3 Consultation, communications and
media coverage
47. The Government has described the task of
communicating its proposed reforms as "challenging".
DWP notes that "the target audiences are large and complex
and their requirements, understanding and behaviours are very
diverse." However, it has pledged to put disabled people
"at the heart of the development of the new benefit".[63]
In this chapter we examine the effectiveness of the Government's
consultation and its communications strategy. We also consider
its role in encouraging accurate media coverage of the reforms
and of disability issues more generally.
Media reporting on disability
benefits
48. In our 2011 Report on the migration of claimants
from Incapacity Benefits to ESA we expressed concerns about the
way the media reported on benefit issues and how official statistics
were interpreted by the media. We highlighted that sections of
the media routinely use pejorative language when referring to
benefit claimants. We believed this to be irresponsible and inaccurate.
We fully accepted that the Government does not control the nature
and content of media coverage but felt that extreme care was needed
in the way the Government engaged with the media and in particular
the way in which it releases and provides its commentary on official
statistics. We said that the Government should take great care
with the language it uses and take all possible steps to ensure
that context is provided when information is released, so that
unhelpful and inaccurate stories can be shown to have no basis.
[64] This need
for the Government to exercise care applies equally to press coverage
of DLA reform as to Incapacity Benefit reform.
49. Some witnesses identified similar problems
with the reporting of statistics relating to DLA as has occurred
with ESA. The Disability Benefits Consortium believed that "misuse
and misreporting of statistics" was leading to anxiety amongst
disabled people.[65]
Mental health organisations wrote that:
We are concerned that the Government has not sought
to publicly correct the significant amount of media coverage of
DLA in recent months which has portrayed the benefit as a "handout"
for people with minor ailments such as allergies; has suggested
that very little evidence is needed to claim the benefit; and
has falsely suggested that being on the benefit means you don't
have to work.[66]
Amanda Batten of the National Autistic Society urged
the Government to provide more "explanatory notes and context"
with its statistical releases.[67]
50. Reporting of recent DWP statistics relating
to the use of evidence in decision-making for new DLA claims in
2010 demonstrated the problem. The DWP paper showed that 16% of
decisions were made on the basis of the claim form; 42% were made
following a GP's report; 6% following a face-to-face assessment;
and 36% on the basis of "other" sources of evidence.
The paper makes clear that "more than one piece of further
evidence can be used to make the decision" and that the figures
"indicate the evidence which the Decision Maker considered
to be the main source used to make the decision."[68]
51. The Daily Mail reported the statistics
under the headline "Disabled Benefit? Just fill out a form"
and stated that "A staggering 94 per cent of new claimants
for Disability Living Allowance started receiving their payments
after only filling out paperwork. [69]
The Daily Telegraph headline was "£300 million
of disability benefits paid 'without checks'".[70]
The articles included a quotation from the Secretary of State
for Work and Pensions: "At the moment, hundreds of millions
of pounds are paid out in disability benefits to people who have
simply filled out a form." However, the statistics
were released without any official DWP press release.
52. The Minister for Disabled People told us
that DWP releases a great deal of statistics in an attempt to
be transparent and to aid people's understanding of the "facts
and figures". She defended the Department's approach to statistical
releases:
We have an excellent press department that provides
context for people who contact us, but it requires people to contact
us to be able to give them the context in which those data might
be best viewed. It is very difficult for us to control the way
the media choose to interpret information. Obviously, we would
always do everything we can to ensure that information is put
out there in the right context.[71]
The Minister also implicitly defended the media's
approach, suggesting the "deeper point" was that they
were reflecting the public's lack of confidence in the integrity
of the benefits system. [72]
We received a similar response in the Government's reply to our
Report on the Incapacity Benefits migration, where the Government
said more than once that "The Committee and Government need
to be mindful of widespread public unease about the number of
people claiming incapacity benefits, so it is not surprising to
see that reflected in the media."[73]
53. The Government's view seems
to be that the negative tone of press coverage of benefit claimants
is unsurprising since it merely reflects the public mood about
the integrity of the benefits system. However, the Government
should not ignore the fact that public opinion can also be positively
influenced by the media and we believe it should take the necessary
steps to ensure that its own contribution to media stories about
benefits is accurate and contextualised.
54. While we accept that the
Government does not control the editorial line taken by the media,
we believe it should actively encourage accurate reporting of
its own statistics on benefits. Direct quotations from Ministers
can give undue credence to inaccurate or misleading reports. We
recommend that DWP establishes internal protocols to ensure that
significant statistical releases are accompanied by a press release
setting out the context and providing background explanatory notes,
together with quotations from Ministers where appropriate.
55. Witnesses also highlighted the negative tone
adopted in the media about wider disability issues.[74]
Amanda Batten of the National Autistic Society cited a recent
report by the University of Glasgow's Strathclyde Centre for Disability
Research, which looked at changes in the way the print media report
disability issues and its impact on public attitudes towards disabled
people.[75] The report
found a significant increase in reporting of disability from 2004-05
to 2010-11 and an increased "politicisation" of coverage
over the same period. There had been a reduction in the proportion
of articles which reported disability sympathetically. People
with mental health problems and other "hidden" disabilities
were particularly likely to be represented as "undeserving".
Reporting of disability benefit fraud had increased and this had
impacted on people's perceptions of disability benefits. Focus
groups perceived fraud levels to be much higher than they were
in reality; some participants suggested that 70% of disability
claims were fraudulent and justified this claim by reference to
newspaper articles. The report also found a significant increase
in the use of pejorative language to describe disabled people—use
of terms such as "scrounger" and "cheat" were
found in 18% of articles about disability issues in 2010-11, compared
to 12% in 2004-05.[76]
56. Amanda Batten told us that these negative
public perceptions meant that disabled people were facing practical
difficulties such as people being unwilling to help them. Disability
Alliance felt the debate about disability benefits had been set
in the context of "benefit claimants versus the taxpayer",
ignoring the fact that disabled people make a contribution to
society, often as taxpayers themselves.[77]
PROPOSED NEW UK DISABILITY STRATEGY
57. On 1 December 2011 the Government published
a discussion document which "sets out the Government's vision
of enabling disabled people to fulfil their potential and have
opportunities to play a full role in society". It contains
three areas for discussion: realising aspirations; increasing
individual control; and changing attitudes and behaviours. There
will be a three-month consultation period on these issues, before
the Government publishes its new UK Disability Strategy in the
spring.[78] The Minister
told us the new UK Disability Strategy would be an opportunity
both to improve understanding of disability and to help disabled
people make a contribution.[79]
58. We look forward to the publication
of the new UK Disability Strategy. It provides an opportunity
to address the apparent growth in negative perceptions about disability.
We recommend that it contains proposals to tackle negative reporting
of disability in the media and a Government strategy to get the
message across that disabled people can and do make a positive
contribution to society, very often as taxpayers.
DWP consultation and communications
strategy
59. DWP has pledged to "put the disabled
person at the heart of the development of the new benefit and
the claim process." Following the Chancellor of the Exchequer's
announcement of plans to reform DLA, DWP consulted informally
with disabled people and disability representative organisations
prior to publication of its Green Paper in December 2010. These
initial discussions included early development of the new assessment
with an independent group of specialists in health, social care
and disability, and included disabled people. DWP stated that
it would inform and consult with disabled people and their representative
organisations throughout the policy development process. It was
committed to ensuring that "disabled people have a genuine
opportunity to influence and shape the detailed design."[80]
The Minister told us that the Government was "very much committed"
to "co-production" of the new benefit.[81]
60. There were mixed views from disability organisations
about the consultation process and their ability to influence
it. While Geoff Fimister of RNIB noted that DWP officials had
been "pretty accessible", Neil Coyle of Disability Alliance
felt that, in the 12 months following the June 2010 Budget announcement,
consultation "was not bearing any fruit at all". His
view was that the Government had not offered any rationalisation
for a 20% reduction in expenditure and had "totally ignored"
the potential consequences of reform for current working-age DLA
recipients. He also argued that the Government had not taken on
board the views of disability organisations in the development
of the Welfare Reform Bill, which was published before the end
of the DLA consultation period. Disability Alliance had issued
a letter of claim to DWP, outlining its legal case for judicial
review of the Bill.[82]
61. A recent report, Responsible Reform,
researched and written by disabled people who had come together
through social media, argued that DWP had misrepresented the strength
of feeling against DLA reform expressed in responses to the consultation.
The report analysed over 500 responses which had been submitted
by organisations (out of a total of 5,500) and which were released
by DWP under a Freedom of Information request. It found an overwhelming
majority against specific measures, such as: the change to two
rates of PIP daily living (92%); extension of the qualifying period
(98%); and introduction of a new assessment (90%). It concluded
that DWP's response to the consultation had failed properly to
take these views into account.[83]
However, the Minister for Disabled People, responding to a Parliamentary
Question, said the report seriously misrepresented DWP's approach
to the DLA consultation and failed to acknowledge the "extensive
work" the Department had done since the consultation had
ended.[84]
62. Paul Farmer of Mind echoed Geoff Fimister's
view that communications with DWP, in the later stages of the
policy development process, had improved. However, he felt that
communications had "not been handled well" in the early
stages. The Chancellor's June 2010 Budget Statement had set the
reforms firmly in the context of expenditure reduction in the
current economic downturn, with little information about the rationale
for the reforms or the potential impacts. [85]
63. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's
announcement of the intention to reform DLA made the Government's
communications task a difficult one. This difficult beginning
was compounded by the poor initial consultation on the Green Paper
which was not only shorter than recommended by the Government's
own Code of Practice on Consultation but also took place over
the Christmas period. The Bill was published before the consultation
period ended, and well before the responses could be analysed.
The Government's published response appeared not to reflect the
full extent of respondents' concerns, and the full responses were
not published.
64. Since then, DWP has taken
steps to involve disabled people in the process for devising and
implementing PIP and this has proved to be effective to some extent.
The Department has listened to many concerns: it dropped the proposals
to end payment of the DLA mobility component for care home residents
after the Low Review and to extend the three-month qualifying
period under DLA to six months under PIP. It is important that
DWP now puts even more effort into engaging disabled people in
the introduction of PIP and that it clearly demonstrates the extent
to which it has responded to their legitimate concerns.
63 Ev 106 Back
64
Work and Pensions Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2010-12,
The role of incapacity benefit reassessment in helping claimants
into employment, HC 1015, para 40-41. Back
65
Ev 66 Back
66
Ev 56 Back
67
Q 172 Back
68
Department for Work and Pensions, DLA Award Values and Evidence
Use for New Claims in 2010, in Great Britain, November 2011,
p 6. Back
69
Daily Mail, 11 November 2011. Back
70
The Telegraph, 11 November 2011. Back
71
Q 236 Back
72
Ibid. Back
73
Work and Pensions Committee, Seventh Special Report of Session
2010-12, The role of incapacity benefit reassessment in helping
claimants into employment: Government Response to the Committee's
Sixth Report of Session 2010-12, HC 1641, pp 2 and 5. Back
74
Qq 172-173, Amanda Batten, Eugene Grant, Geoff Fimister and Neil
Coyle Back
75
Q 172 Back
76
University of Glasgow Strathclyde Centre for Disability Research
and Glasgow Media Unit, Bad News for Disabled People: How the
newspapers are reporting disability, November 2011. Back
77
Q 173 Back
78
HC Deb, 1 December 2011, col 78WS. Back
79
Q 238 Back
80
Ev 106 Back
81
Q 235 Back
82
Q 165, Geoff Fimister; Qq 168-170, Neil Coyle, a Labour Councillor
in the London Borough of Southwark Back
83
Dr S. J. Campbell et al, Responsible Reform: A Report on the
proposed changes to Disability Living Allowance, January 2012. Back
84
HC Deb, 20 January 2012, col 1022W. Back
85
Q 167 Back
| 
