Press Complaints Commission

£300 million of disability benefits paid 'without checks'

Hundreds of millions of pounds are being paid in disability benefits to people without a face-to-face assessment of their needs, figures have revealed.

By James Kirkup, Deputy Political Editor 6:00AM GMT 11 Nov 2011

More than 30,000 people were given additional benefits on the basis of nothing more than filling in an application form.

Figures from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) showed that 94 per cent of new Disability Living Allowance (DLA) claims last year were approved without a face-to-face assessment of their needs by officials.

Those benefits were worth £300 million, the department said. Ministers argued that the figures justified Government plans to scrap the DLA and replace it with a tougher system based on compulsory medical examinations.

The number of people claiming the allowance has grown from 1.1 million in 1992 when it was introduced to 3.2 million today. Critics say lax checks have allowed many undeserving people to claim the benefit.

Around 210,000 new claims for DLA are approved every year, according to the department. A new analysis of last year's claims by the DWP has highlighted how few of those approvals were made on the basis of a personal meeting with benefits staff.

Some 16 per cent of the claims were approved solely on the basis of a claim form with no supporting evidence. Those claims were worth an average of £58.80 a week and cost taxpayers £30 million.

Another 42 per cent of claims - around 88,000 - were approved on the basis of a GP's report. Averaging £79 a week, they cost £150 million.

And 36 per cent of successful claims went through because of evidence including telephone conversations with claimants and information from social workers and therapists.

The DLA costs £12.3 billion a year and curbing that bill is a major objective of the Coalition's welfare reform agenda.

Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, said the figures made the case for reform. "At the moment, hundreds of millions of pounds are paid out in disability benefits to people who have simply filled out a form," he said.

From 2013, the Coalition wants to scrap the DLA and introduce a Personal Independence Payment, with an "objective assessment" and regular reviews of need.

Disability campaigners say those assessments will be unfair and will lead to some people losing money they need.

However, Mr Duncan Smith said: "The face-to-face assessment will give people the chance to meet with a healthcare professional and discuss their condition, rather than trying to self-assess."

To:      dtletters@telegraph.co.uk
Subject: Disability Benefits paid "without checks" by James Kirkup published 11 November 2011
Date:    11 November 2011 15:46

Dear Sir,

Re: £300 million of disability benefits paid 'without checks'
    by James Kirkup 11 November 2011
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8882513/
       300-million-of-disability-benefits-paid-without-checks.html

I suggest the first sentence containing the words "nothing more" is grossly misleading and/or sloppy journalism. People can receive benefits by filling in an application form if and only if, after having been processed in compliance with the Contract between the DWP and Atos, they are eligible.

I am sure Mr Kirkup is familiar with the Contract and in particular the lists of medical conditions that mean a face to face assessment is unnecessary. In these cases Atos is required to contact the patient's GP and/or Consultants who have access to the patient's full medical history. There are five categories of medical conditions; only one, "invite", obliges the patient to attend a face to face assessment. It seems very unlikely that a patient in the "invite" category would apply and be eligible for DLA.

That 95 per cent of new, and I stress new, DLA claims were approved without a face-to-face assessment suggests that the new patients who are eligible are receiving DLA and the DWP and Atos are in compliance with the Contract. It appears that the rebukes made by Parliamentary Inquiry after Inquiry are at long last having an effect.

Mr Kirkup seems confused. The current system is based on compulsory medical examinations. The expert medical opinion who drew up the categories realised that, for many serious medical conditions such as terminal illness, a patient should not be forced to travel long distances. It follows that a patient does not need to be present if the diagnosis has been carried out by a medical competent authority. The Contract is clear that only the "invite" category can be assessed without reference to the patient's medical history.

I am concerned at the numeracy of Mr Kirkup. It is a failing that is seen too often in Government and in the media. Assuming 3.2 million claim DLA currently. Assuming the categories of medical conditions are unchanged. Assuming only those serious patients with non "invite" medical conditions were eligible and are still eligible as the medical conditions are unchanged. It follows that 94 per cent of the 3.2 million will continue to receive DLA (PIP in the proposed changes).

Clearly the Government can take a difficult political decision to say that they are ignoring expert medical opinion and denying DLA to additional categories. On this Remembrance Day should a Veteran who have lost two limbs be denied DLA and one who has lost three be eligible. Maybe the terminally ill or bedridden should be denied. The Government has said the most needy will not lose out if the proposed changes are implemented. This suggests the Government is reluctant to ignore medical opinion.

Mr Kirkup should be aware of the DWP estimate for fraud. This is tiny and far less than 6 per cent. The Government or the DWP have never stated "lax checks have allowed many undeserving people to claim the benefit". Mr Kirkup should perhaps investigate the influence of private healthcare insurance companies and report on the major campaigns that they are currently running.

I look forward to the Telegraph publishing this letter and publishing a news article that reflects the statements of the Works and Pension Committee not the marketing hype of private US healthcare insurance companies. As these companies have stated in annual report after annual report the UK is ripe for exploitation. For example Atos generates the highest margin from the DWP.

I recommend today's article in Private Eye on Unum.

Feel free to edit if you care to publish. I would rather keep my personal details secret. ...

I look forward to your acknowledgement of this letter and if Mr Kirkup has time a response. Thank you.

Yours faithfully

The complaint sent 14 November 2011 to the PCC using the PCC web form. The Daily Telegraph email address was included.

Complaint:

The Parliament's Work and Pensions Committee has investigated repeated pejorative references to the disabled by media channels. The Government, the DWP, academics and charitable organisations agree that there is a tiny level of fraud which in turn is far less than that of administrative errors. The article is misleading and grossly distorts the true position to the detriment of the disabled. The article does not state who the "critics" are but gives their voice preference over the Government et al. The article is partial. The Committee has repeatedly requested the Government to consider what action it can take against those who seek to victimise those least able to defend themselves such as the disabled from unwarranted attack by the press. The Committee has made it clear that due to a political decision the assessments tests are being changed to favour those most in need. It follows that some who previously were eligible might not continue to be so. Thus benefits paid in the past and those paid following the new tests comply with the rules and regulations pertaining at the time. I have uploaded a copy of my letter to the Daily Telegraph. This paper has not published it, has not published a correction to the article and does not allow comment to be made about the article.

Finally I would like to remind the PCC that the Committee has repeatedly reminded the press of recent tragic cases where disabled individuals are hounded and mistreated by their neighbours who have been misinformed by pejorative references in the press.

Clauses:

Clause 1 Accuracy (i) misleading and distortive. 
Clause 1 Accuracy (iii) fails to distinquish between comment, conjecture and fact. 
Clause 12 (i) pejorative reference to the disabled.
    

The Editor wishes to acknowledge your e-mail with thanks.

If you have sent it as plain text, we will have received it. If however, it was sent as an attachment, please send it again in the main body of the email.

This address is for letters submitted for publication only. All other queries, complaints and comments should be e-mailed to: telegrapheditorial@telegraph.co.uk

For all other enquiries, please email: telegraphenquiries@telegraph.co.uk

From:    ..., PCC 
Sent:    1 December 2011 11:44
Subject: Complaint 115258    
    
Dear Mr B...,

Please find below/attached the email that was sent to you on 22 November.

Kind regards,

...

From:    ..., PCC 
Sent:    22 November 2011 16:30
Subject: Complaint 115258

Dear Mr B...

I write further to my email of 17 November.

The Commission has now received a response to your complaint from the Daily Telegraph newspaper, a copy of which is attached.

As you will see, the newspaper's position is that the information in the article is based on material provided by the DWP and it has explained how the reported figures were arrived at. It argues that the piece accurately reports the facts as provided by the government and does not contain any comment or conjecture, other than that which is clearly attributed to specific individuals, such as Iain Duncan-Smith. No breach of Clause 1 is accepted and, as – in the newspaper's view – the article does not discriminate against an individual, no breach of Clause 12 is accepted either.

Before a decision can be made as to how this matter might be taken forward, I should be grateful to receive any further comments you may wish to make. In particular – given that the Commission's primary aim is the resolution of all substantive complaints wherever possible – do please let me know any suggestions you have which would help to resolve this matter to your satisfaction.

I should be pleased to receive your response within seven days, or sooner, if convenient.

Yours sincerely,
..., Complaints Officer

Press Complaints Commission
Halton House, 20/23 Holborn, London EC1N 2JD
Tel: 020 7831 0022
Website: www.pcc.org.uk

The PCC is an independent body which administers the system of self-regulation for the press. We do this primarily by dealing with complaints, framed within the terms of the Editors' Code of Practice about the editorial content of newspapers and magazines (and their websites). We keep industry standards high by training journalists and editors, and work pro-actively behind the scenes to prevent harassment and media intrusion. We can also provide pre-publication advice to journalists and the public.

Follow us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ukpcc

Press Complaints Commission

Ref: 115258

Mr B...

                 "30Om benefits paid without health checks"/
         "£300 million of disability benefits paid 'without checks'"
             The Daily Telegraph/telegraph.co.uk, 11 November 20ll

                               Telegraph response

The complainant complains that this article concerning figures about how Disability Living Allowance claims are processed is misleading and "distortive" under Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors' Code of Practice and makes pejorative reference to disabled people under Clause 12 (Discrimination).

The complainant claims that the report "grossly distorts" the true position about fraudulent claims for the benefit to the detriment of disabled people; fails to state who the "critics" are but gives their voice "preference over the Government et al"; and that the article is "partial".

The Telegraph rejects these suggestions, as set out below:

CLAUSE 1 (ACCURACY)

(1) Factual accuracy

The article does not mislead; nor does it distort the material on which it was based. It accurately reports statistics compiled and published by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), describing the various ways in which new claims for Disability Living Allowance (DLA) were approved during 2010.

The full document can be found here.

http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/ahoc_analysis/2011/dla_evidence_award_values_nov11.pdf

The document was prepared and issued by the Department for Work and Pensions. It was written by a named civil service official. When handling statistics, civil servants are bound by a number of rules enforcing objectivity, not least the Civil Service Code. Under the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007, such data are also overseen by the independent UK Statistics Authority.

For the sake of completeness, we would add that the figures in the document are "Management information" collected by the Pension, Disability and Carers Service (PDCS). They are not Official Statistics verified by the Office for National Statistics. That is why the article makes clear they are the work of the DWP.

The document contains proportions, not numbers, for various types of new claims for DLA in 2010.

It also sets out the sums paid out to each group. As Table 1 shows, awards made on four grounds, none of which involve a personal meeting with a dedicated assessor, amounted to £310 million in 2010.

As such, the article's introduction ("Hundreds of millions of pounds are being paid in disability benefits to people without a face-to-face assessment of their needs, figures have revealed.") is an accurate description of the data published by the DWP.

DWP spokespeople added orally that typically, around 210,000 new clȧims are approved annually, a trend visible in the statistics set out elsewhere by the DWP.

That number of 210,000, stated in the article and attributed to the department, is the origin of the various other figures that appear.

For example, the figure of "more than 30,000" is a reference to the 16 per cent of new claims in 2010 that were approved solely on the basis of the claim form (the precise figure is 33,600). The other figures for claims are derived in a similar way, and clearly explained in the text.

The complainant suggests our writer was "confused" about the current system of assessment and approval, and challenges as "grossly misleading and/or sloppy journalism" the following sentence:

"More than 30,000 people were given additional benefits on the basis of nothing more than filling in an application form."

The Telegraph rejects this allegation. The DWP research document says:

"To apply for DLA, individuals complete a claim form which requests detailed information about the impact of their impairment or health condition on their ability to manage their care themselves and/or get around.

When a new claim decision is made for DLA, the PDCS Decision Maker will consider whether he/she can make their decision based on the claim form alone."

The statistics show that 16 per cent of 2010 claims approved were approved only on the basis of that claim form. The DWP's own description for this category of claimants is "DLA Award Made Using Claim Form Only"

The complainant singles out the phrase "nothing more". That phrase is accurate.

The other figures for DLA (total claims, total annual cost) were found in written parliamentary answers in Hansard and other DWP publications.

(2) Allegation that the article fails to distinguish between comment conjecture and fact

There is no conjecture or comment by our writer in the story. As set out above, it accurately reports a series of figures published by the DWP, and reports the comments the minister, Iain Duncan Smith, made about those figures.

The complainant argues that "benefits paid in the past and those following the new tests comply with the rules and regulations pertaining at the time". By reporting Government figures and the comment of the minister, the complainant appears to be suggesting that the article implies that disabled people are guilty of fraud on a significant scale. Applying reasonable rules of interpretation it is the Telegraph's submission that such an interpretation is simply not supportable.

The article clearly attributes the figures in question to a Government department. It cannot be reasonably argued that a news organisation is not entitled to rely on data presented by Government departments or that reporting that data constitutes endorsement of political arguments made by ministers.

The article also reports the comments of Mr Duncan Smith, whose policy on the future structure of disability benefit does not favour self-assessment by means of filling out a form. The Telegraph did not adopt Mr Duncan Smith's views in this news report, nor would it - such views as the Telegraph wishes to express on this topic would be found in the comment or leader sections of the newspaper. The complainant may not agree will Mr Duncan Smith's disapproval of form-only approvals, but that does not disentitle the Telegraph from reporting the minister's views.

The article reports and balances the position of those who support the Government's current policy on DLA - ie (as stated in the article) to replace DLA with a Personal Independence Payment and a system of "objective assessment" and regular reviews or need - with that of those who oppose it. It does not pass comment on the merits of those positions.

The examples are here:

"Critics say lax checks have allowed many undeserving people to claim the benefit."

And

"Disability campaigners say those assessments will be unfair and will lead to some people losing money they need."

Both of those positions have indeed been widely expressed by politicians, campaigners and other interested parties of various sorts. The article does not include comments from named individuals apart from the minister simply for reasons of space: the article is 405 words long, precluding additional comments. For that reason, the two viewpoints are clearly attributed to generic entities - "critics" and "campaigners". There is no suggestion that the author or the newspaper endorses either view.

The article is written in clear and factual language: there is no adornment and there are no unnecessary adjectives. There is no attempt to draw conclusions or pass judgements.

CLAUSE 12 (DISCRIMINATION)

As is clear from its wording, and as the Press Complaints Commission has confirmed on many occasions, this clause does not cover generalised comments about Groups or categories of people.

The Telegraph nonetheless wishes to underline its view that the article was not discriminatory towards disabled people. As set out above, the article was based on Government figures; it also reported the positions of the minister and or supporters and opponents of the Govemment's aim to change how disablement benefit is administered. The Telegraph therefore rejects any suggestion that the tenor of the article was pejorative towards disabled people.

November 22, 2011

Date:    01 December 2011 17:26
Subject: Re: Complaint 115258

Dear ...,

I apologise again for accidentally deleting your email. Please offer my apologies to the Daily Telegraph.

My comments are as follows. I would appreciate it if the Daily Telegraph would be given the opportunity to reply once again.

------------

First I would like to thank the Daily Telegraph for providing a comprehensive response to my complaint. I am aware of the DWP document that is referred to. This document, as with all DWP documents, needs to be read in the context of the complete published body of documents and statistics.

Regarding Clause 1 (Accuracy)

I would like to provide additional comments to support my complaint.

In the DWP document "DLA Award Values and Evidence Use for New Claims in 2010" the Background section states "The decision about whether to award benefit is not made on the basis of an individual's costs, but on the severity of their care and mobility needs.". The Background section qualifies statements in the rest of the document.

"Hundreds of millions of pounds are being paid in disability benefits to people without a face-to-face assessment of their needs because the severity of their care and mobility needs have been confirmed beforehand" is a true reflection of the document. If the "because" sub-clause, that I have added, is omitted, a false impression is given.

The Daily Telegraph knows that the DWP and DWP Tribunals do not have and do not claim to have medical expertise. The DWP does not undertake medical assessments. This is contracted to Atos. Atos provides advice to the DWP.

If you refer to the DWP statistics (esa_wca_25102011_tables.xls), Table 1 states 1,502,200 referrals were made between October 2008 and February 2011. Table 2 states 929,500 assessments were carried out. You are aware that there are five categories of medical conditions only one of which requires a face to face assessment. For the other four categories, the patient's GP needs to be contacted.

You may ask, as I have done, why the DWP pays Atos to push paper in these four categories. Surely it is more cost effective for the DWP to contact the GP directly in these four categories especially as Atos adds no medically significant information. Thus Table 1 minus Table 2 means 572,700 "unnecessary" referrals were made to Atos. The DWP paid Atos £80.6 million for the year March 2008 to February 2009. The DWP (top-100-commercial-suppliers.pdf) paid Atos £150,798,435 for the year 2009/2010. The original budget was £80 million a year. This must be the bigger story.

These statistics, and others, are produced quarterly. You will also be aware of the glaring omissions. The medical categories are not included. The number of repeat attempts each claimant makes after dropping out. It is great PR to state the drop out rate but since Atos use a non-medical model for assessment and have no access to a patient's medical history the figures are misleading. This must be the bigger story.

Thus the DLA 94 percent eligible rate without the need for a face to face assessment is true because each and every claimant has had, a priori, their severity of their care and mobility needs confirmed.

If I said "critics say that since Atos uses a non-medical model to assess medical conditions a claimant who drops out only needs at most two more attempt before being found eligible for benefits" would the Daily Telegraph publish this.

Feel free to confirm my understanding of the issues with the DWP and especially the Work and Pensions Committee. I accept that many do not have the level of numeracy to understand the statistics. I suggest it is sloppy journalism to publish selective quotes which wholly change the meaning if the context is not included.

Regarding Clause 12 (Discrimination)

I would like to provide additional comments to support my complaint.

I accept that the Daily Telegraph has the right to publish that "Critics say lax checks have allowed many undeserving people to claim the benefit." But it appears to me to be discriminatory by the Daily Telegraph if the article does not make it clear that these "critics" do not include the Government, the Opposition Parties, the Independent Inquiries, the DWP, the Work and Pensions Select Committee, Academia and the Disabled organisations. Further the word "many" is not supported by any evidence and thus the Daily Telegraph is allowing a falsehood to be published without challenge. If "many" were replaced by a "tiny minority", this is supported by the evidence.

Further the Daily Telegraph, if it were to be factually accurate, should state "Critics say lax checks have allowed many deserving people to be denied the benefit." If the Daily Telegraph researched a little deeper it may find that, as "many" have suggested, that these critics are mainly connected to private healthcare insurance companies, such as Unum (who buys advertising on the Daily Telegraph), and whose business objective is to sell private disability insurance by discrediting the welfare state.

"Disability campaigners say those assessments will be unfair and will lead to some people losing money they need." I agree this is a widely expressed view though it is not a view I fully support. That assessments have been unfair, as in my case, does not mean that future assessments will be unfair.

-------------------

To resolve this matter I suggest the Daily Telegraph produces a widely scoping article reviewing the difficulties in dealing with the documents and statistics produced by the DWP. They could refer, in the new article, to the article I complained of and explain the various views that can be taken of the same content. Recent Governments have claimed to have objectives to improve openness, transparency and debate which in turn allows improvements to be made. The current Government has said that the medical assessment process will not be changed but political decisions will be made to deny benefits to some who previously were eligible. The claimant's medical condition has not changed. Since the rate of fraud is so tiny (far far less than administrative errors) it is false to suggest anything other than politicians have decided that those with particular medical conditions are no longer eligible. Critics say "a veteran missing three limbs will be eligible and one missing two will be denied is not fair". It may not be fair but if it is the Law then the Law needs to be changed through lawful means. There are many wonderful judges who have considered fairness and the Law. I would not presume.

Thank you for your assistance.

Highest regards

From:    ..., PCC 
Sent:    9 December 2011 11:52
Subject: Complaint 115258    
    
Dear Mr B...,

I write further to your email of 1 December.

The Commission has received the attached further response from the Daily Telegraph newspaper.

As you will see, the newspaper has acknowledged your arguments and interpretation of the piece but maintains that the article does not represent a breach of the Code as there was no significant inaccuracies contained within it.

Regrettably, it appears that your complaint cannot be resolved at this stage. My suggestion is that we put the matter to the Commission for its formal consideration under the terms of the Editors' Code. Before we proceed in this way, I should be grateful to receive any final comment you may wish to make in light of the newspaper's most recent correspondence.

I look forward to hearing from you, hopefully within the next seven days.

Kind regards,

...
Subject: FW: 115258 - Mr B...

From: Patricia Wynn-Davies [mailto:patricla.wynn-davies@telegraph.co.uk]
Sent: 08 December 2011 12:31
To:   ..., PCC
Subject: 115258 - Mr B...

Dear ...

Thank you for passing on Mr B...'s comprehensive comments on our response.

We acknowledge the points he is seeking to raise concerning {as he sees them) the flaws in the Government's approach to changes to the DlA system and his view that there is a "bigger story" that he would like to see investigated.

However, none of the points Mr B... raises can reasonably lead to the conclusion that our story was significantly inaccurate within the meaning and scope of Clause 1 (Accuracy). This was a short political story (written by our Deputy Political Editor) based on information put out by the Department of Work and Pensions, incorporating the view of the lead minister, Iain Duncan Smith, but also including a flavour of opposing positions regarding the proposed changes. As stated in our original response, there was no room in this story for the kind of detailed opinions Mr B... would have liked to see also included. There was no conflation of fact and comment and no "sloppy" publication of "selective quotes which wholly change the meaning if the context is not included", as suggested by Mr B.... The fact is that Mr Duncan Smith aims to change the way DLA is administed. The newspaper is entitled to report this.

Taking the totality of Mr B...'s comments, it appears that he believes that Mr Duncan Smith's attitude towards the current and proposed DLA systems are misconceived and mistaken. This seems to be borne out by his statement that "it is false to suggest anything other than politicians have decided that those with particular medical conditions are no longer eligible". While the views of Mr Duncan Smith and the Government (mistaken or otherwise) cannot be laid at the door of the Telegraph, it was for this reason that we added the comment: "Disability campaigners say those assessments will be unfair and will lead to some people losing money they need." This gave balance to the article. The actual effects of the Government's plans remain, of course, to be seen.

In retrospect it is regrettable that Mr B... did not post his views on our online Comment facility, which is designed to accommodate the airing of opinions - sometimes strongly held opinions, as is the case here - on topics of public interest. Unfortunately the Comment facility of this story is now closed.

We await an initial view from the commission.

Yours sincerely

Patricia Wynn Davies, Legal Department
Direct line 020 7931 2818

telegraphmediagroup
111 Buckingham Palace Road, London SW1V 0DT

Date:    10 December 2011 09:58
Subject: Re: Complaint 115258

Dear ...,

Thank you for your action in this matter. I appreciate the further response from the Daily Telegraph. I would like to put the matter including my additional comments below to the Commission for its formal consideration under the terms of the Editors' Code.

The main point is that the Daily Telegraph claims to be accurately reporting the DWP document. The document clearly states in the background section at the start, "The decision about whether to award benefit is not made on the basis of an individual's costs, but on the severity of their care and mobility needs.". Thus the second heading of "Hundreds of millions of pounds are being paid in disability benefits to people without a face-to-face assessment of their needs" is misleading in that it implies that no prior assessment of the claimant's care and mobility needs has been made. This inaccuracy is repeated throughout the document. A link to the actual document is not published and so it is unlikely that the reader would know that the severity of the claimants' care and mobility needs have previously been verified. The journalist read the document but nevertheless reported it inaccurately, partially and in a way that is pejorative to the disabled. The Daily Telegraph states that this is a political article. Nevertheless I feel this article should be held to the same standard of accuracy as other articles claiming to report facts.

The second point of concern is the statement reported to have been made by Iain Duncan Smith. Such statements may indeed have been made off the record by the Secretary of State and senior DWP officials and if this is the case that the statements were off the record should have been made clear. The statements are contrary to the repeated assurances made by the Secretary of State and DWP officials on the record to the Work and Pensions Committee with the latest being around three months ago to consider what action can be taken against printed falsehoods similar to "hundreds of millions of pounds are paid out in disability benefits to people who have simply filled out a form,". Some people have claimed that the Secretary of State continues to act dishonourably in this matter. I have no evidence of this but it appears the Daily Telegraph claims to have this evidence and as such should submit the evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee for consideration. Remember the Secretary of State is responsible for the DWP. It is not credible that he would allow others to think that his own incompetence or neglect allows benefits to be given to people who have simply filled in a form; a Nero fiddling while Rome burnt if you will. If the Secretary of State did say this and the senior political reporter did not understand the political consequences of such an admission it perhaps says much about the competence of the senior political reporter and the Daily Telegraph Editor.

The third point is I feel it is unjustified to label me as a disability campaigner and further to denigrate me by saying I subscribe to particular views. My sole interest is the truth and the verifiable truth.

Finally the Daily Telegraph claims that it allowed comments to be made regarding this article. I have checked today and no comments are published. The inaccurate article is still published as follows:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8882513/300-million-of-disability-benefits-paid-without-checks.html

If the Commission rules in my favour, I suggest a note of the ruling should be inserted at the start of the on-line article in addition to the standard remedial actions following a ruling.

Thank you

Hansard reports for 21 March 2011.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110321/text/110321w0004.htm

Mr Byrne: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions with reference to his Department's impact assessment on reform of disability living allowance, what estimate he has made of the proportion of the disability living allowance budget which was spent on claims which were fraudulent in the latest period for which figures are available. [46392]

Chris Grayling: The estimated level of fraud in disability living allowance for the period October 2008 to September 2009 is 0.5% (£60 million). The estimate is based on a national benefit review of disability living allowance which was carried out in 2004-05.

The latest estimates of fraud and error in the benefits system can be found at:

http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/fem/fem_oct08_sep09.pdf

The article states "Critics say lax checks have allowed many undeserving people to claim the benefit." This is published without the qualification that the true figure of DLA fraud is estimated as 0.5% as reported by Chris Grayling. I contend that the Daily Telegraph has a duty to its readers to deny publicity to such ignorant "critics". I further contend the Daily Telegraph should check the facts before publishing such gross inaccuracies.

From:    ..., PCC 
Sent:    20 January 2012 15:56
Subject: Complaint 115258    
    
Dear Mr B...,

Further to our previous correspondence, the Commission has now made its assessment of your complaint under the Editors' Code of Practice.

The Commission members have asked me to thank you for giving them the opportunity to consider the points you raise. However, their decision is that there has been no breach of the Code in this case. A full explanation of the Commission's decision is below.

If you are dissatisfied with the way in which your complaint has been handled - as opposed to the Commission's decision itself - you should write within one month to the Independent Reviewer, whose details can be found in our How to Complain leaflet or on the PCC website at the following link:

http://www.pcc.org.uk/about/whoswho/independentreview.html

Thank you for taking this matter up with us.

Yours sincerely

                                 Commissions decision in the case of
                                    Mr B... v The Daily Telegraph

The complainant considered that the article's report of a Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) paper about new Disability Living Allowance (DLA) claims in 2010 was misleading and grossly distorted. Furthermore, he considered the article was discriminatory.

The Commission made clear that the presentation and selection of material for publication was a matter for the discretion of individual editors, provided that such editorial decisions did not engage the terms of the Editors' Code. It was not for the Commission to comment on the newspaper's choice of material for publication, but rather it had to consider whether the article breached any of the terms of the Editors' Code of Practice. As such, it could not comment further on the newspaper's decision not to publish the complainant's letter.

The Commission turned first to consider the complaint under Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code. Under the terms of Clause 1 (i) the newspaper had a duty to take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. While the Commission acknowledged the complainant's position it made clear that the newspaper was entitled to report the conclusions of the DWP paper. It noted that the overarching complaint was that the report was misleading as to the reasons why (in certain circumstances) no formal face-to-face assessment of a new claimant was necessary.

The Commission acknowledged the complainant's concerns over the headline's reference to "£300 million of disability benefits being paid "without checks". However, it noted that the sub-headline clarified that "without checks" referred to the fact that the benefit could be paid without the need for a face-to-face assessment. The Commission accepted that in the absence of the sub-headline it would have had difficulty with the reference; however, it was satisfied that in this instance, the headline taken as a whole was not significantly misleading.

