Scrounging scroungers scrounging

Scroungy scroungy scroungers fit to work!

The Mail goes big on the 75%, while the Express opts for the slightly higher 78%. The Sun, meanwhile, generously rounds it up to 4 in 5. It’s not too hard to find where these figures are from – unlike some, they’re freely available online (full PDF here).

So what do we have? The figures show the number of claims for Employment Support Allowance accepted and rejected by the DWP in the first instance. (ESA is replacing Incapacity Benefit, and everyone on IB is being reassessed as a result.)

Here are the headline results:

• Support Group [your disability prevents you from working] – 6%
• Work Related Activity Group [you might be able to do some particular types of work] -15%
• Fit for Work – 39%
• Claim closed before assessment complete – 36%
• Assessment still in progress – 3%

Not hard to see where the Mail got its 75%, then – add the ‘fit for work’ and ‘closed before assessment began’. The Express seems to have tacked on the ‘still in progress’ categories, which is a bit weird.

The language around the ‘claim closed before assessment complete’ is particularly interesting. The Express goes for

Some 78 per cent were deemed fit for work or stopped their claims before the assessment was complete, which was seen as a clear sign that they knew they were not sick enough to qualify.

The Mail, on the other hand, says

Out of about 840,000 who tried to obtain the £95-a-week Employment and Support Allowance, 640,000 were told they were fit for work, or withdrew their applications before they took the tests – suggesting they were ‘trying it on’.

It’s not clear, however, who this ‘clear sign’ that people were ‘trying it on’ was seen by. The DWP’s document says

A large proportion of people claiming ESA cease their claim before assessment is complete (for example, if they have a short term health condition)

And you have to wonder why, if someone dropped out before the assessment was complete and were so sure they’d fail, why they didn’t drop out before the assessment even began.

Anyway, back to the stats. These figures only relate to those people found in the first instance to be fit for work. What about the appeals?

Page 12 of the PDF shows the outcomes of these.

That’s an average of 40% of appeals upheld, then. It’s impossible to know whether the lower proportions of those found fit to work and appealing is actually going down, as there could just be a backlog – the table doesn’t show how many appeals were lodged, just heard. But either way, 40% of appeals going against the DWP is quite high, and definitely suggests that 75% figure is going to be a way out.

The Mail’s also had its wicked way with the reasons people have claimed for the benefit:

Incredibly, 7,100 tried to claim because they had sexually transmitted diseases and nearly 10,000 because they were too fat.

A damning indictment of Labour’s benefit culture, I’m sure you’ll agree. But, er, it’s rubbish.

7,100 did not try to claim because they had STDs. 7,100 claimed because they had diseases of the genitourinary system, which fall under chapter 14 of the ICD. These include (though doesn’t necessarily mean anyone claimed for these specific problems):

• Renal failure
• Bladder disorders
• Infertility (so, er, the opposite of an STD No it’s not that’s a very strange comment to make)

What’s even worse is that herpes, syphilis, and gonorrhea (to use three common STDs) are in a completely different category: chapter 1, which covers general parasitic and infectious diseases. Someone’s not done their research.

As for nearly 10,000 claiming because they’re too fat, that seems to have been taken from the numbers claiming for endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases, which make up 9,900. Are these all for being fat?

Obviously not. Chapter 4 of the ICD includes:

• Diabetes
• Malnutrition
• Metabolic disorders

It does include obesity, so it’s not quite as bad as the STD, er, cock-up. But it’s certainly not as simple as ‘hurrrr, people being fat claim benefits’.

So the newspapers have all ignored the appeals process, and used the DWP’s initial figures for its bigger numbers. The Mail then compounds that by making some absolutely wretched mistakes and assumptions with the reasons for claiming ESA.

Oops.