The DWP is insisting that the names and organisations of members of five committees that will be “very influential” about benefits changes will remain secret, the Disability News Service (DNS) has revealed. The decision leaves open the possibility that the committees are largely staffed by DWP supporters.
Last month we pointed out that Timms had set up five committees to make recommendations on the following issues that will be covered in the forthcoming white paper:
- Pathways to Work
- Right to Try
- Access to Work
- Raising the age at which people can claim PIP to 18
- Delaying access to the UC health element until age 22
Each group has approximately ten members who are “people with lived experience of our services, disabled people’s organisations, disability charities, healthcare professionals, academics, support providers and employer representatives”.
But, as we explained at the time, they are all operating under the cloak of anonymity, in spite of the fact that Timms says that they will be ““will be very influential in the final decisions that get made.”
Now DNS has made a Freedom of Information request for details of the membership of the committees.
But the DWP have refused to answer, on the grounds that it is “personal data” and that revealing details of members of the panel would cause “prejudice to the rights and freedoms of the data subject”.
Yet, many of the panel members are allegedly representing organisations and so there seems to be no personal data risk in disclosing at least the names of organisations involved, without revealing the identities of the individuals.
As it stands, it seems entirely possible that the committees are stuffed with a large majority of employers, benefits assessment providers, back to work training companies and charities with current or potential financial links to the DWP.
To ask claimants simply to take the DWP’s word for it that these committees are balanced and genuinely representative of disabled people’s views is to ask claimants to forget many, many years of DWP duplicity.
