many outsourcing projects - sometimes paid by both sides on the same deal. They were paid £3m by Monitor, the main body regulating increased private sector involvement in the NHS, last year. And when marketisation goes horribly wrong, there is more money to be made - the South London Healthcare Trust paid PwC nearly half a million pounds for (ultimately unsuccesful) advice on how to survive a financial crisis caused in part by crippling PFI debts. PwC has also produced a recent report for the Department of Health advocating a massive expansion of IT in a ‘paperless’ NHS.

Faced with cuts hitting A&Es and nurses, the BMA and others have questioned whether such largesse gives the best value to a cash-strapped NHS (PWC’s average partner earned £679,000 last year).  

But Milburn’s appointment highlights a deeper concern. The revolving door between government and the private consultancies gives ample opportunity for political influence by the consultancies private sector clients. These clients include not just private healthcare firms and pharmaceutical companies, but telephone and IT companies, data collectors, private care home congolmerates, insurers and financial brokers.

The conflicts of interest don’t stop there. The big four’s activities in facilitating tax avoidance is shrinking the tax base available to fund public services like the NHS. And it’s not just Google and Starbucks - helping private healthcare companies to avoid tax is a core part of PwC’s offering.

In an increasingly marketised system, the opportunities for financial conflicts of interests are clear. It is curious that the media has chosen to focus on the conflicts of commissioning GPs. Whilst problematic, the sums involved are dwarfed by the huge fortunes to be made by the corporate clients of the big four currently embedding themselves at the heart of policy making.

It is a process PwC refers to as ‘thought leadership’, but George Monbiot calls the ‘shadow government’. Other big consulting companies like McKinsey and KPMG have been exerting their influence in UK health policy making for some time. Clearly, bringing heavy hitters like Milburn on board shows that PwC wants some more of the action too. Already, two ex-PwC employees sit amongst the seven directors of Monitor, and PwC funds interns for a number of politicians including several Labour front benchers.  

Of course whether the NHS actually benefits from PwC’s ‘outsourcing solutions’ lobbying and ‘tax solutions’ is no longer Milburn’s concern. When they leave office, government health ministers are of course free to work for who they choose. Milburn’s path is not unique. Patricia Hewitt, Lord Warner, and Tom Sackville have also chosen to hire their experience out to the private sector after leaving office.

Milburn has plenty to keep him busy. Aside from his new PwC role, he is also the chairman of the European Advisory Board of Bridgepoint Capital. Bridgepoint are the private equity investors behind Care UK - owners of many of the new 111 services which are going so badly wrong.

Where is the public interest in all of this?

Wednesday 22 May 2013 – Three judges have ruled that the procedure currently used by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to decide whether hundreds of thousands of people are eligible for Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) disadvantages people with mental health problems, learning disabilities and autism.

The judgment, which was made public at a high court hearing today, is the result of a judicial review brought by two anonymous claimants with mental health problems.

The charities Rethink Mental Illness, Mind and the National Autistic Society intervened in the case to provide evidence based on the experiences of their members and supporters.

The case centres on how evidence is gathered for the controversial Work Capability Assessment (WCA), the process used to determine whether someone is fit for work.

Under the current system, evidence from a professional such as a GP or social worker is expected to be provided by people themselves. There is no obligation for the DWP to collect this evidence, even on behalf of the most vulnerable claimants, apart from in some rare cases.

Seeking evidence can be very challenging for people with mental health problems, learning disabilities or autism whose health or condition can make it hard for them to understand or navigate the complex processes involved in being assessed.

As a result, those who need support the most are frequently being assessed without this important evidence being taken into account.

It was ruled that the DWP had breached its duties to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 and that the Department must do more to ensure this sort of evidence is collected and taken into account. This means the current procedure for the WCA puts some groups at a substantial disadvantage.

The three charities have hailed the ruling as a victory for people with mental health problems, learning disabilities and autism who are being put through a process which puts them at a disadvantage.

Paul Jenkins, CEO of Rethink Mental Illness said: “This ruling proves once and for all that this cruel and unfair process is unlawful. The judges have independently confirmed what our members have been saying for years – the system is discriminating against some of the most ill and vulnerable people in our society, the very people it is meant to support.

