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.
Regarding the Serco contract, it's rea11y horrifying.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...nd-intimidated-by-staff-in-home-office-hotels

The on1y positive thing is that now a c1aimant can insist that their assessment is recorded, so Serco wi11 be aware of the abi1ity for c1aimants to be ab1e to provide evidence of any abuse, at 1east in the assessment itse1f (if not in the centres if abuse comes from other staff).
 
Last edited:
Trish said:
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?
Click to expand...

You can also email your response to: wcaactivitiesanddescriptors.consultation@dwp.gov.uk

which is what I am currently working on, at great physical cost, with the long suffering @It's M.E. Linda

I attended the online Disability Benefits Consortium meeting yesterday afternoon and the DWP were invited to present and do a Q&A on the WCA consultation.
They admit that they "have been met with criticism of their proposals" but "it is down to the MPs" and is their decision. Which suggests this is a fait accompli

However, there seems to be a fatally flawed lack of understanding at the heart of this, that being in the LCWRA is about "having a bit more money" and that it is a lifestyle choice, as opposed to the reality of just how difficult some people's lives can be, and that people are not working because they are too sick.

They seem convinced that "with the right support" [which mostly seems to be sanctions] we can all take up the "opportunity of work" and that it will improve our health outcomes. It absolute did not for me, it pushed me from moderate to moderate/severe and destroyed my mental health. Thanks very much. I told them that in my question too:

What happens to those with long term health conditions who have little chance of improving, or are likely to deteriorate and only get ESA under Reg 35? they are going to be expected to undertake work related activity, even though they are too unwell?

What happens to those who engage with work related activity and get worse?

The answers seemed to be "we've run out of time" but that they had "lots to reflect on"

Edit: Thanks to @Simbindi for the House of Lords links. very useful
 
JellyBabyKid said:
I attended the online Disability Benefits Consortium meeting yesterday afternoon and the DWP were invited to present and do a Q&A on the WCA consultation.
They admit that they "have been met with criticism of their proposals" but "it is down to the MPs" and is their decision. Which suggests this is a fait accompli
Click to expand...
Yes. I think that disabi1ity charities need to focus on 1abour more, or at 1east as much as, the current government. The remova1 of the WCA in its entire form is incredib1y dangerous to so many sick and disab1ed c1aimants who won't fit the very rigid criteria for the new 'severe' category (which requires a diagnosis of a condition that is c1ear1y defined and is a1ways progressive or permanent).

I think showing how bad 'just' removing or changing these 4 descriptors wi11 be shou1d high1ight this. This needs to be made exp1icit in responses to this consu1taion. At 1east the Conservative's decision to have this WCA consu1tation on these 4 descriptors provides an opportunity that otherwise wou1dn't have been there before the next e1ection to bring this danger to the attention of 1abour.
 
Last edited:
Thanks @Simbindi & @JellyBabyKid for such good work against these terrible proposals. I did respond to the consultation about a week ago. It wasn't very good, but at least I expressed my objections. I messed up in that I typed quite a long reply to the first question & only then scrolled down to find out how many questions there were. I then found it was all on one page, with no obvious way to save it. So I ended completing it in one go, & I'm very unwell because of it.

I veered quite a bit from only answering the questions directly. I wanted to express my dismay that there's been a tsunami of different proposals, which don't make sense it themselves & even less in combination.I didn't think I could ignore the White Paper & the future threats to PIP. Also, wanted to express that if all this goes ahead, sick & disabled people, who can't work, but have partners who do work, will have no personal income at all, & the inequatableness of that & the risk factors, including for domestic abuse & coercive control, loss of security, dignity & autonomy. I know they don't care about us, but I pointed out the societal costs, including lifelong impact on the life opportunities, health & wellbeing of claimants' children.
 
tornandfrayed said:
Thanks @Simbindi & @JellyBabyKid for such good work against these terrible proposals.
Click to expand...

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph in the world is that the good do nothing"

I cannot in good conscience stand by and not respond to these consultations, no matter how unlikely we are to be heard. While I can continue to take action, I will.

tornandfrayed said:
if all this goes ahead, sick & disabled people, who can't work, but have partners who do work, will have no personal income at all, & the inequatableness of that & the risk factors, including for domestic abuse & coercive control, loss of security, dignity & autonomy. I know they don't care about us, but I pointed out the societal costs, including lifelong impact on the life opportunities, health & wellbeing of claimants' children.
Click to expand...

I hope you don't mind @tornandfrayed but this is such an important point I have added a comment to this effect in our response.

There are much wider impacts from these changes that I really don't think have been properly thought through.

What worries me more is that they have, and this is all intentional.
 
tornandfrayed said:
Also, wanted to express that if all this goes ahead, sick & disabled people, who can't work, but have partners who do work, will have no personal income at all, & the inequatableness of that & the risk factors, including for domestic abuse & coercive control, loss of security, dignity & autonomy. I know they don't care about us, but I pointed out the societal costs, including lifelong impact on the life opportunities, health & wellbeing of claimants' children.
Click to expand...
Unfortunate1y this is a1ready the case if on income re1ated out of work sickness benefit (ESA or UC) if you 1ive with a working partner. Un1ess you had the fu11 2 years of nationa1 insurance contributions before getting too i11 to work you can't c1aim any sickness benefit apart from PIP (previous1y disabi1ity 1iving a11owance). Of course, if they make the PIP income re1ated (which the Conservatives have f1oated and haven't ru1ed out) then the sick spouse wi11 have no income at a11.

