Response to Green Paper “Pathways to work: Helping people into employment”
Concerns raised at a quarterly meeting of the
National Association of Welfare Rights Advisers
About NAWRA and this submission
The National Association of Welfare Rights Advisers is an UK-wide forum open to all benefits advisers, meeting quarterly in different parts of the UK for information exchange, discussions and updates in changes in benefits and tax credit policy. Meetings are hosted by member organisations, attracting some 150 or more advisers from across the UK from statutory and voluntary sectors.
As a changing and diverse grouping of individuals, NAWRA does not have a formal representative structure and this submission does not represent a formally approved position statement. However, it does summarise the issues and concerns raised at a meeting in Durham in January 2003, and reflects the feelings of a wide cross-section of advisers.
General points: the nature of the “problem”
The green paper notes the rapid growth in numbers on incapacity related benefits since 1979 and identifies current levels as representing too many claimants on such benefits for too long. While this was also the concern behind the introduction of the incapacity reforms in April 1995, the green paper comes at the problem from a very different direction.
The explicit concern is with the danger of incapacity benefit claimants being trapped on low incomes and not being empowered to return to work, with resultant opportunities for higher income and greater social inclusion. The premise is that a large number – perhaps even a majority - of claimants could be enabled into some form of employment given the right help and support, contact with the labour market and improved in-work benefits to make work pay.
In particular, the green paper proposes a particular focus on those newly claiming incapacity benefits to ensure they remain focussed on their stated hope (in 90% of cases) of a return to work as soon as possible. At present only 60% of new claimants are back in work after a year on incapacity benefits, and it is felt that more could be so.
The following points were raised on this general analysis:
It would be wrong to think there was an unchecked growth in numbers on incapacity related benefits. The 1995 incapacity reforms certainly seemed – rightly or wrongly in individual cases -to have capped the growth in numbers even if they have not delivered the 25% reduction hoped for by the then Government.
In general, there was a welcome for positive proposals to help those able to consider a return to work to be able to do so, but there was considerable concern about compulsory measures, which might do more harm than good. That 90% of new claimants hope to be able to be back in work soon suggests that there is a strong work ethic and willingness to seek work.
The fact that only 60% of new claimants are back in work may be due to a number of factors as well as dislocation from the labour market, such as unforeseen health difficulties. In particular, during this first year claimants will have been certificated by a GP and in most cases will have been examined by a DWP appointed and trained doctor.
The paper seems to adopt the premise that apart from those who are severely incapacitated, the majority of claimants are ready to consider a return to work and have good prospects of finding work. However, given that in the early stages, many claimants' health problems may have been directly caused by work, this may not be the case in the early stages of incapacity, where the compulsory efforts are being focussed.
Most would accept the proposition that people with incapacities may at appropriate stages be capable of purposeful and socially inclusive activities (which may include some measure of paid work). However there was a feeling that the Green Paper is over optimistic as to the extent to which incapacity claimants may be ready to pursue a goal of full time work.
That is not to decry the real difference that many of the positive proposals for those able to make such a transition could make.
Interestingly, the paper goes on to point out that only 23% of those who move to JSA from incapacity related benefits find a job within a year, compared with 95% of other new claimants of JSA. This would seem to suggest that even after a year of close labour market contact, Personal Adviser help and a regime of encouragement and sanctions to support active work seeking, the majority of incapacity claimants may not be in a position to find work and are not necessarily on an inappropriate benefit.
Nevertheless, measures to provide a better tailored and more joined up service to ex-incapacity claimants would no doubt have a noticeable effect on the success of those who are ready for work and would be very welcome, along with an improvement in incapacity decision making to reduce the numbers forced to wrongly transfer to JSA from incapacity benefits.
This welcome also extends to the many other positive measures, often backed with real resources, to both enable people into work and help employers overcome barriers of ignorance and prejudice and these may well be of substantial benefit for those able to explore work. It is however the element of compulsion that is the problem.
There is concern that, while the more explicit focus of the green paper is about positive support for the right to work for those able to do so, there are some less explicit measures which would seem designed to increase the levels of disallowance of incapacity related benefits and reduce the present high appeals success rate.
