Can Do Can Go
Home
News and opinion » News »

Politicians and DWP combine to block answers on Unum links

(5 January 2012)

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the three main political parties are refusing to say how often ministers have met with an insurance company set to make huge financial gains from incapacity benefit reform.

Disability News Service (DNS) submitted a request to the DWP under the Freedom of Information Act to ask how many meetings there had been between executives of Unum and government ministers since 2001.

But DWP officials claim there is no “central database” of such meetings and therefore it would be too expensive to find out how often coalition and Labour ministers had met with Unum over the last 10 years.

They say that producing such information would mean contacting “approximately 100,000 officials who are employed by the Department of Work and Pensions, as well as all ministers and special advisers, to find details of meetings that could relate to your enquiry”.

Records of ministerial meetings with outside organisations have been published on the DWP website only since October 2009.

Last October, Unum, the UK’s largest provider of “income protection insurance” (IPI), denied that it had attempted to influence government policy on welfare reform.

Campaigners believe that tougher welfare rules – particularly those that replaced incapacity benefit (IB) with the new employment and support allowance (ESA) – will induce more people to take out IPI, and so boost Unum’s profits.

Anger over IB reform has grown over the last 18 months, with claims that the coalition’s changes – which are even harsher than those introduced by the Labour government – are merely a cover for cuts to welfare spending and are plunging tens of thousands of disabled people further into poverty and distress.

The disabled activist who has done most to raise concerns about the suitability of Unum to be advising the government and its influence within the DWP is Mo Stewart, a retired healthcare professional and veteran of the Women’s Royal Air Force.

She said: “Given the diabolical reputation of this company in America, it is a huge concern that the UK government would take advice from such a discredited insurance company as Unum, and someone should surely be asking why this corporate giant has had such an influence within the DWP since 1994.”

Unum admits there has been widespread criticism of its past actions in the US – mainly over its refusal to pay out on genuine insurance claims by disabled people – but claims that in the UK it takes its “obligations and duties for treating customers very, very seriously”.

Stewart said the government’s “resistance” to providing the information requested by DNS was “nothing but an excuse” and that DWP clearly “cannot risk confirming information that’s already widely known, that they willingly consult with this discredited market leader in IPI”.

Unum has denied that it stands to gain from the reforms, even though it launched a major media campaign last year just as the coalition government began a three-year programme to reassess about 1.5 million existing IB claimants through a new, stricter test, the work capability assessment.

But a detailed memo later emerged, which was submitted to the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee in 2002 and was written by Joanne Hindle, Unum’s corporate services director.

In the memo, Unum called for fundamental reform of the welfare system, while it said the government “must ensure both that work always pays more than benefits, and more importantly that it is clearly seen to do so”.

The memo included proposals with a strong resemblance to reforms introduced several years later by the Labour government, when it replaced IB with ESA, and it stated that Unum was “actively engaged” with the government on sharing best practice in returning disabled people to work.

Unum has denied working “to influence the government to reduce welfare benefits” or “on the design of the reforms to the welfare state”.

This week, a Unum spokesman said: “Thank you for contacting us with your question. However, we have nothing to add to our last statement.”

A Conservative spokeswoman declined to comment, as did the Liberal Democrats.

A Labour spokeswoman said: “A register of ministers’ meetings kept by the DWP is a matter for that department. Labour policy on welfare reform now, as it was in government, is driven by a belief in a fair welfare system that makes work pay.”

A DWP spokeswoman declined to comment on its refusal to provide information about ministerial meetings with Unum.

News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com






5 Responses to “Politicians and DWP combine to block answers on Unum links”

  1. carruthers says:

    Here is an extended quotation from an interview with Marco Forato,who was at that time (Jan 2011) chief marketing officer at Unum UK. It appeared on the website ifaonline.

    “With the ongoing welfare reforms still a hot topic in both the nation and the protection market, key to the strategy is raising public awareness of the actual value and likelihood of receiving benefits and enabling customers to make an informed decision.

    “It should all be about EDUCATING THE GENERAL POPULATION AND WORKING WITH GOVERNMENT and finding ways to make people aware that if they believe the state will take care of them they are mistaken.,” he explained.

    “It doesn’t happen today and it’s just going to get worse in the future. There’s a misconception that if you need it, the government will give you £30,000 a year because that’s the one case that’s makes the front page of the Daily Mail. I just want people to make an educated decision, and if they decide not to buy it, it is their decision and we must respect that.

    “Today they are not allowed to make decisions, and when they are they don’t have the facts and understand the situations,” he added.

    This is a process which he feels has to be industry rather than government led, although A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE PAIR WOULD BE WELCOMED.”

    (http://www.ifaonline.co.uk/cover/interview/1936144/plan)

  2. L McKnight says:

    Google ads is putting adverts for UMUM products on this page!

  3. admin says:

    Dear L McKnight

    I take your point that these adverts could be offensive to some people. However, AdSense is necessary to us to monetise this site. We are trying to provide a service to those who wish to access it free of charge.

    We’ve added a lot of content about travel, airports, destinations, etc. We’ve even tried to encourage people to add to our information by telling us when they find places accessible to disabled people. Believe me, we’ve had very little support.

    What we haven’t done ourselves, we’ve paid for. And that includes the news provided by Disability News Service each week. I hope you don’t expect us to pay for all that and yet receive no rewards for our efforts. Therefore the site is to a small extent subsidised by AdSense. Even so, it’s running at a big loss. Not big in absolute terms, but big relative to our monthly budget.

    If you don’t like a company, then don’t click on their adverts. Simple. But please don’t suggest that we should remove them. Write an article for us saying why you despise that company, do something to help rather than acting shocked because Google are putting their adverts on here.

    I say again, we are providing this website and the information on it free to all users. Would you deprive us of the means to recoup a little bit of the cost of doing so? We have to eat too and if people are going to object to our adverts (which we didn’t choose anyway, given that they’re AdSense), then I guess we may have to start looking at closing this site down or selling to a charity or something.

    And, yes, we can block certain AdSense ads, but that could be a never ending task. It’s up to the visitor’s judgement whether they want to click on the ads or not. We’re not here to play Nanny.

    Actually, it’s most likely not the case that Unum themselves has chosen to advertise on this page. It’s much more likely that this is AdSense’s idea of targeted advertising.

    Just ignore the ads if you don’t like them.

    Kay
    (Editor/owner)

  4. L McKnight says:

    Admin

    Was not in any way criticising the site, it was a comlaint about Google.

    I have actually used the Google complaint form to tell them about this as it is their software that is not up to the standard required.

  5. admin says:

    Thanks for your clarification. It’s just that you didn’t make a point in your original comment other than to express shock that Unum was advertising here.

    Anyway, if a company advertises on a site which runs articles which are critical of them, then that’s their look-out for not being more selective about where they want their adverts to show.

    Google simply takes the content of a page and tries to match it with relevant adverts. They don’t usually do manual reviews to allocate ads to content. So, if you have a page saying how awful Acme Widget Company is then you’re quite likely to get adverts for Acme Widget Company on it (assuming they are AdWord buyers, of course). Some people might find it interesting to find out more about what the company has to say for themselves.

    I don’t think there’s anything wrong with Google’s software in this case. If anything is at fault, it’s the way the AdWords buyer is using the software and not controlling their ad campaign as well as they might.

Leave a Reply

Can Do Can Go Shop

Bottom of page