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

I'm really sorry to tell you this, but i'm afraid these plans are far from 'suggestions'... its the plan.

And making it so that none of those areas could score 15 points, means no one who got into the LCWRA or Support group on those descriptors, will qualify in future, meaning that we will be at the mercy of job centre work coaches and subject to sanctions.

 

I've no doubt that it is the plan. I am also well aware of how the job centre works. How far these things end up happening is not yet set in stone tho. They might do the whole thing, they might do half the thing. The reason i responded to the consultation was on the basis that, if enough noise was made, then they might step back from some of the worst of this stuff.

The plan is also null and void if labour win the next election (23 points ahead today), at which point it will become a different plan. It probably won't be great either but will be almost certainly less bad than this one and, esp if labour have a small majority, will not be unopposed in parliament. We are not done yet.

 

yes agreed thats why i going to try respond too.

 

I think it might be the wrong questionnaire for this. I suspect if you don't address the questions directly, your responses might be disregarded. There is a question where you could talk about the impact of the changes in more general terms (Q7) and about the risks of removing the limited capacity for work related activity risk group (Q9), but otherwise, it might be effort expended in vain. The whole thing is based on a solid assumption that work is good for everybody.

 

@Simbindi, you have done a fair amount on this, do you have any ideas or bullet points?

 

It is an utterly cynical manipulative exercise, designed to ensure the Gov. gets the answer it wants. I can't see any obvious way subvert the pro forma to ensure the Gov. has to acknowledge a different perspective.

 

I haven't done anything on it yet, I've just posted my thoughts as I've had them. I have ADHD and autism, p1us dys1exia and dyspraxia as we11 as severe ME. So I probab1y wi11 be submitting my responses on the 1ast day of the dead1ine. I never offer to advocate for anyone for this reason, I can't cope with having pressure from other peop1e, it scramb1es my brain and stops my thought process.

 

This may be worth reading the re1evant parts -

ttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/work-capability-assessment-handbook-for-healthcare-professionals

It covers the guidance HCPs are given by the DWP in how to consider functiona1 capacity in each descriptor.

 

From page 79 of the WCA guidance

If the WCA assumes sick and disab1ed peop1e can work from home, then sure1y it wi11 need to take account of the c1aimant's home environment! A point I think worth making.

 

Yes, I mentioned that in my response. And that working from home opportunities are steadily being rolled back post-pandemic, and that not everyone has skills relevant to working from home (which is often computer-based), blah blah blah.

I also wrote a screed about the mobilising factor being necessary because there are severely disabled people who are unable even to sit up (either at all or for very long), people with energy limiting conditions who are unable to keep up any activity for more than a few minutes, and people affected by quadriplegia and other severe impairments who need 24-hour support, and all require this descriptor to capture some of their disability.

I can't remember the rest of it in as much detail, but there was a lot of disbelief that someone actually imagined the removal of the the engaging with others and substantial harm sections was even workable in practice, given the numbers of people with autism, learning disabilities, severe mental health conditions, etc. (I hope I deleted the suggestion that they ought to try spending a day meeting some, as the policy wouldn't survive the first hour.)

 

This memo was 1inked to in the DWP WCA guidance. I've up1oaded it as it's a usefu1 document to see how they assess 'substantia1 risk'. It a1so might be usefu1 to peop1e fi11ing out their ESA/UC 50 forms.

I don't have the cognitive or physica1 capacity to go into ways to use this information, so just posting it to high1ight its existence.

 

From the above -

I remember being probed on this when I was put in the WRAG - it was so triggering! For someone who has had their 1ife devastated by severe i11ness, this just shows how out of touch the DWP are. This is just one examp1e, the document has others that high1ight that the Job Centre work coaches are given power to recommend activities that cou1d be rea11y harmfu1 to someone with physica1 and/or menta1 i11 hea1th.

This actua11y high1ights how inappropriate it is to remove the WCA, where the HCP has to consider substantia1 risk in the 1ight of the who1e detai1ed assessment and the c1aimant's information and medica1 evidence (not that they a1ways do, but it is at 1east stated that they shou1d be doing this).

 

This may be a usefu1 read (haven't read it through yet) for getting ideas to respond to the WCA consu1tation.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2023-09-05a.359.2

 

I noticed that if you c1ick on the Peer, you can send an emai1 message to them. This may be a more direct way to make some sa1ient points to those Peers that are re1evant to/interested in this issue. I may send messages to the 1abour peers, mentioning that the fina1 WCA government consu1tation report may have 'cherry picked' points that are un1ike1y to provide the fu11 picture (etc., better worded of course and inc1uding pertinent examp1es).

 

Bo1ding mine.

 

Thanks so much for all these posts and links @Simbindi.

I hope this hasn't pushed you too much. It is really helpful for those of us who have not followed these developments as closely.

 

This is probably the wrong thread but it's relevant to the impetus the Government is claiming for the changes - that is the "unsustainable" increase in people economically inactive (sic) because of ill health:

Financial Times: 17/10/2023

UK delays publication of workforce data, raising concerns about accuracy

"The UK’s official statistics agency has been forced to delay the release of some key labour market data, raising concerns over the accuracy of figures that are closely watched to inform Bank of England interest rate decisions. The Office for National Statistics was due to publish monthly figures for employment, unemployment and inactivity on Tuesday but has now said data based on its labour force survey (LFS) will not be released until next week. On Tuesday, the ONS will publish only figures on wages and vacancies, based on different surveys, along with experimental figures drawn from HM Revenue & Customs records. The decision to pull parts of a major data release at short notice suggests existing problems with the survey have become acute and casts doubt over the ONS’s headline findings on the state of the workforce."

excerpt:

"Recent ONS data has pointed to a long-term decline in workforce size, which could fuel wage growth in the absence of productivity gains to match — a cause of concern for the central bank. The agency has recorded a 411,000 rise since 2019 in the number of people who are economically inactive — meaning they are neither in a job nor looking for one — largely due to higher levels of long-term sickness. Given the doubts around the survey’s accuracy, however, “I don’t think we know that”, Portes said."

Full article currently free to read: https://www.ft.com/content/b014dd25-645f-41d4-bdd5-5197a73f4d10

 

Serco wins £350m DWP contract for disability benefits assessments

Serco wins £350m DWP contract for disability benefits assessments (msn.com)