Compulsory work focussed interviews
The Green Paper suggests a series of four or five compulsory Personal Adviser interviews, to explore options to help a return to work. Essentially this is an extension of the current compulsory JobCentre Plus interview for all claimants of working age benefits, currently rolling out across the UK. The same concerns apply to a series of five interviews as to one:
The offer of an interview to help facilitate a return to work for those able to do so, backed up by some of the many positive proposals – an improved, more joined up deal for those on incapacity benefit – might be very welcome.
The compulsion element would seem unnecessary, given the strong desire of most claimants to get back to work and may undermine the effect and reputation of the many positive proposals. It will immediately put a barrier between adviser and client.
Because of the negative experiences many claimants may have had of the personal capability assessment, compulsion may turn many claimants off the positive service that such interviews could offer
For some incapacity claimants, a new claim may only be to cover a short term defined period of incapacity (e.g. a broken leg) and this process might not apply. However, for those likely to be unable to work for a longer period, the incapacity claim may only come after a considerable period of resistance to having to give up work and denial of serious physical or mental health problems. The prospect of compulsory interviews may be seen as just another negative hurdle at a time of crisis, rather a positive source of help to plan a mutual common goal of a return to work.
A lot will depend on the disability awareness, sensitivity, training and agenda of Personal Advisors, dealing with a new range of clients who may have more difficulties going into work.
There is a concern that many claimants may feel vulnerable to persuasion into inappropriate courses of action, schemes, work placements or jobs, because of a fear of being judged as uncooperative and workshy. This concern was felt to be particularly strong for clients with mental health problems or learning difficulties, where the true extent of barriers to employment may not be readily apparent.
A concern under Jobcentre Plus is that people might be guided into the wrong benefit – e.g. JSA rather than incapacity – although separation of interviews from the claim process may help avoid this.
There are already a whole range of schemes for helping the predominantly willing into work from NHS occupational therapy schemes, job broking, supported employment schemes to which a voluntary well resourced programme from the DWP could prove a welcome addition, but a compulsory one prove a distraction.
There is a danger that a focus on ability or inability for paid work, may undermine and undervalue other positive ways in which claimants of incapacity related benefits may make a positive contribution to society – as carers, volunteers etc. It may be that variability of physical difficulties or the nature of mental health problems may cause significant problems in meeting the reasonable expectations of an employer for specific attendance, while still allowing a contribution in a more flexible, but unpaid setting
If it were felt necessary to have compulsion, exemptions should extend beyond just those so incapacitated that they are deemed exempt from the Personal Capability Assessment. Many of those not exempted may still have very high scores on the test, while even those with a more marginal score, may have specific circumstances which may render a course of interviews inappropriate at that time. Some room for exemption based on individual circumstances – a social worker, CPN or GP – might be very welcome.
Improvements to in-work benefits
A generally more positive welcome was given to improvements in levels of in-work benefits about to take effect from April 2003 and proposals to pilot an additional top up benefit:
Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credits do represent a real increase in resources for those able to move into work, although the issue of the housing poverty trap still remains as a powerful financial disincentive. While there are concerns about some of the mechanisms and procedures around the new tax credits, the increased resources is welcomed!
A further top up Return to Work Credit could considerably help the financial incentives.
Some concern was expressed that these improvements only apply to those able to work 16 hours or more, leaving the generally reduced incentive of only £20 for those able to manage paid work within the permitted work regime
Someone needs to tell Disability Living Allowance about the policy intention of “welfare to work”! While DLA is not dependent on incapacity for work, there have been too many cases of DLA suspending benefit pending investigation in case a return to work indicates a lessening of care/mobility needs! The loss of income, especially in the first few weeks pending the first pay cheque, can blow a hole in “better off in-work” calculations!
While the rate of Incapacity Benefit and SDA are protected for up to 2 years for tax credit recipients, in the event of a return to incapacity related benefits this protection does not extend to recipients of the equivalent Disability Premium in means tested benefits.
Incapacity appeals
It is in this area that there is more of the old stick than the carrot! :
Failures of the Personal Capability Assessment
It was widely felt that there was a misplaced confidence in the accuracy of Personal Capability Assessments. An overall appeals success rate of over 50% and in some areas up to 80% does suggest that the wrong decision is often being made by Decision Makers, as does the difficulty faced by those taken off incapacity benefits and forced on to JSA in actually finding work
The medical assessments under the PCA have been heavily criticised by the Social Security Select Committee and there is regrettably no established system of feedback from Tribunals back to Decision Makers to help the latter learn why their decisions were not “right first time”
Presenting Officers at appeals
The proposal to ensure Presenting Officers were present at appeal tribunals to ensure the tribunal had a clearer understanding of the reasons for disallowance met with a mixed reception.