My ex was a high earner but emotiona11y and physica11y abusive (a1though not financia11y) so I have experienced this. It's much worse now then when I sp1it up from my ex about 20 years ago. I got given a counci1 house, a11 arranged for me. On Income Support a sing1e parent wasn't expected to work unti1 the youngest chi1d turned 16 and there was a sing1e parent and fami1y a11owance inc1uded. Working Tax Credits enab1ed part time work without pressure to increase hours, and there were generous fami1y and disabi1i1ity a11owances as part of that. None of this exists now.
 
Last edited:
Simbindi said:
None of this exists now.
Click to expand...
Which is probab1y why more sick peop1e have to c1aim out of work sickness benefit now than in the past. I stayed on Income Support for severa1 years (during and after my divorce) when I wou1d actua11y have been paid more on Incapacity Benefit. But I rea11y wanted to try working part time (thinking my divorce wou1d improve my ME) and didn't want my ME on my medica1 records. Of course starting work when my youngest was 15 (even though part time) destroyed my hea1th within a few years and I had to c1aim ESA anyway, because work isn't good for the hea1th of most PWME!
 
Last edited:
JellyBabyKid said:
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph in the world is that the good do nothing"

I cannot in good conscience stand by and not respond to these consultations, no matter how unlikely we are to be heard. While I can continue to take action, I will.



I hope you don't mind @tornandfrayed but this is such an important point I have added a comment to this effect in our response.

There are much wider impacts from these changes that I really don't think have been properly thought through.

What worries me more is that they have, and this is all intentional.
Click to expand...

Of course, @JellyBabyKid. I'm glad I thought of something useful, because I can see from what you & others have written that I've missed points out in my response.

Yes, that's true, @Simbindi. I'm sorry you went through that. If PIP is means-tested, the right to an income disappears altogether, after years of cuts in benefits.

Everything about this seems to move close to a Workhouse model.

There was a response from the UK Government today on this petition
Allow disabled people to keep all their benefits if they move in with a partner

As usual it just stated the present situation. (The response may be useful in the fight against further cuts, however, as it implies government approval of the current situation.)

Something that is never mentioned that the capital limits for claiming benefits have been frozen for decades, & were set even lower for UC. In the 80s you could buy a home for the upper limit. Now the UC limit will be the monthly salary for some professionals.
 
Announced yesterday on the DWP page of gov.uk;

Back to work boost for disability benefit claimants as ground-breaking employment scheme expanded

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...as-ground-breaking-employment-scheme-expanded

"A pilot scheme for disabled people and people with health conditions to explore barriers to work will be rolled out to 12 new areas as part of the next generation of welfare reforms being introduced by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)."

"Under the new initiative, the claimants and health practitioners develop a ‘work ability plan’ over a one-hour conversation, identifying barriers to employment and actions and support to overcome them"

"The DWP will therefore use the findings from the expanded Employment and Health Discussions pilot in the longer-term to inform the structure of the wider benefits system once the Work Capability Assessment is removed, focusing on what disabled people and people with health conditions can do, rather than what they can’t. "
 
Simbindi said:
I think that disabi1ity charities need to focus on 1abour more, or at 1east as much as, the current government.
Click to expand...

It was reported in the paper the other day that Labour has said they won't implement this. They've said other things then rowed back on them, of course, so there's no guarantee, but my MP said that a lot in the parliamentary party don't like the proposals at all.

For those who currently have a Labour MP, it might be worth copying your responses to the consultation to them.
 
Sam Ray-Chaudhuri, a Research Economist at IFS and an author of the report, said:

"The government proposes moving to a system where being unable to work will no longer directly confer any additional financial support from the benefits system. On the whole, this strengthens financial incentives to work, but getting the reform right will rely on work coaches’ ability to set personalised work requirements that take into account what recipients can reasonably be expected to do – despite there being no formal test of capacity to work and work coaches typically having no medical training."
Click to expand...

The 1ast sentence is extreme1y important to emphasise.

Obvious1y for someone who is too sick and/or disab1ed to work then no amount of 'financia1 incentives' wi11 enab1e them to move off out of work benefits. 'Breaking the 1ink' between hea1th and out of work benefits wi11 harm the most vu1nerab1e the most. It's a frightening po1icy. I'm not sure if any comparab1e advanced economy to the UK has such an approach.
 
Last edited:
Sam Ray-Chaudhuri, a Research Economist at IFS and an author of the report, said:

"The government proposes moving to a system where being unable to work will no longer directly confer any additional financial support from the benefits system. On the whole, this strengthens financial incentives to work, but getting the reform right will rely on work coaches’ ability to set personalised work requirements that take into account what recipients can reasonably be expected to do – despite there being no formal test of capacity to work and work coaches typically having no medical training."

