UK: Disability benefits (UC, ESA and PIP) - news and updates 2024 (including PIP consultation)

Reply from the BBC ECU -

Thank you for your email to the Executive Complaints Unit. You complained that BBC
journalists failed to question Conservative party spokesmen and women on the possible
impact of proposed reforms to entitlement to disability benefits on disabled people and
society as a whole when considering policy pledges made during the General Election. As you
did not single out specific content, I am considering your complaint on a general basis; a
General Complaint being defined as “a criticism which has been made in the expectation of a
reply and which looks for an acknowledgement of fault or a change in the way the BBC does
things, but which is not about a particular item broadcast or published by the BBC”.
I note that you consider that the coverage was in breach of both the Equality Act 2010 and the
BBC's own charter, for failing to take notice of this aspect of the election manifestos and
reflecting it in output. Before assessing your claim, I should first explain that decisions about
which aspects of news and topics should be included in coverage, and the extent of such
coverage, are fundamentally matters for the discretion and judgment of editors, which do not
by themselves raise the prospect of a breach of the BBC’s editorial policies or standards. The
appropriateness of challenges to spokesmen depends on the nature of claims made in
interviews. It is also the case that journalistic coverage during election campaigns will
generally focus on issues which dominate debate. Nonetheless I would accept that the matters
of interest to you were topics which deserved analysis.
It is not possible for me to explore the whole of the BBC’s election output, but investigation
does reveal that the question of changes to disability benefit entitlement did feature in output.
For example this article, “What the main parties are saying about disability”, explored the
questions you raised in relation to the declared policies of all the main parties. The
Conservative Party’s proposals were the subject of an edition of Access All, issued as a
podcast. Another article, “I feel demonised by politicians for having a disability'”, took a
detailed approach. The view of voters featured online in, Your Vote, Your Voice, which

2

included first person comments on matters including this. Also online, this article, “If my
lifeline is cut, it will be devastating”, focussed specifically on Personal Independence
Payments. It should be noted that the plan to cut payments had already been the subject of
coverage, when it was first mooted in April.
I understand that you would like to have seen more critical attention on claims made by
politicians, but I do not think it can be reasonably suggested that these issues were ignored.
Accordingly I cannot accept your complaint. There is no provision for further appeal against
this decision within the BBC, but it is open to you to approach the broadcasting regulator,
Ofcom for its opinion, though Ofcom does not normally entertain general complaints... You
can find details of how to contact Ofcom and the procedures it will apply at
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/how-to-report-a-complaint.
Ofcom acknowledges all complaints received but will not normally write back to individual
complainants with the outcome of its considerations.
Yours sincerely

Jeremy Hayes
Complaints Director

 

This was my level 2 complaint -

My complaint concerns the then Government's intent to fund cuts to NI by cuts to disability benefits. Your response was to link to BBC Verify and some articles. This ignores my main point that the BBC failed to interrogate ministers on the impact this would have on disabled people and the ensuing societal effects. The Government was not held to account by your journalists and discussion panels did not include anyone affected by or representing those affected by the policy. The only question was whether it was feasible to extract so much money not what the impact would be on disabled people and society as a whole. The specifics of the policy (muddled and confused as they are) were not discussed. Disabled people in work are often reliant on PIP, including adapted vehicles, in order to work. Ministers implied fraud was rampant, although shortly afterwards the DWP rated fraud in PIP at 0%. The Office for Statistics Regulation found that Rishi Sunak and Mel Stride had made potentially misleading statements -https://www.disabilitynewsservice.c...-potentially-misleading-says-stats-regulator/
but BBC journalists did not pick them up on this.
It is the BBC's job to hold politicians to account. BBC journalists did not do that here and showed no interest that this policy would have a catastrophic effect on millions and would cause substantial costs and harm to society, in increased homelessness, hospital admissions, pressure on services and negative impact on life chances for children and young people affected. This was a flagship policy of the then Government and of the Conservative Party going into the election. Supplementary articles, lower down the schedule and on later dates do not make up for leaving it unscrutinised as it was announced.
The BBC's response to me was -
We appreciate that you would’ve liked to have seen more of the effects on disabled people of the cuts in our news coverage, rather than the financial implications of the cut
- but financial implications of the cuts to disability benefits, as opposed to the NI cuts, at both a micro and macro level was not discussed. If it hadn't affected benefit claimants who are also disabled you would have modelled the impacts. This seems in breach of both the Equality Act 2010 and the BBC's own charter.






ReplyForward
Add reaction

 

I expected a fob off, but my feeling is that the BBC sees the effects of political decisions on long term sick and disabled people as human interest stories and not political ones.

Who decides what issues will dominate debate? D'oh, it's the media, of which the BBC is probably the most powerful voice. As I said in my complaint this was a flagship policy of the then government, but half the implications of it weren't even considered.

Still the same going on. The original reaction to Keir Starmer's conference speech was that it contained no new policies of substance, where for us it was a reinvigorated attack on "workless" people, associating us with fraud and reviving the Tories' plan for constant scrutiny of our bank accounts.

 

DWP confirms “small numbers” of ESA managed migrations from September

Published: 07 October 2024
The DWP has confirmed that “small numbers” of employment and support allowance claimants have now received universal credit (UC) managed migration notices.