The complainant also considered that the sub-headline was misleading in terms of the assessment process from DLA claims. While there were four categories of DLA claims that did not require face-to-face assessment, these claims were only considered once they had been processed in compliance with the contract between the DWP and Atos. The DWP paper stated that the benefit awarded to a claimant was assessed on "the severity of their care and mobility needs", yet the sub-headline implied that there was no prior assessment, as such it was misleading. While the Commission acknowledged the complainant's position, it noted that the sub-headline did not refer to whether a claim had been previously processed, but rather reported that hundreds of millions of pounds were being paid in disability benefits without a face-to-face consultation. This was an accurate description of the information contained within the DWP's document. As such the Commission did not establish a breach of the Code.

The complainant raised concerns over the statement "More than 30,000 people were given additional benefits on the basis of nothing more than filling out an application form". He considered that the reference to "nothing more than filling out an application form" was inaccurate. However, the Commission noted that Table 1 and 2 of the DWP paper had described one of the four categories of DLA payment as "Claim Form Only". It accepted that the newspaper could have provided more information on the procedure for processing applicants before they became eligible to receive the benefit. However, it was satisfied that the article's statement was not significantly misleading as to the information revealed in the DWP document. The Commission then considered whether the use of the figure 30,000 was inaccurate or misleading. While the DWP document only referred to percentages of new DLA claims (Table 2 revealed that the 'claim form only' category made up 16 per cent of the new DLA claims in 2010), the article had revealed that there were an estimated 210,000 new DLA claims per year. This figure had clearly been attributed to a DWP spokesperson. As such, the article's use of the figure 30,000 was not an inaccurate or misleading representation of the DWP's findings; it had simply presented the DWP's findings as a number as opposed to a percentage. The article's further references to the other categories of new DLA claims as numbers (as opposed to percentages) had been calculated on the same basis. As such, the Commission was satisfied that the newspaper had taken sufficient care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information.

The Commission acknowledged that the complainant considered that the newspaper had given undue preference to the "critics" of the system. However, it made clear that the newspaper was entitled to take a partisan position on a topic, provided it clearly distinguished between comment, conjecture and fact. In this instance, the newspaper had reported both the views of critics and of campaigners. Furthermore, the views expressed had been clearly distinguished from fact. The complainant raised concerns over the sentence "Critics say lax checks have allowed many undeserving people to claim the benefit". However, the Commission could not agree that this implied that the system was fraudulent. It was satisfied that readers in general would understand the term "undeserving" was a reference to the fact that many claims were paid without a face-to-face assessment. While it understood that the complainant did not agree with the use of the term, this did not render it a breach of the Code. Furthermore, it was not the case that the newspaper's failure to include further DWP figures on fraud levels made the article inaccurate, misleading or distorted.

The Commission then turned to the complaint under Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Code. Under the terms of Clause 12 (i), newspapers must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability. However, the clause does not cover references to groups or categories of people. In this instance, the article did not make reference to the physical or mental illness or disability of a particular individual but rather reported on a recent DWP document into the new DLA benefits claimed in 2010. As such, given the absence of a reference to a specific individual's physical or mental illness or disability the terms of Clause 12 (i) had not been engaged. The Commission did not establish that Clause 12 (i) of the Code had been breached.

Reference No. 115258

Date:    23 January 2012 12:25
Subject: Re: Complaint 115258

Dear ...,

PCC reference: 115258

I would like to complement the PCC on the exemplary way that my complaint has been handled by all concerned.

Regarding the adjudication of the PCC, it seems to me that my complaint has been not upheld due to what in the opinion of the PCC a reasonable person would understand as "significant" and due to the fact that Editors appear to be free to make partial and unsubstantiated comment, to publish as comment phrases out of context and as comment seem able to be "willfully blind".

Nevertheless the PCC, having considered many complaints, is in a far better position than I to come to a conclusion as to what is reasonable and the constraints on Editors. I appreciate providing me with the detailed arguments that allowed the PCC to reach their decision.

I defer to the opinion of the PCC and accept in full the adjudication of the PCC in respect of my complaint. This matter is now closed.

Please forward my appreciation to all concerned. Thank you.

Yours sincerely