DWP Central Freedom of Information Team
Annex A
e-mail:
freedom-of-information-re
xxxxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xx
Our Ref: VTR 783
DATE: 10th December 2012
Annex A
Dear Mr Newman
Thank you for your e-mail of 19 November requesting a review of the handling of the response
to your Freedom of Information request.
I can confirm that I was unconnected with the earlier reply to your initial request under FoI and
that I have considered your request afresh.
In your request of 16-18 October you asked for:-
Q1: What aspects of the ‘system’ were presenting this barrier? The
fact that there was no WCA did not prevent people job hunting if
they so wished – the only barriers were enough genuinely supportive
employers and work that had been suitably adapted. The existence of
equality legislation does NOT in itself guarantee compliance.
Q2: What evidence is there to support the phrase “MANY people”
(implying the vast majority) rather than say “some people”. The
report quoted does not make this clear.
The report referenced
(http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/hwwb-is-work-good-for-you.pdf) does in
fact conclude that
“The likely benefits (of work) outweigh any potential risks, it
equally points out that this statement is very much “In general,
provided due care is taken to make jobs as safe and ‘good’. [It
explains ‘good jobs’ as those “with appropriate accommodations and
adjustments”], clearly recognising that “normal” (unadjusted) jobs
will not be suitable. It emphasises this key point in also saying:
“The provisos are that account must be taken of the social context,
the nature and quality of work, and the fact that a minority of
people may experience contrary effects. Jobs should be safe and
should also be accommodating for sickness and disability”. I would
like to see the effort DWP has put into creating these ‘special’
jobs – putting the horse correctly before the cart as it were.
Q3: What evidence is there of the additional steps you have taken
to ensure jobs are safe and ‘good’? Again legislation in itself
does not guarantee compliance and DWP would have responsibly
established true levels of compliance prior to proceeding with a
plan based heavily on this assumption. Note I am looking for
independently established, conclusive evidence, NOT just a DWP
opinion.
This report also contains a number of qualifications not mentioned
in the VTR3452 response or generally by DWP:
• There is a disclaimer pointing out that the views in the report
are not necessarily shared by DWP, yet you are referencing its
findings.
Q4: Please clarify; do you accept its findings in full or not? If
not, where are DWP’s provisos recorded?
• The report states “Although the broad conclusions of this review
are clear, several important issues need further clarification” and
7 such issues are listed.
Q5: For each, what work has been done to progress them in parallel
to its other findings and where can the results of this work be
examined?
What information is available to show that DWP has rigorously
pursued these issues alongside the qualified conclusions the report
draws?
Q6: Where is the risk analysis recorded that considered the
consequences of declaring someone FFW whose health as a result
deteriorated, perhaps resulting in early death?
My review decision
Your request for internal review asked:
Q1:
I have read the report you said answers this request at
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/a-new-deal-for-welfare-empowering-people-to-work-full-
document.pdf,
but IT DOES NOT.
It too talks about traditional barriers to employment, but NOT what
they are/were. To repeat, what aspects of the ‘old’ system stopped
a disabled person who wanted to work from working? If there is no
information to support this assertion, it cannot be true. As you
have said, very many disabled people WANT to work – so what EXACTLY
was stopping them – please don’t just say “the system” without
explaining what you mean.
Q2/Q3:
The reference I provided makes the point that to successfully help
disabled people back in to work, the work itself will often have to
be adapted and that simply dumping them on the job market without
this recognition will not work. The author refers to these as
“good” jobs. Which of all of the various back-to-work initiatives
have SPECIFIC responsibility for adapting jobs in line with the
report’s conclusion? This is completely different from supporting
the individual.
The WCA process can easily declare a person FFW against their own
judgement. The report makes the point that “a minority of people
may experience contrary effects”, i.e. their health will suffer as
a result. I am trying to establish here what recognition DWP has
made of this risk and what steps it has taken to mitigate it. Due
to the potentially dire consequences of an error, if this
recognition has been made it will certainly be recorded. If it is
not, you only need say so.
Q4:
Just a correction – the disclaimer DOES NOT state that DWP accepts
its findings. It says unequivocally that the views expressed ARE
NOT necessarily the official view of DWP – rather a case of having
it both ways to avoid accountability.
Q6:
Important to note that despite the potentially dire consequences of
an error being highlighted in this report, DWP did not consider it
necessary to undertake a formal risk assessment.
I have reviewed the information provided in the DWP reply of 13 November 2012 and can
confirm that all information held by the Department within the scope of his request has been
provided, I therefore uphold the original reply sent to you by DWP.
If you have any queries about this letter please contact me quoting the reference number
above.
Yours sincerely,
DWP Central FoI Team
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your right to complain under the Freedom of Information Act
If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review you may apply directly to the Information
Commissioner’s Office for a decision. Generally the Commissioner cannot make a decision unless you have
exhausted our own complaints procedure. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: The Information
Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF
www.ico.gov.uk