This is certainly the question on the lips of a country going through the biggest overhaul of its welfare system since it began. The overall aim is to simplify out-of-work and in-work benefits being claimed, including housing benefit, Income Support, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), by introducing a single payment called Universal Credit.
The government has already set to work by replacing Incapacity Benefit, an out-of-work benefit claimed by people who are unable to work due to illness or disability, with ESA. The main difference being that ESA involves a somewhat controversial medical assessment called the Work Capability Assessment with a focus on supporting people to return to work. The benefit divides claimants into two separate groups; a work-related activity group and a support group. Those placed in the support group, due to illness or disability having a “severe” effect on their ability to work, will not be expected to work. Although the majority of people, despite how their illness or disability affects their ability to work, are expected to be placed in the work-related activity group with a view to preparing for and returning to suitable employment.
At this point in time, all new claimants are placed on ESA immediately. Although there is still a not insignificant 1.5 million people who are currently in receipt of Incapacity Benefit and are anxiously awaiting the brown Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) envelope calling them to be reassessed. “But why would people be fearful if they have nothing to hide?”, many people including the media have been asking themselves. For me, this isn’t the right question to be asking in the first place, but more a case of what is at the root of this fear?
I’m confident that most people’s concerns would point back to the computer based Work Capability Assessments being carried out by a private company called Atos Origin who are incentivised to find people “fit for work”. These tests have been widely found inadequate in dealing with complex health conditions including mental health and other fluctuating conditions such as multiple sclerosis (MS). This in itself is a huge source of worry and concern for people unable to work due to their health or disability, but combining this with a failure to involve the input of consultants and healthcare professionals directly involved in someone’s care is, in my opinion, a recipe for disaster. Who could be better placed to assess work capability, than a consultant who understands their patient’s condition and is in the position to monitor how it affects them on an ongoing basis?
I feel that the majority of people in receipt of out-of-work disability and health related benefits would love to have both the health and opportunity to return to work. For many people, work holds the key to greater personal and financial independence, confidence and self-esteem. There is no disputing that these are highly attractive and positive outcomes of work, although wanting to work and being able to work are two very different things. This is a goal that isn’t as easy to achieve for many as you would hope, for a wide range of complex reasons including fluctuating health and a lack of understanding, empathy and support from employers, government etc. Which is why it deeply upsets me to read stories in the media stereotyping people in receipt of these benefits as “workshy” scroungers and alluding to this being a “lifestyle choice”. To me, these sweeping statements and insinuations belittle the challenges experienced by people who, through no fault of their own, have been affected by ill health and disability.
Unfortunately, speaking from my own experience, returning to work is not as straightforward as it may sound. Wanting to return to work, which is the case for many, is simply not enough. First there is the minefield of the benefits system to navigate which up until now has very much been an all or nothing affair; you’re either well enough to work or not and there is little or no provision for people with variable conditions or intermittent periods of ill health – nor tailored support for creative adjustments to support opportunities such as working from home. Whether this is set to change with the introduction of a simplified single Universal Credit payment, is yet to be seen. Although there are very real concerns that the Work Capability Assessment being rolled out to decide on people’s fitness to work is itself “a complete mess” and not fit for purpose.
Sadly we still live in a world that is not set up to support people who are unable to fit into the 9 ’til 5 work “norm”. Despite advancements in technology, the working world is still a disappointingly rigid place to be. Very little has improved in the way of employers being open to and readily providing flexible, home working from the outset. This is not only important for those living with health conditions and disabilities, but also older people now unable to retire until later years and other situations such as people needing to balance work with childcare.
With employment levels at an all time low, finding appropriate work is likely to be difficult for anyone seeking employment, without any of the additional barriers already mentioned. Until these barriers to work are acknowledged and addressed, I feel that little is likely to change other than people being moved from Incapacity Benefit or Employment and Support Allowance to the lower rate Jobseeker’s Allowance. To me this feels like a cost cutting exercise, much like the >plans to cut Disability Living Allowance by 20%, despite people’s needs not having changed and this is why they are fearful.
Judging “fitness for work” is certainly complex, with far reaching consequences for the people being assessed. This is exactly why it’s so important to get the fundamentals of welfare reform right, and yes this does include Work Capability Assessments. Regardless of the concerns of charities, healthcare professionals and members of the general public alike, there’s no doubt it feels like these plans have been pushed through with little consideration for how they will affect people emotionally, physically and mentally. Unfortunately, time will only tell and this is what worries me so much…
It’s become “traditional” to blame Atos for the shortcomings of the ESA WCA and, to a degree, that’s fair enough. let’s never lose sight, though, of the fact that ESA was structured to funnel disabled people onto JSA, with a minimum moving through to support, and that Atos are doing exactly what they’re being paid for.
Placing the blame entirely on Atos is like blaming a firing squad for an execution – the wrong target.
The real target is the DWP which, under IDS has developed a lie factory – a propanganda machine that would have Joseph Goebbels wetting himself with envy – who else do you think is placing the constant parade of lies and disinformation in the press? My prime suspects would be IDS’ SpAds, three women who may well be the “sources close to all the welfare reforms” who are feeding the toxic drivel to the media (hat tip to http://disagreeableweasel.wordpress.com/2011/06/ ). If not them, then who? IDS himself? Quite possibly (he, at least, must have sanctioned it), his public pronouncements about DLA fraud have been – how can I put this? Ah yes, a useful expression from an earlier Tory – he’s been economical with the actualité. Damned economical!
Criticise Atos by all means, but always remember where the real fault lies – firmly in the lap of Iain Duncan Smith. The buck stops with him – and Cameron and Osborne, of course.
A true Axis of Evil if ever there was one, if you have the misfortune to be chronically sick and disabled.
I agree in principal with some of what you say Ron Graves i.e. ATOS are doing what they are paid to do, however, there are ways of going about this.
A good few years ago I went through the whole rigmarole of applying for Disability Living Allowance. I was “assessed” by a supposedly independant GP; independant in so much as he was not associated to me or my medical case I suppose.
The assessment was a complete farse. The doctor had little idea about how my condition could affect me, it is a progressive and changeable day to day condition. He also lied on the form he submitted, strong words but yes, he did lie about how long I could stand before severe pain set in and also about how far I could walk. On the basis of his submission I was denied access to DLA. I appealed and the decision was overturned on the basis of a false submission by this doctor and further evidence submitted by my medical team.
Since this debacle, I have been awarded various components of the DLA for an indefinite period. My concern is now that when we go through the assessments for Personal Independance Payment, that I may well meet with some individual who has no idea about my condition and also may well be prepared to falsify statements to ensure that targets are met.
It must also be said that the media have been dispicable in their coverage of DLA and it replacement with PIP, they seem to make the assumption that all recipients of DLA do not work and concentrate on stating that all people claiming this benefit are to be assessed for fitness to work. It is true that a large minority of DLA claimants, including myself, (higher rate mobility component, ’cause I can’t walk more than a few feet), are in full time work, DLA is to assist disabled people financially as it is a simple fact of life that living with disability creates more expense, hence this Allowance.
The media should concentrate on delivering truth rather than the half truths they often print, this can and does create a lot of animosity towards disabled people.