[GiveMeSomeTruth]

What right do ATOS assessors have to override the judgement of a person's own doctor and declare them fit for work when their GP says otherwise? As is the case with my own mental illness, my doctor has decided that I am unfit for work and need time to work on my recovery, but already the sterile ATOS assessment has passed me as fit for work.

[Chris Grayling MP]

And to David Marsden, the Work Programme should offer a huge opportunity to the smaller organisations, who will be a vital part of it and who are protected in the contracting process.

[lisa1cares]

It's also important to say that the Work Capability Assessment is not the only part of the decision making process. Evidence from your own medical practitioners will also be taken into account by the decision makers.

you seam very unaware that that is what is happening right now, when you go for a WCA and they say your fit then the JCP is saying that you are fit regardless of any other evidence that is given to them saying differently.

How are you going to stop this from happening ??

[jellyfish]

Chris Grayling MP, on 10 February 2011 - 12:23 PM, said:

Just to answer some questions about Atos.

They have no financial incentives whatsoever to find people fit for work.

They will not take the decision about whether to find someone fit for work.

They will have a network of mental health champions so those doing the assessments have a reference point where there is a difficult judgement to make.

Professor Harrington himself said the DWP was just rubber stamping everything Atos said. Who IS making the decisions here? certainly not the doctors who know us best

[Saz]

Chris Grayling MP, on 10 February 2011 - 12:07 PM, said:

A few of you are asking questions about employer discrimination against people with disabilities. The Work Programme will be a big part of how we tackle this. My believe is that once employers start to take on people with disabilities, they realise what an asset those people can be to their organisation. The Work Programme providers have the job of matching individuals to vacancies, and they will only be paid if they succeed in getting people into work and then helping them stay there. They will also be paid much more to help those with disabilities and from challenging backgrounds than for conventional job seekers. I hope all of this will make a real difference.

Mr Grayling,

I'm glad to hear that employers will be given financial support to help people with disabilities and health problems to fit in to a work situation, but what about the time that is demanded to do this, which may pose a problem in some places of work and how will financial backing help if the solution to a problem cause by a health difficulty is not imediately obvious?

[Jessica Springall]

Talking about helping people get back into work, how about you stop targetting the disablled and mentally ill and target those who are fine? I know that if I was told under the new changes that I was fit for work and forced into work I would be dead within a few weeks.

You cannot and must not make decisions based on what a person is physically able to do with regards to mental health and it does not work like that.

[anniemakoff]

Please answer the question for Disability Now readers:

With social care and day-to-day support much reduced do you expect that many people with mental health difficulties will feel well enough to return to work, or go to work for the first time?

[BettysBlues]

Who are these so-called "mental health champions"? if a letter from a consultant is not enough how can someone who doesn't know you assess you? What qualificiations do these "champions" have?

[Bub]

Chris Grayling MP, on 10 February 2011 - 12:26 PM, said:

And to David Marsden, the Work Programme should offer a huge opportunity to the smaller organisations, who will be a vital part of it and who are protected in the contracting process.

You're still not thinking outside of the box regarding work. What about using our times valuable whether paid or not? Art, writing, education, voluntary work. Or do you only see work as something that is paid? Or is it that you only see people's worth in terms of how much money they can get so it gets them off benefits?

[romila]

Many people have complex health issues that have Mental health as just a part of a range if complaints or as a by product of some other disability. Some doctors find these multiple conditions hard to deal with, how can we be assured that those assessing will be able to deal with these difficult cases?

[Chris Grayling MP]

Can I finish with a message to all of you. This is not a process designed to do you down. Every organisation I have ever worked with, and the people I have talked to with mental health problems, would like to be in work and living a normal life. It's not always easy, and it's not always possible. But surely we should try to get there. Sometimes it will involve giving people that extra push - I remember talking to one man a few years ago who had taken the jump into work himself and said he wished someone had given him a push years earlier. This is not about financial targets. It's not about forcing people off benefits. It is about trying to help people with mental health and other problems do more with their lives. But we won't know who can be helped if we don't do the reassessment. That's all this is about - nothing more and nothing less.

Best wishes

Chris Grayling

ps Rethink say they will pass all unanswered stuff to us. Email campaigns@rethink.org

[Clarky]

Chris Grayling MP, on 10 February 2011 - 12:25 PM, said:

In response to Clarky, the evidence is clear that those who do this actually benefit as those people make a positive contribution to the organisation. So we need to educate the rest to do so - and we are paying work programme providers a higher amount for people on ESA precisely so they have the ability to do extra work on this.

Sir, the organisation I work for is one of these contractors that is bidding to run the work programme. We are pushed to the limit, we are expected to get the hardest to help into work, we are paid by results and as a result we are pushed by our managers to get people into any old job, regardless of whether it is the right job for this person, as a consequence, people cannot cope and often fall out of employment. This isn't right and as a result my figures are low because I refuse to put people into unsuitable employment.

Your government and the previous government never take into account people's personal circumstances, there can never be a "one size fits all" policy when it comes to people who face the daily challenge of ill health and disability

[Paul Davidson]

Dear Mr Grayling I have Multiple health Problems includin P.T.S.D. AND DOUBLE INCONTINENCE. I have looked at the cryteria for Incontinence with disbelief the EXPERTS' DONT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN URGENT EVACUATION WHICH THEY THINK YOU CAN HOLD ON NOT TRUE'' AND TOTAL EVACUATION NOT TRUE ALSO''. OVERACTIVE BLADDER MEANS URGENT AND FREQUENT'' NOT ABLE TO HOLD ON FOR EVEN SECONDS BUT NEVER TOTAL EVACUATION. RATHER DOZENS OF TIMES AT LEAST PER DAY USING ONE CHANGE OF CLOTHES AS SUGGESTED FOR FULL EVACUATION IS A SICK JOKE ON ME AND MILLIONS OF OTHER SUFFERERS''. EVEN A SMALLEVACUATION IS ENOUGH FOR A CHANGE IF YOU DONT BELIEVE ME JUST TRY IT AT HOME PLEASE CONSULT THE EXPERT'S WHEN MAKING LIFE THERETENING DECICIONS.

YU CAN CALL ME ANY TIME ON THE PHONE FOR VERY FRANK OPEN AND HONEST DETAILS OF HOW MY ILLNESSES REALY AFFECT ME LET ALONE VERY REAL STIGMA RIDICULE SHAME AND MUCH BLATENT DISCRIMINATION.

Paul

[David Marsden]

Chris Grayling MP, on 10 February 2011 - 12:26 PM, said:

And to David Marsden, the Work Programme should offer a huge opportunity to the smaller organisations, who will be a vital part of it and who are protected in the contracting process.

There won't be any small organisations left as our funding has already been cut to zero. This was how it was supposed to work with Pathways, but they just cherry-picked or creamed the most able and parked those with the most severe and long-term disabilities for organisations like mine to work with. Do you even read your own government reports describing and evaluating the total and utter failure of these very similar programmes?

[Catrin]

Chris Grayling MP, on 10 February 2011 - 12:31 PM, said:

Can I finish with a message to all of you. This is not a process designed to do you down. Every organisation I have ever worked with, and the people I have talked to with mental health problems, would like to be in work and living a normal life. It's not always easy, and it's not always possible. But surely we should try to get there. Sometimes it will involve giving people that extra push - I remember talking to one man a few years ago who had taken the jump into work himself and said he wished someone had given him a push years earlier. This is not about financial targets. It's not about forcing people off benefits. It is about trying to help people with mental health and other problems do more with their lives. But we won't know who can be helped if we don't do the reassessment. That's all this is about - nothing more and nothing less.

Best wishes

Chris Grayling

ps Rethink say they will pass all unanswered stuff to us. Email campaigns@rethink.org

I must saythat you sound more sincere than your colleague Ms Miller did via the Guardian yesterday. I had hoped that my question would be one of those answered - re helping those not on benefits and opening up opportunities in a very practical sense - but I'm inclined to hold out just a litttle hope that a response might materialise at a later stage. Thank you at least for your attempt to cover as much ground as possible and for certainly sounding like you might mean what you say.

[Chris - Rethink]

As the Minister said, we understand that there are many questions that people still want to get an answer to, so please send anything you feel still needs a reply to campaigns@rethink.org

[mld]

I know that you have finished, but for some of us with mental health issues you have responded too quickly to some of the posts, that I have had little time to digest them, and have been unable to ask you questions during the "live" time. I now need to go back over the past few pages to see what you have actually said. I know now that I am unfit for work, if this is the speed work happens at!

M.

[Clarky]

David Marsden, on 10 February 2011 - 12:31 PM, said:

There won't be any small organisations left as our funding has already been cut to zero. This was how it was supposed to work with Pathways, but they just cherry-picked or creamed the most able and parked those with the most severe and long-term disabilities for organisations like mine to work with. Do you even read your own government reports describing and evaluating the total and utter failure of these very similar programmes?

Absolutely! Pathways is an absolute joke and I cannot see the new work programme being any better at all!

[David Marsden]

Chris Grayling MP, on 10 February 2011 - 12:31 PM, said:

Can I finish with a message to all of you. This is not a process designed to do you down. Every organisation I have ever worked with, and the people I have talked to with mental health problems, would like to be in work and living a normal life. It's not always easy, and it's not always possible. But surely we should try to get there. Sometimes it will involve giving people that extra push - I remember talking to one man a few years ago who had taken the jump into work himself and said he wished someone had given him a push years earlier. This is not about financial targets. It's not about forcing people off benefits. It is about trying to help people with mental health and other problems do more with their lives. But we won't know who can be helped if we don't do the reassessment. That's all this is about - nothing more and nothing less.

Best wishes

Chris Grayling

ps Rethink say they will pass all unanswered stuff to us. Email campaigns@rethink.org

My emphasis.

Oh, great. A policy to push people into work based on a single anecdote.

If it's not about financial targets, why did the mental health commissioner for the borough I work in tell me 'I don't care how you do it. I just want people off benefits and into work'?

[suey2y]

Chris Grayling MP, on 10 February 2011 - 12:31 PM, said:

Can I finish with a message to all of you. This is not a process designed to do you down. Every organisation I have ever worked with, and the people I have talked to with mental health problems, would like to be in work and living a normal life. It's not always easy, and it's not always possible. But surely we should try to get there. Sometimes it will involve giving people that extra push - I remember talking to one man a few years ago who had taken the jump into work himself and said he wished someone had given him a push years earlier. This is not about financial targets. It's not about forcing people off benefits. It is about trying to help people with mental health and other problems do more with their lives. But we won't know who can be helped if we don't do the reassessment. That's all this is about - nothing more and nothing less.

Best wishes

Chris Grayling

ps Rethink say they will pass all unanswered stuff to us. Email campaigns@rethink.org

But you start with a target figure!! You limit the benefit to a year!! Suddenly up to 93% of those previously incapacitated are considered fit for work? Appeals run at 35%!!
Of COURSE all involved don't just see it as but KNOW it is an attempt to do us down. It must be changed. However noble the aims, targets for reducing benefits and year limitations are just a disgrace.

Thanks for coming anyway though and PLEASE do read the links I posted - they really might help you not hinder you.