UK: Disability benefits (UC, ESA and PIP) - news and updates 2023 (including government plans to scrap the work capability assessment)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've read the consultation. This is a suggestion, they can either remove them altogether or make it so that none of those areas could score 15 points. atm we don't know quite how far they'll go with it but the fact that these things are there at all doesn't look good.
I'm really sorry to tell you this, but i'm afraid these plans are far from 'suggestions'... its the plan.

And making it so that none of those areas could score 15 points, means no one who got into the LCWRA or Support group on those descriptors, will qualify in future, meaning that we will be at the mercy of job centre work coaches and subject to sanctions.
 
I'm really sorry to tell you this, but i'm afraid these plans are far from 'suggestions'... its the plan.

And making it so that none of those areas could score 15 points, means no one who got into the LCWRA or Support group on those descriptors, will qualify in future, meaning that we will be at the mercy of job centre work coaches and subject to sanctions.
I've no doubt that it is the plan. I am also well aware of how the job centre works. How far these things end up happening is not yet set in stone tho. They might do the whole thing, they might do half the thing. The reason i responded to the consultation was on the basis that, if enough noise was made, then they might step back from some of the worst of this stuff.

The plan is also null and void if labour win the next election (23 points ahead today), at which point it will become a different plan. It probably won't be great either but will be almost certainly less bad than this one and, esp if labour have a small majority, will not be unopposed in parliament. We are not done yet.
 
I took a first look at the consultation document today. I'm a bit bemused about where to start with filling in the consultation as the questions are all about responding to specific changes to specific questions, whereas the points I would want to make are more general about things like the assumption that work is good for everybody, and work can contribute to recovery, and the worry about work coaches not understanding the nature of ME/CFS and specifically PEM.

Are there any examples we can follow to guide our responses to get points specific to ME/CFS across?
 
I'm a bit bemused about where to start with filling in the consultation as the questions are all about responding to specific changes to specific questions, whereas the points I would want to make are more general about things like the assumption that work is good for everybody, and work can contribute to recovery, and the worry about work coaches not understanding the nature of ME/CFS and specifically PEM.

I think it might be the wrong questionnaire for this. I suspect if you don't address the questions directly, your responses might be disregarded. There is a question where you could talk about the impact of the changes in more general terms (Q7) and about the risks of removing the limited capacity for work related activity risk group (Q9), but otherwise, it might be effort expended in vain. The whole thing is based on a solid assumption that work is good for everybody.
 
I took a first look at the consultation document today. I'm a bit bemused about where to start with filling in the consultation as the questions are all about responding to specific changes to specific questions, whereas the points I would want to make are more general about things like the assumption that work is good for everybody, and work can contribute to recovery, and the worry about work coaches not understanding the nature of ME/CFS and specifically PEM.

Are there any examples we can follow to guide our responses to get points specific to ME/CFS across?
It is an utterly cynical manipulative exercise, designed to ensure the Gov. gets the answer it wants. I can't see any obvious way subvert the pro forma to ensure the Gov. has to acknowledge a different perspective.
 
@Simbindi, you have done a fair amount on this, do you have any ideas or bullet points?
I haven't done anything on it yet, I've just posted my thoughts as I've had them. I have ADHD and autism, p1us dys1exia and dyspraxia as we11 as severe ME. So I probab1y wi11 be submitting my responses on the 1ast day of the dead1ine. I never offer to advocate for anyone for this reason, I can't cope with having pressure from other peop1e, it scramb1es my brain and stops my thought process.
 
Last edited:
From page 79 of the WCA guidance

In 2015, there was a further Tribunals decision providing guidance on relevant factors which should be considered by HCPs when giving advice on Activity 1 – Mobilising. This applies in particular to the use of a manual wheelchair. This Guidance stated: Factors such as the domestic environment are of potential relevance but need to be considered in the context of:  The WCA’s underlying purpose, and also  The modern workplace environment Given that it is to be expected that an employer will be willing to make reasonable adjustments in the workplace to enable someone to work, it can be assumed that these adjustments may include storage facilities for an employee’s manual wheelchair. Therefore, the HCP does not need to give consideration to using or storing a manual wheelchair in the home environment. The updated guidance for DMs following this UT decision also highlighted the following which provides additional context when advising on mobilising:  All medical considerations need to be taken into account  Wheelchair use needs to be only for short distances, and for limited periods

If the WCA assumes sick and disab1ed peop1e can work from home, then sure1y it wi11 need to take account of the c1aimant's home environment! A point I think worth making.
 