“The Work Capability Assessment process is deeply unfair for people with a mental illness – it’s like asking someone in a wheelchair to walk to the assessment centre. The Government is setting people up to fail.

“Now that the court has ruled that these tests are unfair it would be completely irresponsible to carry on using them. The Government must halt the mass reassessment of people receiving incapacity benefit immediately, until the process is fixed.

“This ruling will help improve one aspect of the Work Capability Assessment, but there are still many other problems with it.  We will keep campaigning on behalf of everyone we represent until the whole process is fair for everyone.”

Paul Farmer, Chief Executive of Mind, said: "Mind welcomes the tribunal's judgment, which has found that the claims process for Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) is unfair to people with mental health problems and that it has to change.

"The judgment is a victory, not only for the two individuals involved in this case, but for thousands of people who have experienced additional distress and anxiety because they have struggled through an assessment process which does not adequately consider the needs of people with mental health problems.

"Following this judgment, Mind hopes changes will be implemented quickly to ensure the claims procedure is fairer and more accurate.

"Mind has campaigned to improve the assessment process for many years and we will monitor the situation closely to ensure people with mental health problems receive the benefits they are entitled to."

Mark Lever, Chief Executive of the National Autistic Society said: “The court’s decision is a victory for fairness. Now that the tribunal has ruled that the Work Capability Assessment process disadvantages people with autism, the Government must stop putting them through it until a more equitable system is in place.

“Those who devised this process failed to understand the complexities of conditions like autism. By the nature of their condition, people with autism can struggle to understand and articulate how their disability affects them – which is just what this current system requires them to do, by placing the burden on them to collect their own evidence."

Read more:
The controversy around Atos Mental Function Champions

The judicial review taken by people with mental health illnesses

I blogged this morning on the weakness of the argument that ‘the economy is healing’.

It has since occurred to me that there is a much easier way to make the same point.

The case that we are now experiencing a recovery relies upon looking at the upgrades to GDP forecasts but, as I noted this morning, real wages are still falling.

Taking stock of current forecasts, when exactly can we call a recovery in the UK?

First we need to define exactly what we are talking about because depending on the measure chosen, we’ll get very different numbers.

GDP is expected to reach its 2008 level at some point in 2014. By this measure then we could argue that the economy will have ‘recovered’ within 18 months.

But GDP per capita (which accounts for population change) is not expected to reach its 2008 level until 2017. So by this measure, which is more reflective of most people’ s experience than headline GDP, ‘recovery’ is still some four years away.

But even GDP per capita is a poor measure of most people’s experience – it is a mean rather than median and so is distorted by inequality, a huge increase in the income of the top 1% could boost GDP per capita whilst living standards continued to flat-line for everyone else.

If we look at median real wages then we won’t be back (on current forecasts) to 2008 levels until the early 2020s*. ‘Recovery’ measured through median real wages is a decade away.

We have heard a lot recently about how the economy is ‘recovering’, for most people though recovery seems an awfully long way away.

*The Resolution Foundation forecast only runs until 2017, at which point real median wages will still be 11% below their 2008 level.

From Barnet Unison on Monday 20 May:

Today, Barnet council staff were told at a series of briefings that Capita Symonds is the preferred bidder to deliver a whole range of council regulatory services to Barnet residents and businesses. This is the latest step in the council's plan to mass-outsource services at Barnet council. This plan - which is extremely unpopular with residents, campaigners and bloggers - is called One Barnet. You can read more about the battle against One Barnet here).

The services to be handed over to Capita include:

Trading Standards & Licensing, Land Charges, Planning & Development, Building Control & Structures, Environmental Health, Highways Strategy, Highways Network Management, Highways Traffic & Development, Highways Transport & Regeneration, Strategic Planning & Regeneration, Hendon Cemetery & Crematoria.

Outsourcing regulatory services is a bad idea
Barnet Council has a number of statutory responsibilities to monitor the private sector in order to ensure the health and safety of their residents.

