Work and Pensions CommitteeSupplementary written evidence submitted by the Department for Work and Pensions

[Question numbers refer to the oral evidence]

Question 93:

DWP’s own recent research report said that decision makers feel they have less control over decision making now than previously. What are you doing to ensure that decision makers are, as promised or intended by the Harrington report, able to make properly informed decisions that take account of all the medical evidence and are right first time?

Response to Question 93:

A great deal of work has been undertaken with the Decision Making Community in order to ensure that they are very much in control of the process. The Decision Maker is encouraged to have discussions both with Atos, where appropriate, and with the customer in all cases to ensure that they have all of the evidence available when making a decision. Revised guidance has been made available to support this approach.

All Decision Makers also take part in 6 weekly “Every Decision Counts” telephone conferences. At these events, guest speakers are invited from expert domains and Decision Makers are invited to question the panel and to make suggestions to improve the process.

Question 95:

When will we see that data?

This question relates to the Permanent Secretary’s comment: “…in fewer cases are we simply going with what the mathematical score might have indicated was coming out of the assessment itself. In fewer cases are we simply following the arithmetic. That suggests to me that our decision makers are exercising increasingly more of the judgment that Professor Harrington has invited them to take. If, for example, X% of cases were producing a different answer when the decision maker looked at it than you might have thought by just reading the report, and that had stayed the same after everything Harrington had done, you would imagine it was not making much difference. In practice, rather more of them are being decided differently from the way the report suggests”.

Question 98:

Would it be possible for the Department to supply the Committee with, say, the percentages now compared with 12 months ago?

This question relates to the Permanent Secretary’s comment “…there are more decisions now where the decision maker is taken a different view [to the Atos recommendation] than was the case a year ago.

Response to Questions 94 and 98

The table below shows the number of occasions where the DWP Decision Maker made a different decision to the Atos recommendation for assessments in each month between May 2010 and February 2012. It shows that up to the quarter ending July 2010, 3% of Decision Maker decisions differed from the Atos recommendation, rising to 10% in May 2011, before dropping to 8% by February 2012.

NUMBER OF OCCASIONS WHERE THE DWP DECISION WAS DIFFERENT TO THE ATOS RECOMMENDATION EACH MONTH BETWEEN MAY 2010 AND FEBRUARY 2012

Result Date	Caseload				Proportion
	Same	Different	Clerical + Other	Total	Same	Different	Clerical + Other
May 2010	28,400	900	1,100	30,300	94%	3%	4%
June 2010	32,300	900	1,200	34,400	94%	3%	3%
July 2010	34,600	1,100	1,000	36,800	94%	3%	3%
Aug 2010	31,500	1,200	1,000	33,800	93%	4%	3%
Sept 2010	32,300	1,200	1,200	34,700	93%	4%	3%
Oct 2010	31,400	1,900	1,100	34,400	91%	6%	3%
Nov 2010	34,100	2,600	1,200	37,900	90%	7%	3%
Dec 2010	22,700	2,300	1,000	26,000	88%	9%	4%
Jan 2011	26,500	2,700	1,000	30,200	88%	9%	3%
Feb 2011	28,600	3,100	1,000	32,700	88%	9%	3%
March 2011	33,800	3,600	1,400	38,800	87%	9%	3%
April 2011	24,000	2,800	1,100	27,900	86%	10%	4%
May 2011	26,700	3,100	900	30,700	87%	10%	3%
June 2011	26,000	2,800	1,000	29,800	87%	9%	3%
July 2011	22,300	2,100	700	25,100	89%	8%	3%
Aug 2011	18,200	1,900	700	20,800	87%	9%	3%
Sept 2011	15,200	1,600	500	17,300	88%	9%	3%
Oct 2011	17,300	1,400	400	19,100	91%	7%	2%
Nov 2011	21,000	1,500	500	22,900	91%	6%	2%
Dec 2011	17,200	1,200	500	18,900	91%	6%	2%
Jan 2012	27,800	1,800	700	30,300	92%	6%	2%
Feb 2012	26,800	2,300	700	29,800	90%	8%	2%

Notes:

1. Although the Committee has requested the percentages now compared with 12 months ago, the data in the above table is the most up to date published data. The figures are consistent with those published in Hansard, Answer of 24th October 2012, Official Report, column 963W, on Work Capability Assessment, which can also be found at the Departments webpage at: http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/PQ_FOI/PQ/2012/122404FR.pdf

2. The figures in the table do not include WCAs completed on Incapacity Benefit Reassessment (IBR) claims. The Department has published initial findings on the outcomes of IBR, which can be found on the Departmental website here:

http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/workingage/index.php?page=esa_ibr

3. The table includes initial assessments only and the numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100.

Question 100:

On WCA, there is a whole area where we are all waiting in Parliament for statistics. Publication of up-to-date stats on the outcome of IBR reassessments, to take that first, as opposed to new ESA claims, has been delayed since July because of problems in ensuring their accuracy. What are those problems, and when do you expect the DWP to publish those statistics?

Response to Question 100:

On 6 November 2012, DWP released official statistics on the incapacity benefits reassessment process for the second time. The publication can be found at the following link:

http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/workingage/index.php?page=esa_ibr

Question 101:

Why were the ones [publication of the IBR statistics] pulled in July?

Response to Question 101

The July release was been suspended due to problems when creating the data for this release. These problems did not impact on the first release of this publication in March.

The issues have now been fully resolved and we are now confident in the quality and accuracy of the statistics.

Questions 102 and 110:

102: I live in the earnest hope that the number of successful appeals, depending on how you define “successful”—where the customer has gone to the tribunal and has succeeded and the original judgment, whatever the word is, is overturned—will be reduced. I posit that we will know whether Harrington’s changes are beginning to show an improvement if the number of successful appeals starts going down form the shockingly high 40% that it was. When we took evidence from the Minister for Employment, Chris Grayling, in March last year, he said it was too early to tell whether the implementation of Professor Harrington’s recommendation s was having an impact on the high level of successful appeals. Are you able to update us on the situation now? When are you anticipating that the figures will be released into the public domain?

110: We need to know whether [the overturn rate] is still 40%, 35%, 55% or 25%. I spoke in a debate only last week, as did my colleagues. If I remember rightly, I said that if there is still a 40% success rate in appeals, we have a challenge with the Harrington changes. I understand that there are two or three changes happening as well as Harrington, but it was months ago when we got data on the 40% appeals. When will we get the new data?

Response to Questions 102 and 110

The most recent statistics on the number of ESA appeals where the Tribunal has overturned the DWP decision were published by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service on 27 September 2012. These show that, in April to June 2012, 42% of ESA appeals which were cleared at hearing were overturned in the claimant’s favour.

In contrast, DWP’s cohort analysis shows that:

Since the introduction of ESA in October 2008, DWP Decision Makers had made 1,145,000 decisions on new ESA claims following a Work Capability Assessment;

687,000 (around 60% of the 1.1 million) were found “fit for work” following the initial WCA;

By August 2012, 272,000 appeals had been heard against the “fit for work” decisions; and

The Tribunal overturned the DWP’s “fit for work” decision in 102,000 of the 272,000 appeals (around 38% of the number of appeals).

This information is published at the following webpage:

http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/workingage/index.php?page=esa_wca

It should be noted that information published by HMCTS slightly differs from the information published DWP. Whereas HMCTS publishes information by the appeal’s result date (ie this will include ESA claims which started at different times), DWP analysis is based on a cohorts of claimants. Further, HMCTS data includes all appeals against WCA decisions (eg also including decisions against placement in the Work Related Activity Group); DWP statistics include only appeals against initial “fit for work” decisions.

Question 103:

Has mandatory reconsideration been started yet?

Response to Question 103:

Mandatory reconsideration has not yet been introduced. Subject to the required Parliamentary debates, our current intention is to introduce it in:

April 2013 for Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment; and

October 2013 for the remaining social security benefits (including Employment and Support Allowance) and Child Maintenance.

Question 111:

Can you give the Committee any indication, even if it is within different cohorts and with the splits you are talking about—which is a point well made; I am not entirely sure the media and others will understand it, but there you go—of when it will get the next cohort figures?

Response to Question 111

The next release date for “Employment and Support Allowance: Outcomes of Work Capability Assessments, Great Britain—new claims” is 22 January 2013.

The next release date for “Employment and Support Allowance—Incapacity Benefits Reassessments: Outcomes of Work Capability Assessments, Great Britain” is 29 January 2013.

Question 115:

We are all well aware of constituents who are claiming ESA and appear to be called back for reassessments very soon after a successful appeal…What is the Department doing to ensure that the frequency of reassessments is—it says here “more appropriate”, but I would say “more sensible”? Is there any thinking-through of that?

Question 118:

We have found no evidence that changes have been made. It is certainly still happening.

Response to Questions 115 and 118

As part of the Work Capability Assessment, a healthcare professional will give advice on when an individual should be re-assessed. This advice is based on the likely improvement in each individual’s condition over a three to 18 month period. Individuals with more serious conditions, where a return to work is unlikely, will be re-assessed at a later date—usually within two years. When making the decision on the claimant’s ESA claim, the DWP Decision Maker takes account of all of the available evidence, so can accept or amend the healthcare professional’s advice on the re-assessment period.

We are aware that some claimants are referred for a subsequent WCA shortly after receiving the outcome of an appeal. We took steps earlier this year to address this issue—in conjunction with the introduction of the “drop down menu”.

Since 9 July 2012, DWP has received feedback from Tribunals on various benefits—including ESA—where the Tribunal overturns the DWP decision. The feedback takes the form of a standardised explanation, chosen by the judge from a “drop down menu”. In conjunction with the development of the menu, it was agreed that Judges would have the discretion to include on the Tribunal’s Decision Notice a recommendation of when the next WCA should take place. The DWP Decision Maker can take account of the Tribunal’s recommendation when deciding when the claimant’s next WCA should occur.