Last edited:
If the WCA assumes sick and disab1ed peop1e can work from home, then sure1y it wi11 need to take account of the c1aimant's home environment! A point I think worth making.

Yes, I mentioned that in my response. And that working from home opportunities are steadily being rolled back post-pandemic, and that not everyone has skills relevant to working from home (which is often computer-based), blah blah blah.

I also wrote a screed about the mobilising factor being necessary because there are severely disabled people who are unable even to sit up (either at all or for very long), people with energy limiting conditions who are unable to keep up any activity for more than a few minutes, and people affected by quadriplegia and other severe impairments who need 24-hour support, and all require this descriptor to capture some of their disability.

I can't remember the rest of it in as much detail, but there was a lot of disbelief that someone actually imagined the removal of the the engaging with others and substantial harm sections was even workable in practice, given the numbers of people with autism, learning disabilities, severe mental health conditions, etc. (I hope I deleted the suggestion that they ought to try spending a day meeting some, as the policy wouldn't survive the first hour.)
 
This memo was 1inked to in the DWP WCA guidance. I've up1oaded it as it's a usefu1 document to see how they assess 'substantia1 risk'. It a1so might be usefu1 to peop1e fi11ing out their ESA/UC 50 forms.

I don't have the cognitive or physica1 capacity to go into ways to use this information, so just posting it to high1ight its existence.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
From the above -

Make a list of your hobbies, things you enjoy doing, or things you used to enjoy doing. Easy

I remember being probed on this when I was put in the WRAG - it was so triggering! For someone who has had their 1ife devastated by severe i11ness, this just shows how out of touch the DWP are. This is just one examp1e, the document has others that high1ight that the Job Centre work coaches are given power to recommend activities that cou1d be rea11y harmfu1 to someone with physica1 and/or menta1 i11 hea1th.

This actua11y high1ights how inappropriate it is to remove the WCA, where the HCP has to consider substantia1 risk in the 1ight of the who1e detai1ed assessment and the c1aimant's information and medica1 evidence (not that they a1ways do, but it is at 1east stated that they shou1d be doing this).
 
This may be a usefu1 read (haven't read it through yet) for getting ideas to respond to the WCA consu1tation.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2023-09-05a.359.2

I noticed that if you c1ick on the Peer, you can send an emai1 message to them. This may be a more direct way to make some sa1ient points to those Peers that are re1evant to/interested in this issue. I may send messages to the 1abour peers, mentioning that the fina1 WCA government consu1tation report may have 'cherry picked' points that are un1ike1y to provide the fu11 picture (etc., better worded of course and inc1uding pertinent examp1es).
 
Baroness Sherlock Shadow Spokesperson (Work and Pensions) 5:40, 5 September 2023
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and for advance sight of it. The way we support sick and disabled people in this country is of huge importance, both to the millions directly affected and their families and to our country as a whole, and it says something about who we are as a nation. Labour believes passionately that everyone who can should be able to access a decent job, with all the financial and other benefits that brings. That is why we have been so concerned at the Government’s failure to address the disability employment gap over such a long time. Nobody should be shut out of the workplace when, with the right help and support, they could be working.

We are now in a position where an astonishing 2.6 million people are out of work as a result of long- term sickness—the highest number ever, and up almost half a million since the pandemic. This is a serious problem for individuals and a challenge for our country. The Government have been warned for many years now that benefit assessments are not fit for purpose and, crucially, that unless we have a proper plan to support sick and disabled people, even more people will end up stuck out of work when they do not need or want to be.

So what can be done? Our approach has been to set out some serious plans in this area: to transform back-to-work help by personalising employment support and tackling the huge backlogs in our NHS and social care; by offering an “into work guarantee” so that people can try work without worrying about losing their benefits—something that has had widespread support both from the voluntary sector and within Parliament; to make sure that employment support meets local needs by devolving appropriately to local areas; and to make sure that, when disabled people get a job, they get the support they need when they need it, not several months down the line.

By contrast, this consultation is rather small in scope. The Statement seems to suggest that the Government have decided that the main problem is that too many people who undergo a work capability assessment are classed in the higher rate, and therefore the only way to solve that is to change the criteria. We will look at the outcome of this consultation carefully but let me ask a few questions of the Minister now.

Is the sole intention of this exercise to reduce the number of people who are classed as having limited capability for work and work-related activity? If so, by how many? Is there a target? The Statement says that the current situation

“is excluding significant numbers of people from receiving employment support”.

Will the Minister tell the House whether DWP could choose to offer employment support now to people who are deemed LCWRA?

If in future more of these millions of people were classed as simply having limited capability for work, rather than in the higher area, would that make any other difference to them, as opposed to just getting employment support? Might it affect how much money they were given to live on while they were waiting to get a job? Can the Minister tell us how these proposals will address the total inadequacy of decision-making, which causes untold stress and wastes millions of pounds?

The Minister pointed out that the Government have longer-term plans. The Health and Disability White Paper outlined plans to abolish the work capability assessment altogether and replace it with a single assessment, which will be the PIP—the personal independence payment assessment. I do not want to be mean, but PIP is hardly a model of good practice: 80% of PIP decisions get overturned at tribunal, and only 2% are down to new evidence. In any case, these plans are way in the future, beyond this Parliament. If the proposals contained in this consultation will not come in until 2025, when will we possibly see the plans that will not even be considered until after the next election? Will the Minister give us some idea of when, if his Government were returned to power—I accept that it is an “if”—they would expect to see those plans come to fruition?

We need a big plan now to help sick and disabled people who want to get back to work—after all, the backlog for Access to Work payments has trebled to 25,000 since the pandemic. Where are the proposals to bring that down? Where is the plan to slash the waiting lists for those who are struggling with anxiety and depression, which is keeping them out of the workplace? Where are the plans to give help to carers to support their sick and disabled loved ones so they can get back to work?

I understand what the Minister is trying to do, but the truth is that this is tinkering around the edges of a system which is failing sick and disabled people. It is not providing the help they need and, in the meantime, our NHS and social care, on which sick and disabled people depend more than anyone, is being run into the ground. We need more than this and we need it soon.

Bo1ding mine.
 
This is probably the wrong thread but it's relevant to the impetus the Government is claiming for the changes - that is the "unsustainable" increase in people economically inactive (sic) because of ill health:

Financial Times: 17/10/2023

UK delays publication of workforce data, raising concerns about accuracy

"The UK’s official statistics agency has been forced to delay the release of some key labour market data, raising concerns over the accuracy of figures that are closely watched to inform Bank of England interest rate decisions. The Office for National Statistics was due to publish monthly figures for employment, unemployment and inactivity on Tuesday but has now said data based on its labour force survey (LFS) will not be released until next week. On Tuesday, the ONS will publish only figures on wages and vacancies, based on different surveys, along with experimental figures drawn from HM Revenue & Customs records. The decision to pull parts of a major data release at short notice suggests existing problems with the survey have become acute and casts doubt over the ONS’s headline findings on the state of the workforce."

excerpt:


"Recent ONS data has pointed to a long-term decline in workforce size, which could fuel wage growth in the absence of productivity gains to match — a cause of concern for the central bank. The agency has recorded a 411,000 rise since 2019 in the number of people who are economically inactive — meaning they are neither in a job nor looking for one — largely due to higher levels of long-term sickness. Given the doubts around the survey’s accuracy, however, “I don’t think we know that”, Portes said."

Full article currently free to read: https://www.ft.com/content/b014dd25-645f-41d4-bdd5-5197a73f4d10
 
Serco wins £350m DWP contract for disability benefits assessments
  • The five-year contract is expected to start in September 2024
Outsourcing giant Serco been handed a £350million contract by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to support the assessment of disability benefit claimants.

The five-year contract to deliver functional assessment services (FAS) in the south-west of England is scheduled to start in September 2024, subject to workload volumes.

Serco told investors on Tuesday it will be responsible for 'delivering functional health assessments for the DWP to determine disability benefits and support'.

Serco wins £350m DWP contract for disability benefits assessments (msn.com)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom