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

I see the ME Association wrote the fo11owing with regard to the Os1o chronic fatigue consortium's c1aims -

https://meassociation.org.uk/2023/0...nsortium-new-hope-is-more-unhelpful-nonsense/

I serious1y hope our charities are going to respond strong1y to the WCA consu1tation because if PWME end up having to be at the mercy of Job Centre Work Coaches in the WRA group instead of having the protection of being in the support group, peop1e are going to be made serious1y more i11, destitute and there wi11 1ike1y be more deaths and suicides in our community (especia11y for those who have no fami1y support).

 

The bizarre thing is that they never mention what actually needs changing, which is the way employers discriminate against disabled people.

I've worked with quite a number who had significant impairments but weren't ill. They all wanted opportunities to build better careers, but it had bugger all to do with the benefits system. Changing they way their needs were assessed would do nothing to force employers to treat them equally and offer reasonable adjustments.

It's almost as if politicians have no interest in improving people's prospects and just want to tell the populist press what they want to hear.

 

There is a1so a broken socia1 care system. I am going to make this point in my response to the WCA consu1tation. I current1y manage without socia1 care but if I were to 1ose part of my benefits (the disabi1ity premiums worth over ha1f the ESA amount) then I wou1d immediate1y app1y for socia1 care. Given a 1ower income I wou1d have a 1ow enough income that I wou1dn't have to financia11y contribute anything and of course wou1d need the extra support if required to do any work re1ated activity (given it's rare for me to manage to even c1ean my teeth more than a few times a week etc.).

So this wou1d push the financia1 burden onto 1oca1 government. But an increasing number of counci1s are going bankrupt at the moment. In my county the socia1 care and chi1drens' services a1ready make up most of their budget. Any increase in working age disab1ed peop1e c1aiming the socia1 care they'd be entit1ed to under the Care Act (and wou1dn't be ab1e to fu1fi1 DWP without) wou1d 1itera11y destroy the capacity of 1oca1 counci1s to keep to a1ready overstretched budgets. I am considering writing to my 1oca1 counci11or to make this point.

According to my PIP assessment the DWP has acknow1edged my need for specia1ist support to socia11y engage and communicate, so I wonder how they p1an to meet this need. There must be 1000s (even 10s of 1000s) in the support group who'd a1so need such support to engage with any job centre work coach, even by emai1 or te1ephone (I can't process verba1 1anguage and don't have the cognitive capacity to use the BT re1ay service etc.) and obvious1y I am housebound, most1y bedbound. I type 1ying down with my back raised to 1ess than 20 degrees off the mattress as I can't sit up. So are they going to provide advocates and support workers for peop1e 1ike myse1f?

 

Mentally ill people could be given treatment to stay in work before benefits are paid says Hunt

don't know whether to laugh or cry.

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/m...t-stay-work-benefits-paid-jeremy-hunt-2656199

(if you have reader view you can read the whole article without subscription, or there is similar article in the guardian)

 

It's an interesting point, but central government knows perfectly well that local government hasn't the capacity to offer social care to all the people who need it even now. Whitehall has failed to put in place policy to make care work an attractive career choice, and councils have lost so much funding that they can't develop local initiatives.

Council may have a legal obligation to deliver social care, but it's worth nothing when they can't recruit the staff or haven't the money to pay them. They simply agree that Person X is entitled to care, add them to the back of an ever-lengthening queue, and leave the NHS to pick up the pieces when X becomes ill in the meantime.

I'm not sure how impactful it would to argue that the care system, already so deep in crisis that it's failing spectacularly, would get worse. It's firmly on course to do that already, and people will only read so many headlines about catastrophic failures before it becomes what they expect. It's tragic, and terrifying, but it seems to be where we are.

 

Jeremy Hunt - currently Chancelor (Finance Minister) and previously the longest serving (2012 - 2018) Secretary of State for Health since the creation of the NHS. The current structure of the NHS and its capacity to respond to illness in working age people is in large part down changes brought in by SoS Hunt. So clearly Chancelor Hunt is well informed about how the NHS can respond to those with mental illness and we'll see many more people being effectively treated so that they are able to stay in work.

 

Despair. Just despair.

 

Responding to the WCA consu1tation isn't rea11y about trying to argue with the current government, it's about making points that wi11 be heard by a11 parties. The current government has c1ear1y a1ready made its decision on this.

 

This is why we need our charities to respond, as they can pub1ish their responses on their websites and create a permanent record for future governments.

 

I understand every single disabled persons and medical condition charity needs to prioritise filling this consultation out.

But do we know have ME charities already responded or said that they are in the process of doing so, like Action for ME or ME Association?

Apologies if this is answered up thread and I’ve missed it.

 

it's more this line that got me
"Jeremy Hunt has suggested people unable to work due to medical conditions or disabilities should be offered treatment so they can return to work"

begs the question why they aren't they being offered treatment anyway, and if they have, then clearly the 'treatment' hasn't worked.

 

It sounds slightly sinister to me, in the sense of making sickness benefits contingent on having sought treatment.

I don't know if that's the right interpretation, but if it is, it works two ways. It would have been an enormous risk to ME patients pre-Nice guidelines, but it could theoretically bring doctors back into the frame.

Apart from issuing fit notes, doctors have been largely excluded from sickness and disability claims for years, presumably because they're likely to give an assessment based on a full medical history and actual knowledge of how condition(s) affect people. It's much better if DWP assessors can declare claimants fit because they look as if they've tidied their hair that day.

 

In the context of this being the Tory party, with much practical evidence of their ideological position. This being about payments by the state most essential to lower income and non independently wealthy for survival purposes, relating to disabled people, health and social security, this being a statement issued by a Jeremy Hunt who’s been in high office over a number of years with all the power for shaping conditions on the ground that that brings, a man with name people regularly mispronounce. Who has on several occasions made headlines harkening back to his 2016 poll win in a crowded field as “most disliked front line politician in Britain”. Partly on account of the damage done to medical Drs, the NHS. Playing a pivotal role as part of a government known for violating the human rights and dignity of disabled people (see UN investigation). An austerity a program that has been assessed as causing hundreds of thousands of premature deaths pre-pandemic. God knows how many since, as we now see our primary secondary and emergency care collapse. A politician who still endorses and continues to implement this program of austerity for the poorest and tax cuts for the richest.

Yeah.
Its a threat.
A highly credible threat.

 

The shadow work and pensions minister said this today -

Where an earth did she get the figure of two mi11ion sick and disab1ed c1aimants wanting to work? The media 1ies have rea11y taken ho1d. Obvious1y if peop1e are c1aiming out of work sickness benefits they have been judged too i11 to work. It's rea11y turning into 1984.

 

Benefits and Work have put together a page showing all the proposed changes to benefits/WCA.

https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/u...ork&utm_content=V2+11+October+2023+Newsletter

As a side issue, I had a look at their page on claiming PIP for LC. It's pretty bad. No mention of ME, PEM, fatiguability, or even "fatigue". Just stiffness of muscles, & cognitive dysfunction is referred to as "fibro fog" for some reason.

https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/p...ip-health-conditions/claim-pip-for-long-covid

 

Some positive news here, given i strongly suspect labour will be the ones doing all this stuff

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.c...-tory-plans-to-tighten-fitness-for-work-test/

Do we trust labour? not really, but it would be very easy for her just to do what shadow ministers always seem to do - suck their teeth and say "we haven't got any money" - so it is relatively reassuring on this particular issue.

Submitted my bit for the consultation the other day. Was it very good? no, not really. will it make any difference? also no. i feel like it's about showing up this time tho. resisted the impulse just to call them murderers, not really sure why tbh

 

“Under his plans, currently out for consultation, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) would no longer take any account of whether a disabled person has a mobility impairment when deciding if they were fit for work through a work capability assessment (WCA).

Ministers also want to remove the absence of bowel or bladder control, the inability to cope with social interaction, and the inability to access a location outside the claimant’s home from the list of activities and “descriptors” used in the WCA.”

Wtf????!!!!!
I’ve had to read this 4 times to make sure I was reading it correctly

 

yes i'm afraid its very bad indeed Luna, they also plan to remove the 'engaging with people' descriptor' if you go to the benefits and work website, or look up higher in this thread (Simbindi's posts mainly) you can see links to details and how you can respond to the consultation. sorry i dont have the strength to link atm

 

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.

 

It's the old plebicite trick - offer two options one of which is clearly absurd/unworkable/cruel and the other is what the powers that be actually want. Hey presto everyone votes for what the Government wanted all along.

I still don't see this getting through Parliament until after the next General election, and that almost certainly means a very different Government will be taking this forward, from which my scrying glass says - there's going to be change but more carrot than stick compared to the current proposals.