You would think this economist would realise that this is a very harsh measure, as very few claimants will be capable of work, and the basic levels of benefits are nowhere enough to live on, especially long-term.

There's also the issue that, if sick & disabled claimants don't qualify for any financial support, they won't put themselves through the grief of engaging with the DWP. However that means they won't get NI credits, affecting their pension entitlement & ability to qualify for certain benefits if they are reinstated under a later government. All these things cause great suffering in themselves at each point in time, but they also compound over a lifetime.

I think it's already true that many people who fail the WCA disappear from official records.

I hope you are right about Labour, @Kitty.
 
tornandfrayed said:
getting the reform right will rely on work coaches’ ability to set personalised work requirements that take into account what recipients can reasonably be expected to do – despite there being no formal test of capacity to work and work coaches typically having no medical training
Click to expand...

At its simplest that's right, as clearly many sick and disabled people couldn't reasonably be asked to do any work.

But in some cases employability needs to be taken into consideration as well as capacity. Before my memory really went down the tubes I might have been able to do a couple of hours' work per day, on two or three days per week, some weeks. The trouble was that I couldn't say which hours, which days, or which weeks, and that turned out not to be very useful to the unusually supportive and understanding part-time employer I had then.

It's similar to being able to walk 20 metres once but not be able to repeat it, or being able to walk 20 metres but only in great pain. The current benefits system recognises that to all intents and purposes this means unable walk 20 metres, and it needs to be the same with work.
 
Kitty said:
At its simplest that's right, as clearly many sick and disabled people couldn't reasonably be asked to do any work.

But in some cases employability needs to be taken into consideration as well as capacity. Before my memory really went down the tubes I might have been able to do a couple of hours' work per day, on two or three days per week, some weeks. The trouble was that I couldn't say which hours, which days, or which weeks, and that turned out not to be very useful to the unusually supportive and understanding part-time employer I had then.

It's similar to being able to walk 20 metres once but not be able to repeat it, or being able to walk 20 metres but only in great pain. The current benefits system recognises that to all intents and purposes this means unable walk 20 metres, and it needs to be the same with work.
Click to expand...

yes employability spot on @Kitty pretty much describes my experience. There’s no duty for an employer however large (in my case thousands of employees) to redeploy you to a job that has been tailored to your current capacity. And in any employment situation unless a family business you have to reliably work the hours you are contracted for, not least because fellow employees don’t appreciate fluctuations when they have to cover for you.
 
JellyBabyKid said:
"Under the new initiative, the claimants and health practitioners develop a ‘work ability plan’ over a one-hour conversation, identifying barriers to employment and actions and support to overcome them"
Click to expand...
Much of this wi11 be 'sign posting to further he1p'. It assumes the c1aimant can engage with this 'conversation', fo11ow it up and actua11y access this supposed he1p.

Of course, in rea1ity this 'further he1p' isn't even avai1ab1e in many areas of the country, apart from maybe iso1ated urban areas. For examp1e, after my ASD diagnosis I tried to find a suitab1e support group. There was nothing for autistic adu1ts without an additiona1 1earning disabi1ity (who are covered by the NHS and counci1) avai1ab1e in my county (even if one had a car avai1ab1e for transport). The on1y groups were either for carer parents or carer 1ed (by parents). I tried engaging with one of these, it was horrific. I even took my Rethink Support Worker (who I had at the time of my diagnosis) with me to one meeting. She was shocked by these 'carers' attitudes towards me (I was better educated than they were).

There's no forma1 support in my area post diagnosis for adu1t autism (not rea11y any for chi1dhood autism either) by either the county counci1 or the NHS, nothing for ADHD and certain1y nothing for PWME, whether housebound or not.

Getting a suitab1e socia1 care package is nigh on impossib1e and if you do you're 1ike1y to have to contribute a high proportion of any disabi1ity benefits towards the cost, 1eaving you in destitution financia11y (the contribution 1eve1 hasn't been up1ifted for many years). I forgo persona1 care so that I can eat a hea1thy diet and comfortab1y heat my home. If I had to pay towards socia1 care I wou1dn't be ab1e to do this, or afford my cats (which are the one thing in my 1ife that make it worth 1iving). I don't spend money on a1coho1, have never smoked etc.
 
NelliePledge said:
yes employability spot on @Kitty pretty much describes my experience. There’s no duty for an employer however large (in my case thousands of employees) to redeploy you to a job that has been tailored to your current capacity. And in any employment situation unless a family business you have to reliably work the hours you are contracted for, not least because fellow employees don’t appreciate fluctuations when they have to cover for you.
Click to expand...
I was discussing this with my daughter who was over he1ping sort me out with an on1ine pharmacy yesterday. I strugg1ed even engaging with her, my basic processing time is about 5x hers and it took a 1ot of patience on her part (and she is a teacher, so works with young peop1e with 1earning needs and was doing a11 the reading, typing and phone ca11s for me). She pointed out (what I have a1ready experienced) that I wou1d get put on 'capabi1ity' for 1ack of productiveness straight away. No emp1oyer wou1d accept having an emp1oyee who can't process information re1iab1y. It's not something you can improve on with time or training, it's a physica1, cognitive 1imitation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom