Sitting Targets For The Government's Welfare Reforms

6/09/2011 10:59:00 am BenefitScroungingScum 3 Comments

Excellent article. Unfortunately I can't comment on the Guardian site because the registration email doesn't appear to have been sent.

6 months is nothing. Nothing at all. Count yourself lucky.

My story starts back in 2004. I needed to see a psychologist for some complex problems. I was referred to the local CMHT and they did the assessment. They referred me to have a CBT assessment who referred me to a psychiatrist, who referred me back to the psychologist. This all took 6 months. After 6 months I was eventually told that despite CMHT knowing full well I needed a psychologist, that they were on long term sick, and there was simply no replacement. They estimated a 3 year wait. For all the 6 months I was not put on the psychological waiting list, even though I should have been. In total I had been trying to get help for 9 months. I was desperate.

I went to my GP who suggested I move to another city where their waiting times were *only* a year. You might think that my 9 months waiting time was taken into account in the new area, which is what my old GP thought. However, in the new area I went to the bottom of the one year list.

When I got to the top of the list i was only offered a years worth of treatment as it was all they could afford. Never mind my actual needs.

So, I had moved areas, and spent effectively 2 years to wait for a treatment that wouldn't even be right for my needs.

After that experience, and 3 years down the line I was, surprise surprise no better. It took me another 5 years to work up the courage and actually find the right support I needed to actually get well.

Yes, that takes us to 2011. So I have been seeking treatment since 2004, and only just got the right treatment, and its not even on the NHS.

As I said, six months is nothing.

thought you might be interested in this -

Disabled People: Transport
Statement 7th June

Earl Attlee: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

The cross-government review of non-departmental public bodies, responding to this House in October 2010, decided that the public bodies landscape needed radical reform to increase accountability, cut out duplication of activity, increase transparency and discontinue activities that were no longer needed. Amongst the recommendations was that DPTAC be abolished.

The Public Bodies Bill is currently before Parliament. The Bill, as drafted, would allow the Government to make an order abolishing DPTAC. If the Bill is passed with this provision in it, I am minded to make such an order. But before coming to a definite decision to do so, I intend to consult on the order and will make no final decision until I have taken into account the responses to that consultation.

In advance of this formal consultation I am inviting views from all those with an interest on what successor arrangements should be put in place if DPTAC is abolished. I am seeking to ensure that any successor arrangement will continue to provide my department with consensual, pan-disability advice in a flexible way, and that any arrangement represents value for money.

I propose to invite comments on the options listed below:
option 1-rely on existing expertise in the Department for Transport policy divisions and agencies. Where ad-hoc specific advice is needed, it could be sought

7 Jun 2011 : Column WS15

by individual policy divisions from third party stakeholder groups, the transport industry, and experts. This would have minimal cost (although commissioned, consultancy advice could be expensive) but perhaps risks disability issues being overlooked;option 2-establish a stakeholder forum, which could be convened and provide advice as and when issues arose. Again this would have minimal cost, but could again result in an increased consultancy bill. It might also be difficult to decide who to appoint to the forum. There are over 50 disability groups, and their interests sometimes conflict (eg the interests of the visually impaired, and those using mobility scooters). Achieving consensus could therefore be difficult; option 3-rely on a cross-government body to provide transport advice-for example the existing (non-statutory) Equality 2025, run by the Department for Work and Pensions. This option should ensure that disability issues do not get overlooked. Equality 2025 is likely to be able to offer general advice-for example on transport access to the Olympics by disabled people-but would not be in a position to offer more specialist advice, for example the type of mobility scooter models suitable to be carried on public transport;option 4-establish a non-statutory specialist body which would be flexible and accountable to Ministers. This may cost more than the options above, but should be less expensive than the current arrangements. However, a smaller body because of its size, may not cover all disability areas, and therefore could reduce the opportunities to provide pan-disability advice; andoption 5-a wide ranging panel of experts from which members could be drawn, on an ad hoc basis, when specific advice is needed. A once-a-year meeting of all specified stakeholders could be held so that they all have the opportunity of voicing wider concerns.

My initial thinking is that option 5 would be the most appropriate path to take, but I would welcome views to inform my decision-making in this area.