The recent high- profile national public-health scandal about the use of horsemeat in processed foods emphasises that private companies do not adequately monitor their own activities, leaving the public at risk. If Barnet council is allowed to privatise these services, it will set a dangerous precedent for other councils.

Barnet council has been promoting itself as an innovator for the future of public services by adopting the Commissioning Council model. In the last 12 months, the Council has overseen a significant number of services outsourced to other providers. The full list of services is here.

John Burgess UNISON Branch Secretary said: “Barnet Council is making a huge mistake in handing over these critical services to the private sector. It is not just about the risks this brings, but what it means in term of democratic accountability. Next year, we have the local elections in May 2014. What options will there be for the electorate if all the council spend is tied up into complex contracts? As for all the remaining staff the message is stark: no matter how loyal you are, no matter how hard you work political dogma is dictating all services are to be outsourced. Today a number of our members have chosen to wear black armbands/ black clothing as a sign of the demise of the public sector ethos in Barnet council.”

Links

1. What is One Barnet watch this short animation http://ning.it/Qp5Adx

2. UNISON report on One Barnet DRS contract http://ning.it/11OQWlQ

3. UNISON financial report on One Barnet DRS contract http://ning.it/12mocvO

4. One hundred PLUS reasons why One Barnet is high risk and bad for residents and services http://ning.it/NAyJLY

5. 397 jobs “The true cost of One Barnet outsourcing” http://ning.it/11OSuMT

From Jayne Linney and Debbie Sayers:

We are both disabled as well as being disability activists. We experience pain and suffering ourselves and see it in our friends, families and colleagues. It is one thing to live with the physical challenges of a disability. It is quite another to hear lies and misinformation every day from our own government.

We have watched sick and disabled friends fall foul of the Employment and Support Allowance process and seen people who are genuinely sick and disabled being left with next to nothing to live on.

Some are living in fear of the Personal Independence Payments assessments to come. In this climate, which is confusing and intimidating for some of the most vulnerable in our society, those in power should be operating to the highest standards of integrity and accuracy.

Recent reports suggest that the Work and Pensions Secretary may have misrepresented Government statistics to make a political point.

http://www.standard.co.uk/panewsfeeds/ids-misrepresenting-statistics-8571591.html

We are concerned that this is just the tip of the iceberg. We believe that Iain Duncan Smith has built a wall of misinformation to discredit all claimants of DLA when the fraud rate of DLA is a tiny 0.5%.

Nearly 500,000 people signed Dom Aversano’s recent petition calling on IDS to live on £53 per week. That was an incredible movement of people trying to hold a politician to account for his words. Please sign this petition, and we might actually see that happen.

Sign the petition here!

Jayne Linney, Debbie Sayers

http://jaynelinney.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/dear-esther-mcvey-your-facts-arent-true/
http://ramblingsofafibrofoggedmind.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/dear-esther-mcvey-your-facts-arnt-true/

Tweet #STOPIDSLYING

Comment by Sue McCafferty

Just how much inconsistency, confusion and hardship do people have to endure before a disastrous policy is abandoned? There were enough early warning signs about the bedroom tax to indicate that it’s deeply, fundamentally flawed. That it won’t work. But the Government refused to listen, so this week ten of those affected, and their families, wait to find out if the High Court will save them from this destructive policy.

Initially there were reports from tenants applying for exemptions, who noticed the anomalies in the legislation: that although a bedroom is allowed if an adult needs an overnight carer, no such exemption exists if a child has the same need. Or that where a bedroom no longer even exists, for example where it’s been used to create a lift or a wet room, the tenant can still be told they’re under-occupying. Or that, despite the Court of Appeal judgement in the Burnip, Trengove and Gorry case, the rule that provision should be made for disabled children who can’t share a room is not being consistently applied.

Housing associations are already reporting the accumulation of arrears. Many tenants are already in debt and have had to borrow money from family and friends. Delays as local authorities sift through piles of discretionary housing payment (DHP) applications push tenants further into arrears. There is confusion and regional disparity, with some local authorities including disability benefits as available income and others not.