The news was included in the latest edition of the “LA Welfare Direct Bulletin” sent out to local authority staff today. It follows on from the DWP changing the official “Move to universal credit” website in late September to say that ESA claimants may get their migration letter “From September 2024”.

Under the headline “Update: Move to UC” the bulletin states:

“In September 2024, we started issuing Migration Notices to households receiving Pension aged tax credits (including mixed aged couples), income-based Jobseekers Allowance and small numbers of income-based Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) (including ESA with HB).”

No further information is included, for example, when the process will be ramped up to include significant numbers of ESA claimants.

But it looks as though the DWP is adopting an initially cautious approach to see what issues arise with these first cases before tackling larger numbers of claimants. However, the longer the early “test and learn” phase lasts, the greater the pressure will be to rush claimants through if everyone is to receive their migration notice by the deadline of December 2025.

https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/dwp-confirms-“small-numbers”-of-esa-managed-migrations-from-september?

 

I voluntarily migrated over to UC from ESA last year after finding out I would be £100 a month better off after checking on the benefit calculator website.

https://www.gov.uk/benefits-calculators


I was receiving no benefit other than ESA (support group) so if your are in receipt of any other benefits such as PIP or your personal circumstances are different from mine you will have a different outcome from me.
It was however a nervous wait as the DWP doesn't actually confirm what you will be on until you've completed the process and by then it's too late to turn back.

I didn't want to mention this before as other people may have a different outcome from me and may actually be worse off after the move,
but with the managed migrations having started this may be happening to you anyway. But at least there is the prospect that you will
be no worse off and may actually better off as in my case so check on those websites to find out.

But please don't use my one case as a reason to assume this and double check everything beforehand.

 

It wasn't difficult at all, though my circumstances were fairly straightforward. I applied online to setup a UC account and that was it, no medical re-assessment or financial tests though I had to attend an appointment at my local Jobcentre after being accepted online which was normal for all new UC claimants. At the appointment he seemed surprised that I had voluntarily migrated which worried me but shortly afterwards I was awarded the extra amount I was hoping for. When I told him I had been in the ESA support group he cancelled all job search requirements/activities and that was that, I haven't heard from them since.
I can't stress enough that when you apply online for UC when you hit enter that's it, you're off ESA and now you're on UC, for better or worse. Then you to wait to find out how much you are going to be on, it was a big worry waiting so please double check and then check again to make sure you won't be worse off as there is no going back.

 

I did the same thing using a benefits calculator, and my estimate came out as worse off—though in practice it would be the same, as I'd be given the transitional protection for those receiving both the enhanced and severe disability premiums of ESA. I'm hoping they won't even bother asking me to migrate because I'm close to ageing out, but we'll see.

Anyway, I think claimants are only likely to be better off if they're not currently receiving both these additional elements. They don't exist in UC, and although the transitional protection will stay in place, inflation will erode the two allowances every year until the amount is the same as standard UC.

 

From a post on Twitter,

"I just found this! “The movement in 2024 of Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) to the Neurological disease category / Other neurological disorders subgroup (formerly in Musculoskeletal disease (general) category / Chronic pain syndromes subgroup)”"

https://stat-xplore.dwp.gov.uk/webapi/metadata/PIP_Monthly/Disability.html

 

Not sure where to put this. It is not intended as politics per se but as a reflection of how the system sees disability. From a Guardian article today.

The Tory leadership candidate Kemi Badenoch has been criticised for a campaign pamphlet that said autistic people received “better treatment” and “economic privileges and protections”.

A pamphlet published by Badenoch’s campaign team at the Conservative party conference argued that conditions such as anxiety, as well as an autism diagnosis, had gone from something “people should work on themselves as individuals” to “something that society, schools, and employers have to adapt around”.

The 36-page essay, titled Conservatism in Crisis, claims to identify factors holding back economic growth. It was not written solely by Badenoch but it features her campaign branding throughout, and she promoted it at conference fringe events.

 

I can picture Badenoch striding through hospital wards ripping the drips out of people's arms and demanding to know why they're getting the special privileges of medication and a lie-down.

 

I saw this randomly on Xitter and I don't know how much drugs does someone have to take to believe this stuff but it's definitely closer to all of them than most of them. The delusional factor goes all the way to 11 here.

 

Maybe read the guidelines over a couple of days and then leave them to percolate for a while in your back brain. Or even do the PIP training Benefits & Work offers. There's a cost, but it's not huge. There may also be useful threads in the Benefits and Work discussion pages.

It took me months to draft my application (I applied before they phased out DLA so I could control the timeline), and months to do my review (started well ahead of the award end date for the same reason). I find it easier if I can fill in one section, leave it for a week or two, and then re-read the guideline for that bit and review and edit what I wrote.

I was awarded both components and didn't even need to do an assessment for the second award, which is for an ongoing period. It was a slog, but worthwhile. The B&W advice sheets and online training were really useful.

Also bear in mind that being able to do things some of the time on some days isn't necessarily the same as being able to do it repeatedly, to a reasonable standard, and as often as you need to.

 

I second all this @JohnTheJack

wishing you luck with it all