Grayling faces sleaze accusations

Reprinted below is an article first published on Liberal Conspiracy. It is reprinted in full.

Labour MP John Robertson has today written to David Cameron and the Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet Office – Sir Gus O’Donnell – concerning potentially seven breaches of the Ministerial Code by minister Chris Grayling MP over awarding of new contracts.

There is concern over his connections with one of the companies that was awarded the largest amount of contracts at the expense of a local Glasgow charity.

Employment minister Chris Grayling MP announced this month which firms were to get contracts to help the unemployed to find work.

The biggest winner of contracts was Deloitte Ingeus, who received a maximum seven of the 40 contracts on offer in 18 regions of the UK. One of these regions was Glasgow, where Deloitte Ingeus was awarded at the expense of a local charity: the Wise Group.

Deloitte, which owns 50% of the Deloitte Ingeus company, donated in kind over £27,000 to the office of Christopher Graylings in October 2009, whilst he was Shadow Secretary of State for DWP.

At the time, Deloitte was calling for prime contracts to go to large companies instead of voluntary groups due to their ability to borrow more money.

In June last year The Wise Group was short-listed for a national award by thwe DWP that recognised the quality of service it employs to help get people into work.

Last week, Care UK landed a £53million NHS contract in the North East, the same company who’s senior executive John Nash donated £21,000 to Andrew Lansley’s office before the election.

The statement from John Robertson MP says:

"It does seem odd that the same year that Mr Grayling received these payment the company that went onto win the largest contract was calling for these very contracts to go to large companies like themselves. This could just be coincidence but Mr Grayling should have taken himself out of the whole process to avoid any chance that this could be a breach of Ministerial Code.

To be honest, this whole process stinks. If we were talking about another country where a private company was bidding for a government contract after making such large donations to the Minister responsible for making the decision we would be questioning the veracity of the outcome. I don’t see why Mr Grayling simply didn’t refer this part of his brief to another minister.

Unless there is an inquiry into why he didn’t defer this to another Ministerial colleague, and into the whole decision making process of how and who awarded these contracts and the level at which Mr Grayling’s office played in the formulation and development of this policy when he was in opposition, then the general public will believe that the Big Society really stands for the Big Stitch up.

It is clear that at some stage the ability of bidders to be judged on their ability shifted to not just price but also size of the bidding company, and I am concerned about the effect that the awarding of contracts for such an important scheme could have on my constituents and other colleagues in Glasgow if the prime contractor was not picked on its ability alone."

You can read the letter from John Robertson at Labourlist.

Why many ESA claimants aren't 'fit for work'

The government is on its latest tirade against the poor, the sick and the unemployment. Now they have discovered three-quarters of people who apply for sickness benefit are found fit to work or drop their claims before they are completed, official figures show. Department for Work and Pensions figures showed 887,300 of 1,175,700 employment and support allowance (ESA) applicants over a 22-month period failed to qualify for assistance. Of those 39% were judged fit to work, while 36% abandoned their claim.

As a result, Employment Minister Chris Grayling has said the welfare system needed changing. He said the figures underlined the need to reassess people still on the old incapacity benefit - a process which the government began rolling out last month.

"Once again we have clear evidence of the need for change in our welfare system. We now know very clearly that the vast majority of new claimants for sickness benefits are in fact able to return to work. That's why we are turning our attention to existing claimants, who were simply abandoned on benefits. That's why we are reassessing all of those claimants, and launching the work programme to provide specialist back to work support. We will, of course, carry on providing unconditional support to those who cannot work, but for those who can it's right and proper that they start back on the road to employment."

Before he opens his mouth this man really should engage his brain. When people go to doctors, health visitors, Citizen’s Advice Bureaux, or welfare rights organisations they are often advised to apply for incapacity benefit (or employment and support allowance as it is now). There is no subterfuge on the part of the working classes, no plot to overthrow the state and we aren’t a nation full of social security scroungers either.

The reality is that many of these assessments have been found to be inhumane, lacking or evidence of genuine care and designed exclusively to trap people into a situation where they can no longer claim benefit.

Take some of the following cases:

“In Hull, my Atos doc showed up on the cancelled day (I had another appointment to go to that I could not reschedule) and I had to send him away, then I attended the centre for the next attempt, it is in a busy area, buzzer at door, terrible chairs and long corridors. My wheelchair broke in the car park they watched me and my friend struggling with it out of the window and did not offer help. In the end we gave up and I used my crutches. We told the doc exactly what happened so she made no mention of it on my assessment and said I only use crutches! Amongst other 'mistakes' and flat out falsification, I was refused all help and am still awaiting an appeal date a year later.”

“The fellow came to my house as I was housebound - they knew I was housebound and yet they kept trying to find evidence of me walking.”Don't you go round to the shops?" No, I don't, it was too far in winter and unsafe, and if they had called my carer at all she could have told them that (The DWP never even contacted her). He managed to drag out that I had been fed up with being stuck at home for three months so I dragged myself into town to get some flowers and visit my favourite coffee shop - it was the same day my son ended up getting excluded and so I spent the three days afterwards trying to recover with an autistic hyperactive child, drugged to the gills on Tramadol. Result on the assessment form? "Can walk up to 500 yards pain free." Once I got the arthritis scan in there which shows damage to the bones in my feet, I wanted to appeal the "no mobility allowance" grounds but missed the appeal date by three days. I now have to file, yet again, for change in circumstances, which is the second time I've had to do this after appealing my first claim. It's doing my head in, and I'm appalled that it seems they never bothered to follow up either my GP report, the OT report or my carer's input.”

“The centre in Bristol is at flowers hill. It's a concrete bunker at the end of a long and boring bus ride. Very awkward to get to and depressing place. Not great if you're suffering from post-traumatic stress and depression. Having let food rot in the fridge and been too stressed to leave the house I figured out I could demand a home visit so I did. Haven't been back there since and I have no intention of doing so if I can avoid it. The first and only time I went there the assessor twisted everything I said and dumped me off incapacity benefit. The copy of the form (I had to request in advance) was full of lies. Didn't have it in me to appeal at the time and it took ages before I could reapply to go back onto IB. Home visits have been better for all the obvious reasons. The first home visit was done by a real doctor and I had a person from the mental health authority there as a witness. (The doctor was shocked at the earlier story and didn't believe it until the health worker confirmed it). The last visit was done by someone who came over as being helpful and pleasant enough. That surprised me. I did my prep work like all these well connected tax dodging bigshots so gave him the answers I wanted to give him. As far as I'm concerned if they put as much effort into finding the sort of job I'd like to do that paid an amount I could live on it would be a better use of their money. But they won't do that because they'd have to give up control and admit they're wrong. “

These are just a minute sample of the vast quantity of complaints customers have about the assessment process. So before Grayling sounds off about the number of people who are refused ESA he needs to look at two things. Firstly he needs to understand the process and acknowledge how many social care workers advocate clients make a claim for ESA, even if their chances of success are small. Secondly he needs to completely revamp the entire assessment process and make it far more client-friendly.

But then if he did that he wouldn’t get the kind of results he is getting at the moment and he would find the vast majority of claimants are genuinely in need.

No way to treat people

Yesterday, the Daily Express and Daily Mail argued the country was full of cheating, scrounging sick people.

The Express screamed: “Blitz on Britain’s benefits madness”, contrasting those on “sickness handouts” with “hard working taxpayers”.

Tory MP Philip Davies joined the outcry, saying:

“People are sick to the back teeth of being taken for a ride by people sponging and scrounging and abusing the system.”

While the Mail shouted:

“Scandal of 80,000 on sickness benefits for minor ailments… including diarrhoea.”
To accompany arguments that “drug addicts” have been allowed to claim, they included a picture of someone snorting white powder through a rolled up note.

The papers go on to list “blisters”, “headaches”, “depression”, and “problems with scholastic skills” as evidence that there are hundreds of thousands of people living the good life at “taxpayers” expense who have nothing really wrong with them.

For a moment, let’s forget the fact that only the first ailment a person lists on their claim form is taken into account in these figures. Let’s ignore the fact that someone with “nail disorders” might also have cancer or kidney failure. Let’s ignore the fact that someone classified under “drug abuse” might also suffer from schizophrenia or multiple sclerosis.

Once upon a time (under Labour) the government took substance misuse seriously and recognized just how much of a growing problem it had become. There was a recognition that many users and abusers wanted to work, but because of the chaoitic lifestyle they lead, they were unable to find a job.

