What has that got to do with my question to TB? :image/gif;base64,R0lGODlhAQABAIAAAAAAAP///yH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAIBRAA7
I'm already well aware of the shambles the PIP system is and how demeaning the whole process is thanks to the useful input from many claimants including yourself. 
Disability benefit assessors failing to meet Government's quality standards
In one case flagged up by MPs, a person with Down’s syndrome was asked when they “caught” it, while in another, a woman reporting frequent suicidal thoughts was asked why she had not yet killed herself. In a third case, a claimant’s assessment stated that she walked a dog daily, when she could barely walk and didn’t own a dog.
If these assessments are brought back "in house" do you think that the situation will improve?One would hope so, but I'd be interested in your thoughts 
A big fat no from me.
Whether it is done in-house or not, it is done against the rules set by the civil servants responsible for this. Who does it shouldn't make any difference.
Ahem, the question was whether if these assessments were brought "in house" whether the situation would improve......
Ahem the question was whether if these assessments were brought "in house" whether the situation would improve......
Actually it was two questions, or one parent question with a sub question if you wish:
Question 1> would taking assessments out of the private sector and doing them 'in house' make a difference to the quality and fairness of the assessments.
Question 2> "If that is deemed important (and of course it is) then why didn't the civil servants who manage this make this a condition of who ever needs to do the work?" - Dejongj
I was answering both, or at least providing my take on factors influencing those answers.
To some extent I agree with your own comment about the assessments being primarily driven by design and management from the government/DWP.
To what extent would bringing the assessments 'in house' make them 'better' if there is still fundamental problems within and created by the DWP and Government policy and management.
Where we potentially disagree is about private versus public run services, in this case being the assessments.
I do not believe that the inherent problems that a private company brings to the table outweigh the positives with regards to providing fairness.
Firstly you are expanding the question; there was no qualification to the quality and fairness of the assessments.
And as I said before, unless you change the rules then who does it doesn't make any difference. Please explain how it would change when you do it in-house against the same operating model?
That was merely a follow on as the point got ignored in answering the original question.
We agree, party whoop whoop whoop 
If fairness was part of the contract, be it with your own employees or with a third party supplier then why would that make any difference? Why would human beings working for a private sector company be anymore unfair than civil servants working for the DWP or Government? They have to comply with the same rules and procedures don't they?
Or do you
C) Invent two scenarios, and then pretend they are the only two things that could have happened
Invent ? ..... according to public record of the failures, critical reports and lack of penalties being pursued, it's pretty much bang on.