A Response to the Government’s Consultation Exercise on Social Security Reform

By the Greater Manchester Welfare Rights Advisers Group

Based on our research: Unlocking Poverty in Greater Manchester

- Towards Fairness in Benefits for Incapacity and Disability

January 1999

Greater Manchester Welfare Rights Advisers Group (GMWRAG) is a forum of welfare rights and other organisations across Greater Manchester. Its membership of includes a diverse range of advice, voluntary and disability organisations, health support groups and other advocacy organisations.

Our research project in Summer 1998 formed the basis for a detailed submission to the Government’s consultation on its March 1998 Green Paper on Social Security Reform. It reflected widespread concerns regarding the nature and operation of benefit tests for incapacity and disability. It included a critique of the proposals outlined within the Green Paper in terms of how they would impinge upon the lives of disabled people and mental health care users.

We made 13 key policy recommendations on the following topics:

  • Incapacity Benefit
  • Disability Living Allowance
  • New Deal for Disabled People
  • Methods of removing barriers to work for disabled people and mental health care users
  • Civil Rights for Disabled People.

In the attached submission, we have examined the Government’s latest proposals in the light of our earlier recommendations.

Other features of the new proposals have caused considerable concern. In particular, the restrictions on Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance amount to a major attack on living standards for a large number of people on low incomes. We find these cuts unjustified and damaging. We know that you are receiving several detailed criticisms on this aspect.

Finally, we call for the Government to formally publish the submissions it receives. The failure to do so following the Green Paper consultation up to July 1998 undermined confidence and credibility.

We hope this information is of help, and look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Terry Patterson, 8 January 1999.

GMWRAG, c/o Manchester Advice, Social Services, PO Box 536, Town Hall Extension, Manchester M60 2AF. Phone 0161 234 3907.

GMWRAG Recommendations, July 1998
/
To what extent do the Government Proposals address these concerns?

Incapacity Benefit

1 / The ‘All Work Test’ bears little relation to a person’s ability to carry out paid employment and causes enormous unnecessary distress to many disabled claimants. It should be scrapped and replaced with an ‘employability test’ which reflects the realities of the workplace. Occupational therapists, community psychiatric nurses, disabled workers and their employers should be entitled to influence the operation and outcome of the test. / We welcome the continued commitments to address capabilities as well as incapacity, and to revise the ‘All Work Test’.
However, we are concerned that there is no pledge to scrap the medically-focussed points system for incapacity and to give greater weight to self-assessment, inputs from people other than doctors, and the realities of holding down a job. We call for such a pledge.
Media coverage accompanying the announcements included some threats that incapacity assessments may be made tougher. Given the last four years of damaging clampdowns, we are strongly against any further moves to tighten eligibility.
We believe that the proposed Single Gateway will be harmed by its element of compulsion. It is much better to build up credibility through actual achievement based on voluntary participation, information and advice, and practical support for moving into work.
The Single Gateway gives a great opportunity to maximise take-up of benefits and thereby help tackle social exclusion. We welcome the Government’s support for this principle and call for it to be adequately resourced and skilled. We also call for targets and procedures to improve the level of take-up of benefits.
2 / There should be much better training for Adjudication Officers in relation to physical disability and mental health difficulties, particularly in terms of fluctuating conditions. / We repeat this recommendation, which is not sufficiently addressed in the proposals.
Disability Living Allowance (DLA)
3 / DLA should remain a universal, non-means-tested benefit. Rates of benefit payment should be increased to help overcome disabled people’s level of social exclusion. / We very much welcome the Government’s ongoing pledge on this, and the increases in benefit levels for important selected groups.
We believe that evidence on illness and disability – such as the Inequalities in Health report produced nationally by Sir Donald Acheson – show that benefit levels are in general too low, and should be increased in an informed way.
We call for a national take-up campaign strategy and targets to maximise take-up of disability benefits. This should involve all interested parties and agencies.
We oppose the planned move of the legal definitions for disability benefits from primary to secondary legislation. This move breeds anxiety and insecurity about possible future quick cuts to benefits.
4 / There should be a better balance between claimants’ self-assessment of physical / mental health difficulties and the findings of the Benefits Agency Medical Service (BAMS). Claimants should be entitled to include GP’s evidence, medical notes and other relevant information. / We welcome that this matter is being addressed in consultation with a wide range of national representative groups.
We strongly oppose moves to introduce a medically-based points system - along the lines of the current ‘All Work Test’ – as a test of disability.
We call for greater weight to self-assessment, better information, support and encouragement in claiming, and greater respect to input from people such as carers, occupational therapists and community psychiatric nurses.
5 / The Benefits Agency Medical Service (BAMS) should be made more accountable. Where the BAMS service has not explored a claimant’s need for help in relation to care and/or mobility, it should be investigated by a disabled-led organisation familiar with the relevant physical / mental condition. Where legitimate appeals are consistently turned down, strict sanctions ought to be applied to BAMS officers, culminating in them no longer working for the BAMS service. Members of Appeals Tribunals who consistently ignore verifiable medical evidence should be disbarred from sitting on Appeals Tribunals. / We repeat this recommendation, which has not been addressed by the Government.
6 / The Benefits Integrity Project (BIP) should be scrapped. It has caused unnecessary widespread distress and enormous suspicion amongst disabled people / mental health care users. Far more people are unjustifiably denied benefits in comparison with the tiny minority that are fraudulently in receipt of benefit. / We welcome the plan to scrap BIP. However, we are concerned that the project is still continuing, allbeit with further exemptions.
The proposals for shorter awards and a reduction in life awards are cause for concern. Given that prognosis in many cases will be for a long-lasting or degenerative illness, the pressure of continual reviews will add to stress and insecurity.

The New Deal and Disabled People

7 / The New Deal should operate on a completely voluntary basis. Nobody should be coerced into participating for fear of losing their benefit entitlements. / We welcome the ongoing commitment to voluntary participation in the New Deal for Disabled People.
We trust that the compulsory nature of the proposed Gateway Interviews will not compromise this principle.
8 / There should be a commitment to providing high quality sustained training for Personal Advisers, particularly in view of the huge range of physical / mental difficulties and their effects. Personal Advisers should also consult with a range of disability networks, which could provide a ready source of information and awareness training. The primary focus should be on creating a relationship of trust between claimant, Personal Adviser and employer, particularly where the claimant suffers from mental health problems. / We have seen this commitment in action in a number of the pilot projects in this region. We in turn are committed to a process of dialogue and liaison to help the pilot projects work.
9 / Racial awareness training for Personal Advisers, co-ordinated by black mental health groups, would go some way towards countering much of the negative racial stereotyping (particularly in the context of mental health) which damages the confidence of black mental health care users in the current system. / We repeat this recommendation, which is not addressed in the Government’s’ proposals.

Barriers to Work

10 / The qualifying benefit rules for claiming Disabled Person’s Tax Credit (DPTC) should allow people to claim immediately if they are in work and if they are ‘at a disadvantage in obtaining a job’. DPTC should be disregarded when local authorities calculate housing benefit or council tax benefit entitlements. Similarly an extra allowance for mortgage interest payment should be included, which would help people who had become disabled after taking out a mortgage and whose reduced earnings capacity adversely affects their ability to pay their mortgage. / We repeat these recommendations, and await further announcements.
11 / The therapeutic value of voluntary work in giving confidence to mental health care users should be recognised and encouraged. Hence there should be no limit on the number of voluntary hours worked. / We welcome the October 1998 change which allows more voluntary work to be undertaken by people on the sick.
12 / Implementing the Disability Earnings Concession would allow people in receipt of benefits to be supported and encouraged to work as and when their health permits. / We repeat this recommendation. The proposals do not adequately address the difficulty and disincentive of interruption of income for people whose health or disability means that they need to work intermittently.

Civil Rights for Disabled People

13 / Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) may help counter discrimination in the workplace, but provides nothing for those excluded from the labour market. A much wider strategy to tackle institutionalised discrimination would need to tackle inadequate housing, discriminatory educational provision and the inaccessible built environment. / We repeat our call, which we know is being considered elsewhere.

For Further Information, contact :Terry Patterson

GMWRAG

C/OManchester Advice

Social Services

PO Box 536

Town Hall Extension

Manchester M60 2AF

8 January 1999

Telephone : 0161 234 3907