The right wing Tory press would have us believe that addicts are making a daily lifestyle choice. No – they may have made a choice when they first took the drug, but now they are addicted that has long gone out the window. Now it is the heroin, cocaine, amphetamines or barbiturates that control them. Reducing addiction to calling those affected ‘scroungers’ is not only unhelpful, it is actually unhelpful and can push those affected away from treatment and possible recovery. But there again, a working class girl coming off drugs and holding down a regular job doesn#t sell newspapers does it?

And what about “headaches?” Cluster headaches (also referred to as “suicide headaches”) are thought to be one of the worst pains known to man, not something to be confused with a hangover.

I could go on, but I’m sure you’re beginning to see why these horrible articles, fuelled by “statements” today from Chris Grayling, minister for Work and Pensions and Citizen Dave, the people’s toff, only serve to turn a sensitive, delicate subject into a form of attack. They aim to pitch one condition against another whilst asking those more fortunate to view those who are unwell with mistrust and contempt.

Perhaps there is a legitimate debate to be had over which conditions “hard working tax-payers” are willing to support. There is certainly some validity in the claim that many sick or disabled people would love help and support to find a job. Remember the Labour-inspired Pathways to Work or New Deal for Disabled People? They were designed for just this purpose, but the government scrapped these programmes and left the staff running them on the dole.

Hopefully, no reader of this blog agrees that this is the way in which to conduct this debate? Allowing politicians and media to whip up hate and prejudice against a particular group of society is something we should all be ashamed of.

Welfare to work and the 'lobster' effect

Most readers are aware that if you place a lobster in boiling water it will jump out. Yet, if you place it in cold water and increase the heat slowly it will stay in the pot until it eventually dies. If ever there was a living example of how that applies to humanity it is in the current behaviour of welfare to work staff.

Several weeks ago the government announced the closure of Pathways to Work and NDDP contracts and this was soon followed by the awarding of new contracts for the Tory flagship Work Programme. Analysts have long argued that Pathways to work and NDDP were destined for the ‘chop’ so it came as no surprise – yet a sizable number of people working in the industry seemed astonished the axe had fallen.

In a similar vein, the new prime and subcontractors are starting to recruit their staff for the delivery of the new contract. This has already meant that considerable numbers of people have been given redundancy notices and others have been advised they will be subject to TUPE regulations.

I have long argued that the new programme will not require anything like the numbers needed for the previous Flexible New Deal contract. Sadly, my insights are now starting to come to fruition. A number of large organisations have already started the process of ridding themselves of surplus staff, whilst a number have already started the process of TUPE’ing staff over to the new provider.

Inevitably this will mean that sooner or later new providers will ‘fill their books’ and have all the staff they need, leaving many staff who currently work for providers who lost out on the provision out on a limb.

Information coming in already suggests that at least three providers are without any work whatsoever after September, 2011 and this will mean they will have no need for any operational staff after that time. Unfortunately none of these companies have contacted the new providers to begin TUPE negotiations so this will inevitably leave everyone out in the cold and could result in at least 1,000 redundancies.

Overall it is unclear how many people will lose their jobs throughout the sector. Information from companies is deliberately vague and their employees are being fed little to no information. In most instances staff are being advised not to worry because they will be ‘subject to TUPE@ - but existing evidence has already shown this does not automatically mean they will still remain unemployed. Indeed, the available evidence is very much that because the financial model required by DWP was so close to the edge, most providers were forced to produce delivery designs where less staff would be required to achieve more, for less money.

Had the industry stated at the beginning of February that within six months 2 – 3,000 people (and possibly more) would be booted from their jobs there would have been an outcry. Staff would have been writing to the papers and to their MP; Grayling would have faced a picket line when he spoke at the Welfare to Work conference; some organisations might have had to contend with industrial action to protect jobs; MPs would have been asking questions in the House of Commons.

Instead the bosses remained silent – and if they did say anything, they told and continue to tell half-truths., or downright lies. Typical of this is A4e, who recently put staff in areas where they did not win on redundancy notice. The hope is that following TUPE consultation all of these people will move over to new employers – but of course this depends if they have vacancies. Also, some are starting to realise that local delivery managers may not be subject to TUPE and could find themselves out on their ear.