Disability living allowance (DLA) in particular has become the new ‘rent money’. In the population as a whole 10% are in receipt of DLA, but among tenants affected by the bedroom tax this proportion rises to over a third. Despite the Burnip judgment, in which the judge gave clear advice that disability benefits should not be used for rent, chronically sick and disabled tenants report that their DLA is being included in income assessments by local authorities and their expenditure ruthlessly scrutinised. We have evidence to indicate that the inclusion of DLA as income available for housing costs is widespread and systematic and is being used as a reason to deny disabled tenants DHP.

In some councils it seems the higher the DLA the less likely they are to offer a DHP. Tenants are being told their DLA award takes their income above the level at which a DHP would be considered and they should use part of their allowance to pay the bedroom tax – despite the fact that DLA is awarded for care and mobility costs, not housing needs. Not only is this ethically questionable, but it is also highly problematic for anyone who faces losing all or part of their DLA entitlement when assessed for Personal Independence Payment (PIP), as their home will also be at risk. No PIP = no money for rent shortfall = no housing. The fear and anxiety this generates cannot be overstated.

Despite Government assurances that extra funds would be added to the DHP ‘pot’ for disabled tenants with significant adaptations, tenants with such adaptations are having their applications for DHPs turned down. Local councils, bound only by ‘guidance’, can choose who receives an award; there is no guaranteed entitlement, no matter how great the need. Tenants are being advised to economise by abandoning their landline or their car or by saving on travel costs to hospital appointments. The scrutiny of outgoings is intrusive and insensitive and takes little account of the additional expense that arises from being sick or disabled where, for example, heating may need to be on for longer or a special diet leads to higher grocery bills.

Any notion that the £25 million in DHPs would mitigate the loss of the £400 million ‘saving’ being clawed back from the pockets of tenants should have been condemned months ago. Again, the Burnip judgment made it clear that DHPs should not be used as mitigation or justification for policies that have a disproportionate effect on people from a protected group (in this case chronically sick and disabled people).

We have received emails from a number of worried tenants whose local authorities have made alarming decisions about their overall housing benefit entitlement including, in some cases, where there should be an exemption for an overnight carer. It is common to hear of appeals being actively, and unlawfully, discouraged.

The stark poverty resulting from the bedroom tax should have made it unthinkable. Housing benefit still operates as a tapering benefit according to how much is earned or saved. Those solely dependent on benefits are still entitled to ‘full’ housing benefit – now minus the bedroom tax. The absurdity of expecting money from those who’ve been assessed as most in need should have meant the policy never saw the light of day.

There has been little or no professional help or advice for tenants. Much of the support has been online, from sources such as Joe Halewood’s blog, Facebook and Govan Law Centre in Glasgow. Individuals and grassroots campaigners have shown the way in supporting tenants, and the forthcoming Judicial Review takes inspiration from the stamina and courage shown by the Burnip, Trengove and Gorry families in their fight against similar discrimination in the private rented sector.

We hope the justice system will bring about change; bring common sense and fairness back into an arena where notions of poverty, disability, equality and adequate housing have been distorted to fit Government reforms. Much of the debate has turned on discussions of the space someone might ‘deserve’ – for example due to their disability – but there has been little recognition of the fact that the poverty is the same, whether your illness or disability requires adaptations or extra space or not.

Someone with terminal cancer or a mental health condition may not need physical adaptations but will be impoverished by this policy just as much as people with other, more ‘obvious’ types of impairment. Similarly, our understanding of disability and chronic illness must recognise that some conditions deteriorate; that help, care and adaptations may be needed in the future even if they’re not be needed now. Shunting people into homes that ‘fit’ them right now denies the reality of life itself.

In its report, ‘Fulfilling Potential: Building a deeper understanding of disability in the UK today’ (February 2013), the Government recognises that only 2- 3% of disabled people are born with their impairment; most illness and disability occurs later in life. 79% of disabled people over state pension age report that they acquired their impairment after the age of 50. This is echoed in the age profile of many affected by the bedroom tax. Illness and disability are part of life. Family structures are organic: they change, evolve; the caregiver becomes the cared for; grandparents look after their grandchildren while parents work; adult children move back home. Many would love to downsize, in time, to the right place, with assistance.

The bedroom tax is causing harm. It will continue to cause harm. It will continue to exacerbate tenants’ mental and physical health problems. These are not temporary teething troubles that will be smoothed over; impoverishing people will drive them deeper into debt and despair.

This is an aggressively destructive and malignant policy; it is rotten in its conception, its design and its consequences. It’s time to abandon it. We just have to hope the judges agree.

Update Thursday 16 May: Kevan Jones raised the issue of Atos mental function champions, the difficulty our group has had finding any information about any "real" impact of the role on WCAs for people with mental health problems and the lack of reporting information in parliament today at the mental health debate. It really is appalling that this "initiative" is thought to be good enough for people with mental health problems, particularly as neither the DWP nor Atos will show anyone any evidence of it producing results. You can read Kevan Jones' comments at the end of this article.

In 2011, Atos introduced Mental Function Champions into the ESA work capability process to "improve" assessments for people with mental health problems. A group of us have spent six months trying to find out exactly how this MFC role works, if MFCs have “improved” work capability assessments for people with mental health problems and if anyone at Atos or the DWP can prove that the role has had any impact for people who must go through WCAs.

We've had very little luck. We did manage to get a meeting with Atos, someone who said he was an MFC and the DWP on the topic, but that was not particularly satisfactory, as you'll see:

For months now, mental health service users and campaigners from the voluntary sector consortium group Mental Health Northeast (MHNE), Newcastle user-led mental health support group Launchpad and False Economy have been trying find out more about the work done by Atos Mental Function Champions.

Mental Function Champions are the mental health support and advice “experts” that Atos supposedly introduced into the ESA work capability assessment process in 2011 (Malcolm Harrington recommended the creation of this “role” in his early WCA reviews). The aim of this exercise was, according to Atos, to “spread best practice and provide advice and coaching to healthcare professionals at any stage in a case” where an ESA claimant had a mental health illness, learning difficulty or cognitive impairment.

Last year in November, Mark Hoban told parliament that he'd introduced an MFC into every assessment centre in the country.

Actually, he hadn't. When our group chased that up, the DWP told us that there were 60 MFCs across the country and that they largely worked a phone advice line – to “provide advice and support to Atos assessors, spreading best practice, and building links with appropriate stakeholders in their area,” whatever that meant. We decided that we wanted to know more.

And with good reason. MHNE and Launchpad were extremely surprised to hear that best practice was being spread through the WCA process for people with mental health problems. As far as they were concerned, the opposite was true and WCAs were having an extremely detrimental effect on people with mental health problems (and they're far from the only ones who think that, to say the least):

As MHNE says:

“MHNE and many other VCS organisations are continuing to experience high demand for support and help from distressed members of the public and mental health service users, who are experiencing either an exacerbation of their existing mental health problems, or in some cases developing mental ill health following Atos/DWP WCAs and ESA appeals. This is happening at a time when funding to both statutory and voluntary services is being reduced due to austerity measures and unfair cuts to services. Many of the calls we receive are from members of the public who are suicidal either because they can't face going through a WCA, or ESA appeal, or because they have been unjustifiably found fit for work by Atos and the DWP. The increase in demand for support is such, that all MHNE staff have had to undertake suicide prevention training so that we can deal with these types of calls.”

As we say, MHNE and Launchpad weren't and aren't the only ones with doubts. According to Harrington's third review: “some representative groups claim that awareness of the champions is low and that those who are aware of them believe they have little or no impact on the quality of mental function assessments. The review asked Atos to report on the effectiveness of their mental health champions. They said that their healthcare professionals found the champions to be ‘a great resource’ and that they were of ’great use to put any uncertainties into perspective’.”

Saying that MFCs were a great resource and of use to put uncertainties into perspective is one thing. Proving it is quite another.

We've been trying for six months, but our group (MHNE, Launchpad and FE) has not been able to find any concrete evidence of performance measurements or reporting for the MFC role at all. Despite repeated requests, the DWP could not produce that information and finally admitted that Atos "did not report back to the DWP on things like that."

Which wasn't too good. We wanted to know exactly what impact the MFC role was having on WCAs for people with mental health problems, but nobody would give us anything definitive.

This is extraordinary. The MFC role is an important formal concession that the DWP and Atos have made to the monumental concerns raised about the WCA experiences of people with mental health illnesses - but the DWP wasn't formally monitoring it. ESA claimants did not see MFCs and were not assessed by them: MFCs were there to advise and support Atos assessors only. It's all very well saying that MFCs were "a great resource" but how would anyone know that for a fact? How would the DWP? How would we? Let's not forget that coroners and GPs have reported that people are committing suicide or attempting suicide because of their experiences with work capability assessments. It doesn't get much more serious than that.

Trying to set up a meeting with an Atos MFC

To pin Atos and the DWP down on details of the recruitment, training and performance of MFCs, MHNE, Launchpad and FE tried for about six months to get Atos to agree to set up a meeting with us and several MFCs. It was clear that Atos did not want such a meeting: we sent emails and made calls and Atos kept saying that it would set a meeting, but didn't. So we'd call again and email again and nothing would happen. Our group kept the pressure up, though, and a meeting was finally set up for the first week of April – only for Atos to cancel it at the last minute. They said they wanted to arrange another time when the DWP could also attend.

The meeting finally took place on 23 April. MHNE and Launchpad met with the DWP and Atos in Newcastle (Atos did not want False Economy journalists to attend). One of the two members of the Atos contingent was, it was said, an MFC.

As MHNE and Launchpad say, the meeting was far from reassuring.

The DWP confirmed at the meeting that it didn't formally collect data from Atos on MFC performance. The North Durham MP Kevan Jones has been asking Mark Hoban questions about this on our group's behalf in parliament and been told the same: “There are no formal performance measures around the role of the mental function champion and no separate data is held on the specific performance of mental function champions.”

In the meeting, Atos said that it kept records of calls to MFCs and logs of questions raised with MFCs by Atos assessors – but that it wasn't prepared to make any of that information public. Which is entirely useless, as our group has said time and time again. What's the point of this role if nobody can see whether it works or not, or what sort of questions Atos assessors are asking of people in it? How can people with mental health illnesses be reassured that their issues are being understood by their Atos assessor if they have no idea what sort of advice MFCs give, or what sort of questions Atos assessors ask MFCs before, during, or after assessments?

Our group would like Atos and the DWP to commit to complete public transparency around this. This is too serious a role and too serious an issue to take place behind closed doors.

Other points of note/concern that came out of the meeting:

* Atos and the DWP were unable to provide any specific information on how MFCs were recruited (which seemed bizarre in a way, given that one of the Atos representatives at the meeting was an MFC)

* MFCs are not required to have formal qualifications in mental health. The minimum requirement is that they have some postgraduate experience in mental health. This is vague and in effect, it would be possible to have a practitioner with a few weeks' postgraduate experience in mental health as an MFC. Atos said that some will have a specific formal qualification and that they didn't want people to think that just because there are no minimum criteria for formal qualifications, that doesn't mean that a significant number of MFCs don't have them. They say that all MFCs are already approved "disability analysts" and have been through the basic assessor training which covers mental function and mental health assessment.

Our group has asked what proportion of MFCs have some sort of formal qualification in working in mental health. We have yet to hear back.

* To train for the MFC role, Atos HCPs take a two-day Atos inhouse self-facilitated training course.

* The DWP does not think that the tribunal service gives enough information about the reasons why it overturns decisions.

* And as we say - MFCs are not accountable to the DWP. They do not report to the DWP and there are no performance measures in place to monitor their effectiveness.

Your right to ask an Atos assessor to call an MFC at your WCA

One other vital piece of information that our group uncovered at the meeting was that anybody who undergoes a WCA has the right to request that their Atos assessor calls on the assistance of an MFC during their assessment - if they feel that their assessor does not understand how their mental health problems affect their lives and daily activities. Previously, the DWP has told us that the MFC role is to advise Atos assessors and not claimants - that is certainly the impression that you get from reading Atos' advice on MFCs on its website.

At the meeting, however, Atos said that claimants could take a proactive role in ensuring that assessors made contact with MFCs then and there if they wanted that.

One of our group members asked if a “a claimant could request that an HCP seeks advice from an MFC if they feel that the assessor does not adequately understand the illness?"

The Atos representatives responded that they would have no problem with that and that although it was not something that was generally advertised, there was no reason that an individual couldn't ask.

That at least would give people the option to find out what the MFC role does for them. That's what we want - transparency and robust public reporting of this role.

Mental Health Northeast will release a full report on the meeting and its experiences supporting people with mental health illnesses through WCAs soon. We're hoping that Kevan Jones will have a chance to ask questions about the MFC role in the debate tomorrow.

Update 16 May:

From today's debate on mental health:

Kevan Jones: Professor Harrington’s review of the process put forward the idea of mental function champions. The Government spun that idea out a bit, as though it was the big answer to the problem, and I actually fell for it at the beginning, thinking that those people would be the ones who would carry out the assessments. That was not the case, however; they are there to give advice to the Atos assessors. So we still have assessors with no mental health qualifications.

Representatives of the charity Mental Health Matters (MHNE), a good advocacy charity in the north-east, have just met Atos to ask about the champions, and a number of questions have been raised. Atos would not tell them how the champions were recruited, and there is no indication that they need any formal qualifications. I understand that they are given a two-day Atos in-service training course, but they do not interact with any of the royal colleges or other outside bodies. Remarkably, they are also not accountable to the DWP. I put it to the Minister that he needs to tell the DWP that this must be looked at again. The process is not only causing a lot of heartache and difficulty for many of our constituents; it is actually not a good use of public money. People are failing the tests and going to appeal. At least one of my constituents has been affected in that way. They sometimes go through the process and end up in a residential hospital for a month, which must cost more than the amount of benefit that might have been saved.

●Save Our Hospitals ●No to Privatisation

Demonstrate on Saturday 18 May, 12pm, Jubilee Gardens, Waterloo, Belvedere Rd, SE1

This demonstration has been called by an unprecedented coalition of London residents, medical staff, trade unions and health campaigners who have come together to raise the alarm regarding the biggest threats to A & Es, maternity units and in-hospital care for a generation.

Closures planned across the capital include nine accident and emergency departments, a number of maternity units and thousands of hospital beds that campaigners believe will put lives at risk..

Hospitals and community services are also threatened with takeover by multi-national private companies. Hundreds of thousands of London residents have pledged their opposition to these privatisation plans for the NHS.

Across the capital, tens of thousands have taken to the streets to protest and demonstrate to save their local hospitals. 80,000 signed a petition against the closures in North West London. 25,000 joined the demonstration to defend Lewisham hospital (see the video below by Stuart Munro for more on that fight and Lewisham protests):





The local campaigns have joined up to call on the government to stop these closures. We are working together to undermine the government’s divisive tactics of playing one hospital off against another. Instead, we are demanding that the government provide the funding needed for safe levels of care across the capital.

The demonstration has been called by Save our Hospital campaigns across London and London Keep Our NHS Public. It has been backed by Unite the union, a number of MPs and councillors, trade unions and the London Labour Party. Please ask your organisation to pledge their support to publicise the demonstration by adding your name. Donations towards costs will also be gratefully received (Cheques to Keep Our NHS Public c/o 32 Savernake Rd, NW3 2JP).

