DR UK says: Chancellor, we need rights not discretion

It does need to be stressed that all the proposed reforms require primary legislation, that it will be brought forward in the next post-general election Parliament.

The reforms would then be rolled out, for new claims only, on a staged, geographical basis from no earlier than 2026/2027 and completed at the earliest by 2029.

Existing Universal Credit (UC) claimants are not likely to be moved on to the new system until at least 2029.

Some of the White Paper proposals are positive, such as the piloting of automatic sharing of medical reports with claimants before a decision has been made, specialist assessors for claimants, and the testing matching a person’s primary health condition to a specialist assessor.

DR UK along with other Disabled Peoples Organisations and others have long campaigned for the introduction of these.

However, a major cause of concern is the scrapping of the work capability assessment (WCA).

Many Disabled people will have reacted with surprise and relief on first hearing this news.

The WCA has been vilified and feared since its introduction in 2008.

Frequent problems continue to be reported with the accuracy of the WCA assessors’ reports, including omitting significant details, the assessors’ account differing from that of the individual being assessed, and observations which aren’t backed up by evidence or are inappropriate or irrelevant.

In addition, the WCA, has been blamed for countless deaths and serious harm to disabled claimants.

However, what does the White Paper propose to replace the WCA with?

The personal independence payment (PIP) assessment.

It outlines that in the UC limited capability for work (LCWRA) element will be replaced by new UC health element addition and only be awarded to those who are receiving PIP and equal to the current LCWRA rate.

So a UC claimant on LCWRA would only be deemed disabled in the eyes of the DWP if getting PIP.

Yet all the problems of accuracy of assessments regarding the WCA apply equally to PIP (perhaps unsurprisingly given five weeks of online virtual training can give enough knowledge to overrule a hospital consultant).

Tragically, the PIP assessment process has also resulted in the deaths of disabled people.

The success rate for new claims for PIP is only 50%, whereas the success rate of those who appeal PIP decisions is around 70%.

Moreover, not all of those in the UC LCWRA group receive PIP.

The scrapping of the WCA will mean that disabled claimants will be reliant one disability-related income source – PIP.

New DWP figures show that 632,000 people are receiving out-of-work disability benefits that only those with the highest support needs are eligible for, but not also receiving PIP or disability living allowance (DLA), which PIP is gradually replacing for working-age claimants.

Many of these people may have shorter-term but debilitating health conditions and so are not eligible to receive PIP. Others will have claimed PIP but been wrongly refused it.

In addition, the PIP assessment isn’t intended to assess a disabled claimant's capability to work. It’s meant to capture the extra costs disabled people face in life (although it doesn’t do this very well).

There are no proposals to widen the entitlement rules for PIP to take into account difficulties a disabled person may have through working (let alone increase the rate of its payment).

With the scrapping of the WCA the position seems to be that nobody at all would be exempt from work conditionality on health grounds.

In every case, it would be for a jobcentre work coach to decide what ought to be required of the claimant and to what extent that would be backed up with sanctions.

It’s a move from a system based on rights to one based on discretion.

Nobody will be immune to work-related requirements in order to be paid UC.

In effect, everyone on UC will be a jobseeker with those getting PIP having additional benefit but only fewer work requirements at the discretion of their work coach.

With the loss of “no work conditionality protection”, no disabled claimant will be immune from being able to be sanctioned.

How is an unqualified work coach more suitable for deciding if someone is fit for work more than a Maximus “health care professional” undertaking a WCA?

The Chancellor’s Budget speech is quite chilling in this regard: “the Government is strengthening the way the sanctions regime is applied … and ensuring that work coaches have the tools and training to implement sanctions as effectively as possible, including for failing to take up a job.”

Back in 2018, the Work and Pensions Committee issued a report that found that the overwhelming majority of evidence it received concluded that: “conditionality and sanctions for people with a disability is at best ineffective, and worse, inappropriate and counterproductive.”

As a result, it recommended that disabled claimants be exempt from sanctions.

We want a system that genuinely supports the many Disabled people who want to work to keep their job when they become disabled  - and, for those can work, to get into work, with the tailored and flexible support they need to do so.

Instead, its proposed that Disabled people be subject to a regime that can find coercive ways to get people off benefits when their health or other critical factors make this inappropriate.

The UK government’s approach to employment support should be led by the needs and wishes of Disabled people themselves, giving them the right of choice and control over their own support.

DR UK will continue to argue for replacing benefits sanctions with effective support for both disabled people and employers.