Comment: A points system won’t show if disabled people are fit for work
The government’s rhetoric is colliding with the realities of disabled people’s lives.
By Ruth Scott
The Department of Work and Pensions is in the process of radically changing disability benefits, while incapacity benefit (IB) is about to be transformed into something quite different.
Starting last week 1.5 million IB claimants will have to go through an assessment to determine if they are fit for work. Having just finished trails in Burnley and Aberdeen, the work capability assessment (WCA) will be rolled out nationally. The test will put people either on to jobseekers’ allowance (if they’re fit for work); employment and support allowance (ESA) work-related activity group (if they need support to prepare for work and need continued support in the workplace) or ESA support group (if their impairment prevents them from working).
Reform
The results of the trials have seen the government paint a picture of a system in need of urgent reform, where too many people are left abandoned “on the sick” with little prospect of finding work. Speaking in the Sunday Telegraph employment minister Chris Grayling said that nearly 500,000 people could be found fit for work: “The trial results show that, if replicated nationally, we could expect around half a million people to be found fit for work over the next three years as the reassessment exercise is completed.”
So far, so good – if half a million disabled people end up in long-term employment over the next parliament everyone wins. The gap between disabled and non-disabled people in the workplace, which has been stubbornly wide for some time, reduces. More disabled people in employment will be beneficial to individuals, society and our public finances. So, what’s not to like? Why aren’t disabled people whole-heatedly welcoming these changes?
Work Capability Assessment
Where things get trickier for the government is the assessment process itself, as this is where the government’s rhetoric and reform collide with reality of disabled people’s lives.
A quick application of common sense would suggest that the WCA should look at and take into account’s all those things that stop disabled people getting and keeping work. We know that can range from inaccessible transport, perceptions of disabled people and their capabilities, lack of training or formal qualifications and even inadequate housing.
Instead, an assessor inputs information about someone’s ability to do one-off physical tasks into a computer to produce a point score which in turn determines the level of benefit they receive. Disabled people have long-known that non-health related factors like skills, confidence, motivation and qualifications are much stronger indicators of employment success, but the test considers none of these things.
We only have to look at the number of people initially judged fit for work who have successfully appeal against their assessment, to gauge how well the WCA is progressing. According to the Department of Work and Pensions itself nearly a third of people appeal against their decision, and a staggering 40% of those win.
Lasting impact
The implications are not abstract or academic, they will have a real and lasting impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands of disabled people.
Imagine that you have an accident (they happen to some extent to all of us at some time in our lives), or a stroke or something else happens that prevents you from working. You’d expect – particularly if you’ve paid your national insurance contributions – a system in place that supports you in your time of need.
Jamie from Doncaster, a Scope volunteer, has ME but was found fit for work. He’s appealing against that decision, but if that fails he will be expected to look for work while receiving job seekers’ allowance. He told us: “Your ability to move your hands or pick up an empty box is taken as proof that you can then work. There’s nothing there to test for stamina. For instance, I couldn’t pick up an empty box ten times in a row.
“I’m able to work for two days a week for a few hours each day. That’s my limit. Unfortunately there aren’t many employers out there that are flexible enough to offer the kind of role I can do.”
What will happen to people – like Jamie – who are taken off IB and put onto either job seekers’ allowance or the work-related activity group of ESA? The government’s plan is simple: those who need extra support to find work can use something called the work programme and people facing higher barriers to employment can volunteer for the more specialised work choice programme. Both options will use predominately private companies – they have 38 out of 40 available contracts – working to targets and generous financial incentives. This seems like a scenario where all parties win. But, here’s the snag, that’s precisely how the previous government’s regime known as pathways to work – where private companies Reed and A4E were contacted to get disabled people into work – was supposed to function. And their success rate – was a pitiful nine per cent and 15% respectively for mandatory participants against targets of 32% and 36%.
Hard times
If the government were serious about getting disabled people into work, and not just off IB, the WCA would accurately assesses the barriers each individual faces in accessing suitable work. It would give each individual a personalised plan so they know what they need to work on, which is more empowering and constructive and enables more accurate and efficient referrals to suitable support.
We’ll probably have to wait a while before we can judge the impact of the reform of incapacity benefit, but the omens are not good. In the economic boom times the previous government struggled to get disabled people into meaningful employment, it’s extremely hard to see disabled people faring much better in today’s employment market while grappling with a system that looks like its set up to fall short of the mark.
Ruth Scott is the director of policy and campaigns at Scope.
The opinions in politics.co.uk’s Speakers Corner are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.
