Questions about Chris Grayling?

There has been widespread condemnation of the Daily Mail and Daily Express over their sensationalist and misleading articles on Incapacity Benefit claimants yesterday. The BBC have also copped some heat for their unthinking repetition of this story, although at least one of their reporters marshaled some critical thought. Even David Cameron has been the subject of some scorn for wading into the debate.

There is however a name conspicuous for its absence in this story. The name is that of the man who must have been responsible for creating the story - Chris Grayling, the Minister of Employment. The Broken of Britain pointed a finger at Grayling when the Mail and Express printed a similar story a couple of months ago, based on a distinctly dodgy press release he had issued the night before.

The Cabinet Office investigated at our request, but found that Grayling had not breached the Ministerial Code, despite issuing a politically-motivated press release.

This time, the Mail and the Express constructed their fantasies, printed on the 21st of April, from a set of figures released by the DWP on the evening of the 20th of April.

Chris Grayling is the person who has direct authority to order DWP staff to compile figures on out-of-work benefits including Incapacity Benefit. He would have known that the data would be compiled in the form of a list of the reasons for incapacity, rather than the underlying cause. Chris Grayling is the man who appeared BBC Radio 4's Today programme to hype his own figures, on the same day as the story appeared in the Mail and the Express.

The Guardian posted an online story saying:

The employment minister, Chris Grayling, has said the government will launch a "revolution" to help people "turn their lives around" as figures revealed that more than 80,000 people are claiming incapacity benefit for obesity and addiction to alcohol and drugs.

Grayling said the figures – which show that 12,880 alcoholics and 9,200 drug abusers have been dependent on the benefit for more than 10 years – told a "pretty sorry tale".

Chris Grayling knows- he must know as Ministers have more advisers than brain cells - that debilitating obesity is most often caused by the side-effects of prescription medicine or health problems; that alcoholism and drug abuse lasting over 10 years likely signals some underlying mental-health problem or disorder.

There are obvious questions to be asked here. Does Chris Grayling direct DWP staff to issue politically-motivated data for the righit-wing tabloids to pick up, and use the furor to self-publicise and to push his anti-disabled people agenda. If you look over his 10-month period in office, you will note the curious correlation between DWP releases the night before Mail and Express article and radio interviews with Chris Grayling. Correlation is, of course, not causation - still, it is food for thought.

A Critical Judgement

Less than a week after this story about local authorities cutting social care services, Birmingham Council's plan to raise eligibility thresholds to critical has been overturned after a judge ruled it unlawful.

The ruling declared that Birmingham’s proposal to raise criteria from substantial was unlawful because the council had failed to pay due regard to the impact on disabled people during the decision-making process, contravening Section 49A the Disability Discrimination Act.

Section 49A details the six things that public authorities are supposed to do in carrying out the act: eliminate unlawful discrimination, eliminate harassment related to disabilities, promote equal opportunity for disabled persons, create an account of a disabled person's treatment compared to others in society, create a positive attitude towards the disabled, and encourage the disabled to participate in public life.

The families of four disabled adults challenged the local authority’s decision that any needs that were not “critical” would no longer be provided for after 1 April 2011. Birmingham had carried out a consultation on the proposals as part of wider efforts to reduce its overall budget, and the plans were approved by the Council at meetings on 1 and 14 March this year. Lawyers for the families claimed that the local authority’s proposals did not promote equality under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

They also argued that the consultation process carried out by the council failed to meet legal requirements in a number of areas – particularly its lack of clarity in relation to which groups would be affected, and what the options for those people who would have their care package removed were.

The council will need to find the funds within the budget already set to continue to fund for the ‘substantial’ care needs of disabled and older people whilst reviewing the setting of its adult social care budget and make a fresh decision.

Polly Sweeney, a solicitor at the firm who advised Ms A, a 65 year old lady with severe learning disabilities, said the case had national significance. “Proposals to cut mandatory duties and tighten eligibility for social care are the major issues in the social care sector,” she said. “This is about saving front line services for vulnerable and disabled people. It is a very significant outcome and with Birmingham City Council being the UK’s largest local authority; it’s very likely that the result will set a precedent for other cases. Other councils up and down the country seeking to target vulnerable groups through cost-cutting drives may be legally challenged.”

This was a very important judgment in the fight for adult social care and, whilst we need to avoid getting carried away as local authorities are still able to restrict eligibility and remain under pressure to cut costs and budgets, this case will give others pause for thought before doing so.

New PCC Complaint Against the Daily Mail

Feel free to cut and paste:

PCC complaint about today's Daily Mail article entitled Scandal of 80,000 on sickness benefits for minor ailments... including diarrhoea"

The article begins by saying that "Thousands of people have been on incapacity benefit for more than a decade for minor ailments". The article goes on to say that "Officials admitted 135,000 people have been off work for a decade with depression, 1,360 because they have diarrhoea and 6,740 because they have severe stress."

On grounds of inaccuracy: The above statement is inaccurate, misleading and discriminatory. Firstly, the use of the word 'admission' implies guilt or responsibility on the part of the officials responsible rather than a release of statistics from the Department for Work and Pensions. Secondly, the article defines depression as a minor ailment. Depression exists as a wide spectrum, and many cases can be severely debilitating.

On grounds of misleading information: The article characterizes diahorrea as a minor ailment. The article also says that 'Amazingly, there are 30 people ... 80 with a ‘cough’ and ten with blisters.' Chronic diahorrea could be caused by a variety of severe illnesses; coughs can be caused by cystic fibrosis, emphysema or lung cancer; epidermolysis bullosa is a skin condition causing severe blistering and damage to the body. The article also points out that "“53,450 are on sickness benefit because they have problems with ‘scholastic skills", thereby implying that learning disabilities are minor ailments. Many other severe problems, from ataxia to eating disorders, are implied to be minor ailments through dismissal of their symptoms.

On grounds of discrimination: Firstly, the article is accompanied by a picture of a woman inhaling a white powder through a roll of money. This makes particular reference to the "37,480 are listed under ‘drug abuse", without consideration of the fact that addiction is a mental illness, and the high incidence of drug abuse amongst those with other sever mental-health problems. Furthermore, it fails to recognise the fact that claimants are not paid to support drug abuse but to support recovery from addiction.

Secondly, the article discriminates against many disabled people by implying that symptoms of a variety of severe illnesses are 'minor ailments'. By dismissing symptoms of skin diseases, neurological disorders, learning disabilities and mental-health issues, the Daily Mail reinforces discrimination against these groups and others.

The complaint is made under clauses 1i) inaccuracy, 1ii) significant inaccuracy, 1iii) failing to distinguish between conjecture and fact, and 12i) discrimination on the grounds of disability of the Code.

BBC Radio London

Sue Marsh on BBC Radio London this morning talking about the issues raised in today's Daily Mail and Daily Express articles for The Broken of Britain. Sue's section starts about 37 minutes in.

On Disability And The Daily Mail #TBofBTT

A guest post by Fi Douglas

I try not to read the Daily Mail. But sometimes, someone will link to it and my curiosity gets the better of me. Normally, the article is tolerable and it’s only the comments that really get to me. This time, however, the article alone was enough to make me stop what I was doing and seethe. (I didn’t read the comments. Well, I read the first 3 and became so enraged I had to stop.)
Yet again, the Mail (this time Daniel Martin) takes a cheap shot at disabled people. The article effectively implied that there are hundreds of thousands of people on disability benefits that shouldn’t be. Because, of course, Daniel Martin is qualified to make that comment.
The whole article annoyed me, but the first statement that really got to me was this: “Officials admitted 135,000 people have been off work for a decade with depression”. How is that an ‘admission’? Have you ever been depressed? Ever met anyone with long-term depression? Do you actually know what ‘depression’ even means? The ignorance in this statement astounds me. Depression can be as debilitating as any other illness. The implication that depression is a ‘minor ailment’ is, quite frankly, insulting. Hooray for contributing to the stigma surrounding psychiatric illness! – nice work, DM!
Next on the take-down list is people with diarrhoea (I don’t profess to know much about this, but it only takes a hint of common sense to realise that this could severely affect occupational functioning) and those with severe stress, anxiety disorders, and eating disorders (see my comments about depression – yay, stigma!).
Oh, and this statement – “More than 20,000 alcoholics and drug addicts have been drawing on the system for more than a decade” – is made seemingly without any regard for the issues of comorbidity between drug and alcohol problems and other mental illness including depression, anxiety, schizophrenia and personality disorders.
I now revert to bullet point form:

• “20 have been off work with a cough for ten years” – Cystic fibrosis? Chronic bronchitis? Emphysema? Lung cancer?
• “53,450 are on sickness benefit because they have problems with ‘scholastic skills’ – meaning they cannot read, write or add up” – Yup? As @bendygirl pointed out this morning, that’s people with severe learning disabilities.
• “Dizziness and Giddiness” – Yeah, that’d be vertigo. Nausea, vomiting, difficulty standing or walking. Oh and you can get blurred vision, hearing loss, have difficulty speaking, and reduced consciousness.
• “Amazingly, there are … ten with blisters.” - Ever heard of epidermolysis bullosa?

It would be foolish to deny that there are people claiming disability benefit unfairly. I’m sure a small minority do. But to penalise other disabled individuals because of this is far more unfair.
Oh, hang on, sorry, how awful of me, I do apologise – I forgot everyone who is disabled is a filthy scrounger, aren’t they? Apologies for that. My mistake. How could I possibly believe any different?