Sadly the people in the sector are almost certainly not going to do anything about it. Like ducks in the pond they are all waiting for the hunter to come and shoot them. Whilst they wait for the slaughter to begin most of these good people are working like Trojans in the hope that above average performance will somehow give them the chance of a new job.

It is very, very sad and people’s lives will be decimated because Duncan Smith and Grayling wanted to make their mark on the industry. Well they have – and as the cull begins, the blood is dripping from their hands.

We are in this together

Following my call yesterday for attendees of the Welfare to Work conference in June to ‘Turn they Back on Grayling’ there has been a flurry of email response from readers.

The vast majority were completely in favour of action to force the government to rethink some of their ideas on welfare to work and many supported my call for action.

Before other readers start feeing sorry for Mr Grayling please remember this is a man with an estimated personal wealth of £500, 000 and who owns four London homes. Despite his personal wealth, he still had no qualms about charging the state £40, 000 for refurbishments to one of these houses.

Iain Duncan Smith is a fair bit better off with a personal wealth estimated at £1m and owns two homes. He owes his apparent wealth to his wife, Betsy and lives in a £1million house provided by her father, the 5th Baron Cottesloe, which appears to be tied up in a series of complex family trusts.

I am sure the fact these two ministers are so comfortably off will offer great solace to the hundreds of welfare to work staff now facing redundancy. As they look forward to a future sitting ‘the other side of the desk’ at Jobcentres, these hard-working professionals will no doubt sleep much better at night knowing Duncan Smith and Grayling are able to afford the life of Reilly. And the thanks the state will give them for helping so many people back into work? A measly £67.50 or £105.95 a week if they are a married couple or living with a partner.

The time has come to stand up and take action and following a significant response to earlier posting I am proposing that staff in the sector set up a Welfare to Work Action Group (WAG) with the aim of campaigning on a variety of levels – these to be decided ultimately by those who ‘sign up’ to the concept.

Amongst issues that could be raised are the following:

1. Opposition to the government’s ill-planned Work Programme that has already been shown to offer little for the Third Sector and is unlikely to provide any real benefit to the unemployed.
2. Greater levels of equality between frontline workers and senior management and directors (including CEOs). This is not to suggest they should not be well paid, but the difference between the lowest paid and the highest should be no more than 10 times the salary. Thus, if the lowest paid frontline worker earns £16, 000 per year then the Chief Executive can only earn £160, 000
3. Professionalisation of the industry – this should not be determined by an independent think tank and a group of providers as can be seen in the POWER group, it should be determined by the staff themselves.
4. A total rethink on the way the industry is funded. Currently all staff are only secure in their jobs for 5-years. After that time they are often under threat of redundancy and, if lucky, subject to TUPE transfer. It is a disgrace and I know of no other career that places professionals in such a position. Ask yourself the question – would nurses, doctors, teachers or social workers accept such treatment?

These are just a few ideas. They are not exclusive and the ones I have proposed are not set in stone. They are merely discussion points to drive the Group forward.

If you are interested in being part of a radical group dedicated to campaigning and promoting an alternative view of welfare to work, whilst supporting staff who work in the sector then please write to me. The email is at the top of this blog.

If you do not have time to become involved, but essentially support the notion of a group, still contact. Your name can be added to a mailing list and we can keep you informed of what is happening.

This will be a members’ organisation, with policies and campaigns determined by the membership – it will not be a mouthpiece for this blog.

Help start the fightback to preserve services for the unemployed and save jobs in the industry. The more people we have on board, the stronger will be our voice, so tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and encourage them to write in and lend their support.

Turn your back on Grayling

I continue to find it disturbing that each day I am hearing of more redundancies in the welfare to work sector and nothing is happening. Latest rumours are suggesting 96 people working for Reed in Partnership have been put on consultation (though hopefully a sizable number of these will be absorbed into their restructured operation) and they are joined by a further 700 people from unidentified companies who also are under threat. If these numbers are added to those already known it could result in a loss of more than 2,000 people from the sector by next September. From information supplied by colleagues and supporters of this blog I know of at least one substantial company with approximately 300 employees that could easily ‘go to the wall’ as a result of these new contracts. Sadly the key forums for the sector have failed to respond to this seepage in any proactive manner, largely because the majority of contributors to these sites (Indus Delta, Yes Minister and Carley Consult) are mainly the managers who will be responsible for administering these redundancies. Some in the industry saw this tragic situation emerging long before the results were announced. Indeed the bid documents for the Work Programme set out a criteria guaranteed to make companies underprice themselves and plan projects based on reduced staffing. The documents stated "For each percentage point below the maximum price we will award 1 point of evaluation marks on top of the maximum 60 that are available for quality. For each percentage point reduction above 20 this will drop to an extra 0.5. The percentage reduction and the finance tender mark will be to two decimal places". This simple statement had a direct effect on the future number of people who would be employed in the sector. As on surprisingly frank commentator on Indus Delta stated “This obviously has an impact on the quality of service that can be offered, or the numbers of people that can be paid to deliver that service either directly or in their supply chain.”

Next month, Chris Grayling will dare to show his face at the Welfare to Work Convention in Manchester on 30th June and, no doubt, will be greeted with much applause by the senior managers sat inside – partly because they will be some of the people who have managed to stay in a job whilst many of their colleagues will be outside, either looking for work or, if they are lucky just starting to come to terms with a new employer. It is critical the sector tells Grayling how distressed they are with the administration of this new welfare to work scheme and how it has led to large scale redundancies throughout the industry. Sadly the evidence would suggest the industry is surrounded by apathy and a general belief in its own impotence. It sees itself more as a victim of circumstance rather than as a proactive part of the process. It is therefore critical at this time that those opposed to the cuts vocalise their opposition to the redundancies that are happening across the country. As part of this I call on the Coalition of Resistance, the Right to Work Campaign, UK Uncut, the broader trade union movement, socialist and radicals to organise now so we can picket the conference and let Grayling here our voice. Can you imagine the press reaction if the audience stood as Grayling was speaking and simply turned their back on Grayling? So the campaign begins today. If you are attending the conference I ask you, when Grayling goes to the podium, stand and turn your back throughout his speech. Those of you unable to go to the conference itself but willing to help should contact me directly to organise the picket outside the conference. TURN YOUR BACK ON GRAYLING! We may not win this struggle and save hundreds of jobs, but we can let the Tories know we will not tolerate their lack of care for people’s jobs any longer.

Incapacity Benefit "crackdown" begins today

The one-and-a-half million people who claim incapacity benefit will start to receive letters this week asking them to be tested for their ability to work. The new assessments are part of government plans to reduce the number of long-term claimants in a rolling programme through to 2014. Almost 30% of those who took the test during pilot schemes in Burnley and Aberdeen were declared fit to work. However, disability charities say many of the assessments are unfair.

However, the question remains, how many disabled people on benefits are really fit for work? It’s an important question, particularly in light of revelations of unfair assessments being conducted during the pilot phase of this programme. Suggestions that people suffering from cancer and undergoing chemotherapy or individuals with long-term mental health problems all being deemed ‘fit for work’ does not inspire confidence in a system

Nonetheless, the government continue to publicise that just over a quarter of those assessed were “fit for work”

Put like that it sounds as though a large proportion of people on these benefits are swinging the lead – and this is certainly the story newspapers have been telling recently.

But that is entirely the wrong way of looking at it. To understand why, a little explanation is needed. Since the mid 1990s, the main income replacement benefits for disabled people have been Incapacity Benefit and Income Support. The Labour government brought in a new benefit to replace them, called Employment and Support Allowance, with a tougher eligibility test, called the Work Capability Assessment. One of the new government’s priorities has been to move people who currently get the old benefits over to ESA, which means applying the new test to them.

They expect this to take three years and the results are from a pilot project that’s mainly about finding out if there are going to be any operational problems. It was only running in two locations – Aberdeen and Burnley – so the numbers involved are quite small. (This means we have to be a little cautious about the results.)

I understand that about 12 per cent of those found fit for work are appealing. About 40 per cent of WCA appeals are successful; if that holds true the proportion finally found fit for work will come down to about a quarter.

This shouldn’t really come as a surprise – the new test was designed to be tougher and everyone involved assumed that fewer people would be awarded benefit. So, when a test designed to cut the numbers qualifying is applied to a group who passed an easier test the result is that a large minority fail. If that hadn’t happened I should imagine the DWP would have been quite annoyed.
So where do we get this guff about “two in three benefit claimants are fit to work”, to quote the Telegraph? By adding together the group found fit for work and the people in the work-related activity group.
But the people in the work-related activity group aren’t fit to work, if they were they would have been found fit to work. Instead, they’ve been put in a group of people who are going to be helped to get back to work, but who don’t have to apply or look for jobs (which is what the benefits system requires of out-of-work non-disabled people). The fact that they’re going to be able to work at a future point doesn’t mean they are malingering now.

(There’s another sense in which many more of the people on these benefits are capable of work. If you use the social model of disability, then being a disabled person doesn’t mean you’re incapable of employment provided social and economic arrangements are in place to remove the barriers that currently exclude disabled people. But we are a long way from achieving that.)

When you know the history it isn’t just harder to put up with newspaper nonsense – some of the stuff from Ministers get harder to bear too. Chris Grayling once said:

“Too many people were simply abandoned to a life on benefits; we are determined to put a stop to that terrible waste of potential. The welfare state in this country is no longer fit for purpose that’s why our broad range of reforms are so important.”

But this “important” reform is one they inherited from their predecessors! Whether it is the Government or the Opposition that should be most embarrassed about this I’ll leave to readers.

One thing is clear, this morning a lot of people will be worried about their pending assessment – not because they are afraid to work. Nor will it be because they are unwilling to work. Their fear will stem from the fact that
a) The system has been designed in such a way that some of those who are genuinely unfit will be forced back into work.
b) With the demise of Pathways to Work and NDDP, the mechanisms are not in place to fully support those who have been on these benefits back into employment.

Once again this scheme is another example of the government rushing through reforms without thinking them through and without any consideration of people’s lives.

At this rate, Chris Grayling may easily win the award of being the most hateful man in British politics so far this century.

The Work Programme has its work cut out

Liam Byrne MP, Labour's Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, commenting ahead of the Tory-led Government’s announcement of its preferred bidders for their Work Programme, said:

“Unemployment has now hit a 17 year high and the benefits bill is soaring by over £12 billion.

“This government’s failure to get people back to work is now costing families a fortune because its forcing cuts in tax credits and children’s benefits.

“After a budget that put 200,000 more on the dole, this Work Programme has its work cut out.

“Most people will be really worried that this thinned down programme is simply not enough to get Britain back to work.”

Now THAT is an understatement!

Already firms in the welfare to work sector are setting up to shed jobs. Redundancy notices have been distributed in some organisations (A4e have given all their staff notice) and more will follow. By 1st June the sector will have lost hundreds of quality staff so Grayling can sit smugly in Whitehall, chuntering over the finer points of Tory ideology with Iain Duncan Smith.

It is a disgrace and the shame of these job losses will be laid fully on the shoulders of these hateful people. How can they legitimately say they want to get people back to work, when they take away the jobs of those who work in that sector?

Byrne should have been far more vocal defending jobs. If we can't depend on the Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to support staff in the sector, then who can we trust?

He must make a statement - and soon - defending jobs and supporting small firms in the sector who will suffer whilst the fat cats and big companies cream off the riches on this new contract.

IDS - a very dangerous Tory

Next week, the Welfare Reform Bill will receive its second reading in the House of Commons. However, within its content there are significant problems. Already a number of charities and social care organisations have spoken against aspects of the Bill and, more recently, the Child Poverty Action Group has launched a legal challenge against the government’s plans to cap housing benefit from 1 April.

They told the Guardian newspaper it has "issued urgent proceedings for judicial review” on grounds that large areas of the south-east will no longer be affordable to the poor, with lone parents and ethnic minorities "disproportionately affected".

From April, weekly housing benefit payments cannot exceed £250 for a one bedroom flat, with a maximum £400 for a four bedroom house. Any excess in rent payments will have to be met by claimants via other means. The campaigners argue these changes will begin a forced migration of thousands of families – particularly in central London but soon after in the wider south. Only 7% of central London would be available for benefit tenants after the changes come in to force on 1 April – down from 52% the day before.

But these are far from the only problems in the Bill. Even the Church of England has voiced some concerns over its content. Speaking to the Guardian on the 22nd October, 2010, the Bishop of Blackburn said:

“The government has said that there will be personalised back-to-work support for those with the greatest barriers to employment. However, among this group are those people who are chronically sick and disabled. Sometimes it may seem that they have a remission of their illness sufficient to enable them to do some kind of work and at other times their illness makes this impossible. The prospects for this group are bleak under the new allowance arrangement. At the end of a year receiving the employment and support allowance, they will be "means tested" for future benefits or be faced with finding a job which they can fit around their unpredictable condition."

The Bishop is not alone in his fears. The charity, Family Action, which provides support to socially disadvantaged families, has argued:

“But perhaps most worryingly of all, the Universal Credit Impact Assessment admits that questions around childcare remain unresolved. Under some of the proposals for childcare costs hinted at in the white paper, some parents could end up paying ten times more towards their childcare costs from their own pockets than they do at present (a reduction from 97% to 70%). Parents who would otherwise be better off under the Universal Credit could end up considerably worse off as a result of these proposals if they have high childcare costs. In some circumstances they could pay to take on extra working hours, if this means that they have to pay for additional hours of childcare.”

So why are the Tories proceeding so heartlessly without taking into account the views of so many people? The answer is not so simple.

There are three key players moving the Bill through its stages in the House of Commons – Chris Grayling, Steve Bell and, of course the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Iain Duncan Smith,

Grayling is an old style Tory with traditional values. He is steeped in the traditions associated with Conservativism, including the ‘value and need to work’ and personal responsibility.
He has previously held high office, but after a rather unpleasant homophobic incident was pushed down a level in Citizen Dave’s selection of Government ministers. Make no mistake, he wants Iain Duncan Smith’s job and will do anything to get it. He lacks the intellectual capacity of IDS, but is nobody’s fool and whilst it suits him, he will campaign vociferously for the Bill.

Steve Webb is rather different. A Liberal democrat who has sat rather comfortably around Tory circles since last May. He was the Lib Dem spokesperson for Work and Pensions in the past, though tended to shine more as an expert on pensions, rather than welfare benefits.

Ideologically, Webb leans more to the left and as wants a fairer welfare system. It has long been his contention that Universal Credits will ’level the playing field’ and. He has yet to comment on the many arguments against aspects of the Bill and will want to be seen as being loyal to Clegg and the Cabinet – partly because he has some idea of seeking the leadership himself at some future stage in his career and does not want to do anything to blot his copy book..

Iain Duncan Smith is different. He was thrown out of office as leader of the Conservative Party and spent many years in the political wilderness He wasn’t wasting his time. At the bequest of Citizen Dave, he set up the Centre for Social Justice, a right-wing think-tank dedicated to offering a more traditional view on social issues. His position as Chair and Founder of the Centre allowed him to meet the charismatic figure of Debbie Scott, the Chief Executive of welfare to work charity, Tomorrow’s People. Here he discovered a whole arena of social problems relating to unemployment and his mission became to talk to large numbers of those affected by poverty.
It led Peter Watt, the past Secretary of the Labour Party to say of him:

“Take the example of welfare policy. Listen to Labour and the assumption is that IDS wants to punish the poor, somehow that he gets off on increasing vulnerable people's suffering. What we don't think is that he wants to improve the lives of the poor but just doesn't think that the current incarnation of the welfare state is the best way to achieve this.”

It is a realistic analysis. IDS is not ‘your typical Tory’ - he doesn’t want to smash the poor, or create a divided Britain. He genuinely believes the existing welfare system is broken and his reforms will bring about greater opportunity for all. He genuinely feels many people on incapacity benefit have been sidelined and need help back into work and he truly thinks Flexible New Deal was a disaster and his new Work Programme will be the solution.

Of course, the evidence says he is wrong and many readers of this blog will know I have outlined many of my concerns on previous pages. But we should not batch IDS into the same pot as Citizen Dave or any of his toff friends. Certainly IDS comes from a privileged background and has never experienced poverty, but do not fall into the mistaken assumption he doesn’t care – he does – unfortunately, his values and beliefs have directed him to conclusions that will continue to divide this country.

Make no mistake – Citizen Dave and his Tory cronies are a nasty smear on British politics, but their political naïveté will ultimately be their own downfall. Iain Duncan Smith is ideologically driven and has a very clear mind of the society he wants to bring about – and that makes him the most dangerous kind of Tory. We have yet to see the worst of IDS. Watch this space.