The DWP is trying to keep the details of the responses to the Modernising Support Green Paper, which proposed radical changes to PIP, secret.  They have blocked a Freedom of Information request by Benefits and Work for access to documents which give a breakdown of the responses they received.

Readers may recall that when Labour won the election on 4 July, contrary to many people’s expectations, they left the green paper survey open for responses until it’s official closing date on 22 July

On 25 July, Baroness Sherlock, the DWP minister in the House of Lords stated that:

“We will be engaging with the responses people have made to the previous government's consultation on Personal Independence Payment, which closed on Monday 22 July.

“We want to thank the many people who invested their time in responding.

On 29 July Stephen Timms, the DWP minister for disability said:

“The consultation on the Modernising Support Green Paper closed on Monday 22 July. Over 16,000 responses have been received and we will review these responses.

“The proposals in this Green Paper were developed by the previous government. We will be considering our own approach to social security in due course.”

On 16 September, Timms revealed thatWhilst engaging with responses, I can confirm that responses to the set of proposals on the reform of Personal Independence Payments was mixed and for some proposals consistently negative.”

But on 14 October  Timms suddenly announced that:  “We do not intend to publish a response to the previous Government’s consultation.”

However, whilst the government can choose not to respond to the green paper, that does not prevent it publishing a summary of the replies it received, even if only out of respect for all those who took the time and trouble to give their views.  As Timms said:

“The Department received over 16,000 responses to the consultation. This demonstrates the depth of feeling about the previous Government’s proposals. I thank the British public, as well as the numerous charities and organisations who responded on behalf of their members, for the time and effort taken to share their thoughts and views.”

So Benefits and Work made a Freedom of Information request for “any documents relating to an analysis, breakdown or other summary of the responses received to this consultation”.

But our request has been refused on the grounds of “a lack of clarity”.

The DWP could have claimed that there are so many breakdowns and summaries of the green paper that it would exceed the cost limit to find them all, so we must narrow down our request. But they didn’t do that, suggesting that there are not a large number of documents.

Nor did they try to argue that the documents are exempt, because they relate to “the formulation or development of government policy”.  Though this would be a hard argument to make, given that  Labour have stated that the proposals in the green paper were not theirs and they will be developing their own.

So, instead they have fallen back on claims of a lack of clarity, arguing:

“We are unable to deal with your FoI request without clarification of the information you seek. The reason for this is due to a lack of clarity about the terms analysis, breakdown and summary.

“Under Section 16 of the FoI Act we should assist you in helping you focus your request. To help us do so, we would like to know what is meant by analysis, breakdown and summary. For example, you may wish to provide the type of analysis you are requesting, e.g a table of the numerical breakdown of the responses made by post or online.”

But, as we have no knowledge of what sort of analysis, breakdown or other summary might have been created by the DWP it is not reasonable or, we think, lawful for the DWP to insist that we must detail what specific type we wish to see.

When he was in opposition, Stephen Timms was an outspoken critic of what he considered to be the DWP’s damaging obsession with secrecy.  In government, he appears to have had a sudden and comprehensive conversion to tightly drawn curtains.

We have challenged the DWP’s refusal and we will keep readers informed.

This article was edited on 11.11.24 to remove speculation about the DWP's motives for its secrecy

Comments

Write comments...
or post as a guest
People in conversation:
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 17 hours ago
    What will happen to people who work and claim pip nothing seems to get mentioned about this I work part time and get pip will you lose your pip if you work??
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    I know someone who took out a case against the DWP a few years ago at the high court in London and she won when the DWP did a no show and she has told me there will be many people to fight the government over any changes they want to make too benefits
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    The scheme change is not dead, they want less people on PIP and on the LCW and LCWRA because the less people on those benefits means the less money spent because it's not about helping disabled people, it's about saving money and the Tories couldn't care less and don't expect Reform to care either, Richard Tice's lover, Isabel Oakeshott described benefits claimants as "parasites". 

    Someone said that PIP and LCWRA could merge in the future, my theory is that PIP could have more criteria/levels of payment. 

    The DWP has the same amount of compassion as a hemorrhoid does.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 23 hours ago
      @Dave Dee its a shame that the government is not trying to reduce the benefits bill by making sure all in paid employment are paid enough so they are NOT  eligible for universal credit
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Same old dwp. My hopes were low of them turning over this compassionate new leaf. Mr fibro recently described timms as a “waste of oxygen.” I’d add spineless to that. No apologies for the negativity.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Thank you B&W for pursuing this on behalf of -I've no idea how many there are- of us! Much power to your elbows.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    and so starts the non transparent ways of the labour government. So much for their promises for transparency!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    By saying this you are now scaring people again! There is NO proof that this is the case and for those with severe mental health conditions worry’s them more. Please stick to the facts that we know that the proposed scheme change is dead and something will change but nobody knows so why be so negative?? 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Jc You are right jc, I recently know of 2 people who have committed suicide after battling long term mental illness .

       I'm not claiming benefits for mental health but I understand that many people who are,  could potentially  be 'pushed over the edge' by scaremongering articles .

      If the press and the disability forums just stick to facts...that's all we need.



    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Jc It is very difficult to be optimistic and not even a tad negative when a government has said they are making cost cutting changes but refuse to say what they are until next Spring, leaving everyone on tenderhooks.

Free PIP, ESA & UC Updates!

Delivered Fortnightly

Over 110,000 claimants and professionals subscribe to the UK's leading source of benefits news.

 
iContact