Support for the demo includes: Save Lewisham Hospital Campaign, Defend Whittington Hospital Coalition, Save our Hospitals Ealing, Save Hammersmith and Charing Cross Hospitals, Andy Slaughter MP, Steve Pound MP, Virendra Sharma MP, John Cryer MP, David Lammy MP, Frank Dobson MP, Jeremy Corbyn MP, John McDonnell MP, Dianne Abbott MP, Greater London Labour Party, London Green Party, Dr Onkar Sahota, Jennette Arnold & Murad Qureshi, Joanne McCartney  London Assembly Members, Catherine West Leader Islington Council, Rachael Saunders Councillor Tower Hamlets, Unite the Union, National Union or Journalists, RMT, London Region GMB, London Regional Council of the BMA, London Region CWU, London &SE Region PCS, Whipps cross Hospital UNISON, Westminster UNISON, Save Chase Farm, Brent Fightback, Kensington and Chelsea Residents Save Our Hospital, Ealing Trades Union Council NHS Campaign, Medical Practitioners Union Unite, Roger Lloyd Pack, Ealing Southall CLP, Kingston Trades Council, Kingston and Surbiton Green Party, Kingston Keep Our NHS Public , Kingston GMB, Islington Trades Council, We Are Waltham Forest Defending Our NHS, Camden Keep Our NHS Public , Tower Hamlets BMA,  Euston Tower PCS, Islington NUT, Tower Hamlets Keep Our NHS Public, Unite the Resistance, City & Hackney Coalition to Defend the NHS, Lambeth Keep Our NHS Public, Camden UNISON,  Save Our Local Hospitals Greenwich, Bexley & Bromley, Lambeth Pensioners Action Group, PCS DEFRA Southern, Coalition of Resistance,  Defend Haringey Health Services Coalition, Islington Pensioners Forum, Redbridge Save Our NHS, National Health Action Party,  Tower Hamlets College UCU, Islington North Labour Party, RMT EPS 0520, Bromley Trades Council, Westminster North Labour Party, Camden Trades Council, Lewisham People Before Profit, Greenwich NUT, London Young Greens, London Magazine NUJ,  City & Hackney Division BMA, East London Health Unite, Homerton Hospital Unison, Occupy London, Brent Trades Council, Haringey 38 Degrees, Croydon TUC, London Health Emergency, Socialist Health Association, National Pensioners Convention, London Young Labour Exec committee, Anonymous UK, Friends of the Earth, Islington division BMA, Hands Off Hinchingbrooke, Save Barnet NHS, University of London Union,  London Region UCU, London Region Unison, London Region RCN.

In a formal response to a letter the TUC recently sent to the UK Statistics Authority, Andrew Dilnot CBE (the Authority’s Chair) replied confirming that:

We have concluded that the statement attributed to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions that ‘Already we’ve seen 8,000 people who would have been affected by the cap move into jobs. This clearly demonstrates that the cap is having the desired impact’ is unsupported by the official statistics published by the Department on 15 April.

The incident also prompted a response from the UK Statistics Authority directly to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, in which Andrew Dilnot remarks that:

In the manner and form published, the statistics do not comply fully with the principles of the Code of Practice, particularly in respect of accessibility to the sources of the data, information about the methodology and quality of the statistics, and the suggestion that the statistics were shared with the media in advance of their publication.

The basis for the complaint has been well documented, and as others (not least Declan Gaffney and Jonathan Portes) regularly point out, this is only one in a number of similar incidents over recent months. So what is driving this trend?

While there are no doubt a number of factors at play, much of the current bout of misrepresentation seems to be linked to a desperate attempt to prove that dramatic cuts to benefits for vulnerable people are in some way good for them. Not content with imposing a benefit cap on families as a means to reduce social security expenditure the Department is keen assert that this initiative is somehow also in everyone’s best interest.

As this FT blog shows, DWP advisers (not necessarily press officers, as Kiran Stacey has noted) have been attempting to place stories on the benefit cap’s effectiveness as a welfare to work measure for months, despite the lack of any evidence to justify their case. Yesterday’s DWP Press Office twitter account was also illuminating – instead of acknowledging that there is any truth to the UK Statistics Authority’s charge, the account issued a stream of justification for the Secretary of State’s claim, based on ‘anecdotal’ evidence.

For those who care about outcomes for those who are currently the worst off, and who want a fair social security system which provides everyone with a basic safety net in times of need, these failed attempts to justify regressive policies are of deep concern. And this is why our argument with the current DWP Ministerial team is not simply about how they choose to use statistics; we fundamentally disagree with their assessment of the impact their policies will have, and demonstrating that their misrepresented evidence doesn’t support their case helps to make this point.