Often it was felt the officer would have a hard job on their hands, while in their absence, it was felt that Tribunals sometimes bent over backwards to be fair to a party not represented in person.
While in many cases it was felt that the PO’s presence might make it easier to achieve a successful result, the seemingly over zealous approach of some PO’s might considerably add to the clients distress.
Abolition of reduced rate Income Support
Abolishing reduced rate Income Support as an option pending appeal, on the other hand was universally felt to be a retrograde and unacceptable step, especially given that the experience of Jobcentre staff and subsequent appeals tribunals is that people disallowed incapacity benefits are sometimes in no state to actively seek and be available for work.
The “anomaly” of a reduced rate could easily be rectified by allowing full basic rate, given that appellants will have already seen the incomes fall considerably!
The concern that claimants in this position might not benefit from positive support and access to jobseeker training and resources could be better dealt with by making these available on a voluntary basis, without prejudice to their appeal.
The existing provision is vital for claimants in ensuring that they don’t have to face the rigours of JSA procedures when they feel totally unfit to do so. Presumably the reduced rate of benefit is intended to provide a financial incentive for those who can to go down the JSA route – the fact that many choose not to do so, despite having already had a significant reduction in benefit levels, points to the need for its retention.
The failure of the PCA – especially in areas of mental health – has led to significant long term worsening of people’s health and attempted suicides. It is real fear that removal of the Income Support safety net could exacerbate the situation and cost lives.
The role of other stakeholders
Improving access to the labour market
Measures to improve disability awareness and combat discrimination amongst potential and current employers are always to be welcomed. This will be a long haul and the prevalence of many discriminatory attitudes will reduce the effectiveness of attempts to encourage and support those incapacity claimants ready to return to work to do so.
Similarly measures to encourage a more holistic and pro-active approach to health care are welcome, provided these were motivated wholly by health concerns.
It was felt that there was too much of a focus on the “problem” of the individual’s disabilities as a barrier to work, at the expense of proposals on access issues, anti-discrimination practise and more “disability friendly” working practises
Partnerships between NHS and DWP
Partnerships between the DWP and NHS may have a place, but they would need to be extremely carefully handled. In the field of mental health, the association could undermine the essential clinical relationships of trust and the fostering of statutory mental health services as a possible place of safety. For many, the DWP will be associated with all too common negative experiences of PCA and DLA medical and Decision Making processes.
Improved GP training
Improvements in doctor training to provide a more joined up service may be desirable, but many detected a renewed effort to get doctors “on message” and to encourage them to say no to patient’s request for sickness certification or supporting letters. It seems that there is a revival of the old idea that GP’s are responsible for excess numbers on incapacity benefit, despite the fact that the 1995 reforms effectively removed such matters from the hands of GPs by and beyond the 6th month of incapacity.
A lot will depend on the content of that training. For example a better awareness of the legal conditions for benefits – whose income effects can be directly linked to health - would help doctors input more relevant and useful information into the Decision Making process. It would also help them approach often leading DWP requests for information with proper caution.
There is also plenty of scope for improvement in training of DWP staff, both in disability awareness and in the actual conditions for benefit. There is a feeling that many decisions go wrong because of some decision makers not appreciating the limiting effects of conditions and while applying a rather skewed departmental view entitlement conditions rather than those established in case law.
While these issues are not really addressed in the Green Paper, there is certainly scope for re-examination of the much criticised processes of the Personal Capability Assessment, to ensure that the right decision is made first time, saving considerable stress to claimants and the delay and expense of an appeal process. Again some form of monitoring of why decisions go wrong would be welcome – sometimes it’s a difference of interpretation, but too many appeal cases should never have gone to appeal in the first place.
Specific questions on which comments are invited
The above comments are organised along the main headings of the Green Paper headings, and to some extent cover the specific questions raised at the end of the Green Paper. To summarise the response to those: