 |
access key options 
skip navigation what's new home site map search
disability benefits consortium home page
about us | benefits | contact us | frequently asked questions | links | make a donation | membership | publications | tax credits | what we do | what you can claim
Disabled people and
work: access, discrimination and benefits
terry rooney
doug paulley
questions
workshops
paul treloar
disclaimer
more information
Terry Rooney examined the complexity of the benefits system in the light of the work and pensions committee seventh report of session 2006-07: benefits simplification [note: the government has been lukewarm in their response to many of the recommendations of the report]. In particular he noted the complexity of benefit linking rules and the permitted work rules. Also access to work was a service that few people, employers included, were aware of.
He proposed individual budgets for sick or disabled people moving into work. Claimants would be allowed a work "two year tryout", during which they would be able to retain their benefits, as well as their earnings.
He would also either abolish the linking rules altogether or get rid of the 8 week rule and substitute 104 weeks instead. At the same time there should be better in-work support and a rapid reclaim system for those forced to give up work.
The responsibility for access to work should be taken away from the DWP and devolved to providers to cut down response times.
As a further work incentive the rules for carer's allowance (CA) should also be amended to allow CA to be paid where 20 hours care is provided instead of the current 35 hours.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Select Committee also proposed the establishment of a Welfare Commission that could undertake a full examination of the possibility for fundamental change in the benefits system.
The original concept of the welfare state has been lost. Initially it was support for households with a male worker as the head. Over the years DLA and AA were introduced and changes have been made to sickness benefits. With each benefit change there are transitional rules protecting people who were on the older benefit. There are now few people working for the DWP who remember these old rules. It is time to re-examine the system, to learn if necessary from the example of other countries.
Doug moved into residential care late in life and is untypical of many younger residents. He has a 1st class degree in geophysics, has a previous work record. He also volunteers at a local school.
He was shocked at the limitations that residential care placed on him but found it difficult to access independent living in the community.
Compared to living in the community there are more barriers to working if you live in residential accommodation. The home costs £945 a week, which is paid for out of Doug's benefit entitlements and also by the local authority.
The rules governing care home charges are outlined in the Charging for Residential Accommodation (CRAG) guide. Under these rules Doug is allowed to keep £20.45 for his personal expenses. This must cover clothes, entertainment and additional food. Paragraph 5.005 of CRAG allows local authorities, under section 22(4) of the National Assistance Act 1948, to increase the amount of the personal expenses allowance but this is discretionary and is not advertised in any way.
If Doug works he is only allowed to keep £20 of his earnings. The rest, unless he earns over £965 per week, must be used to pay for his home charges.
The £965 cut off is the point at which he would be paying all of his home charges. If his earnings were high but below this level he might lose entitlement to benefits, which could affect other help he receives, such as his access to national health benefits.
In contrast if he was able to access independent living within the community his earnings should be ignored under the fairer charging guidance issued to local authorities.
The barriers to working are not just financial. He needs 2 personal assistants but there are only 4 in the home to provide help for all the residents. This is a difficulty on the days when he volunteers at the local school because he needs help to get up in time.
These assistants also do not accompany him outside the home, which is a problem when he is away for a day or more. There were problems arranging the necessary support for him to speak at this conference for example.
Doug was also critical of the support provided by Leonard Cheshire homes. Many of the residents have been in homes all their lives. Many residents are unable to read or write, and some have significant communication difficulties.
The possibility of working is not put to residents and the Leonard Cheshire organisation seems unaware of the barriers to working for those residents who wish to work. He also believes that there is "a fear of change" with regard to existing support provided. He considers that he personally is a problem for the home.
As a result of this he is wary of working because the home might mismanage his support or he might lose his benefits because the DWP consider that his circumstances have changed or that the local authority social services might withdraw funding from his residential care..
He has tried to make suggestions for improvements. He (see Doug's website below). He has contacted MPs and the Department of Health. The Department has stated that there are no plans to change the residential care rules.
He would like to see a change in attitude and supports the Disabled People's Direct Action Network. More practically he would like to see direct payments made available to people in residential care so that they could employ their own carers.
He would also like to be able to keep a greater proportion of his earnings. This would benefit everyone, since by working he would gain money, the local authority would pay less towards his accommodation and HM Revenue customs would collect tax from him.
Q1. Why can't Doug benefit from supported permitted work rules?
A1. [Doug] No matter what the work the rules as outlined in the CRAG guidance state that earnings over £20 will be deducted. The benefit rules for means tested benefits also deduct earnings over £20.
Q2. There is a fear that people who are on DLA, who find work, will automatically have their award reviewed.
A2. [Paul] Finding work is not necessarily a relevant change of circumstances, according to the DWP official line. But in reality reviews do happen and overpayments result. There are also cases where evidence from incapacity benefit medicals have led to DLA reviews.
[Terry] We have heard so much evidence on this issue and we are looking into it.
Q3. There is a case of a lady on DLA who took up work and was subsequently interviewed under caution. At the time there were posters all over Jobcentre plus offices in the area inviting disabled people to look for work. The case went to court but was thrown out.
A3. [Doug] I am worried about the proposed use of voice stress analysis in potential fraud cases. The process of claiming benefits is already stressful and this is even more offputting.
Q4. What about those claimants who do take up work who are then subsequently forced to give it up work because their income is too low?
A4. [Terry] The tax credits system is intended to provide financial support. The role of the personal adviser is also important in these cases. An adviser should ensure that the claimant knows what to expect when starting work in terms of benefits, season tickets etc. However the Public accounts Committee, in its report number 56 Jobcentre Plus: Ensuring the effectiveness of personal advisers, found that only 52% of the adviser's time was spent in providing advice. The rest was spent in administrative duties. There is need to increase the percentage of advice time as well as the expertise of personal advisers.
[Paul] The problem is that the DWP has suffered some of the largest budget cuts, which leads to a lessening of resources available. Disability Alliance has been contacted by a personal adviser who claims that targets are being imposed on advisers to send 6 out of 10 people to job interviews. Actual benefit checks will be given in 20% of cases. There is a tension between the rhetoric and the reality of the system.
Q5. What is the government's agenda for changing the 1948 [National Assistance] Act, in terms of its archaic language and provisions, to ensure that we no longer have a split society, which penalises those such as Doug?
A5. The question was not answered.
Additional comments
The residential care system is predominantly geared towards the care of elderly residents. It is not relevant to younger people caught within it.
There is a lack of funding support to help people to move from residential care into the community. People like Doug will continue to encounter problems until the government addresses both this issue and that of allowing for exceptional expenses for people in residential care. The aim should be to move towards a greater independent living provision.
DLA does not yet represent a right to income in relation to disability. We should look at this more closely in terms of short term and long term disability.
There are two problems in society. We are becoming increasingly unequal, whilst at the same time there is a recognition of a need for a greater extension of human rights provision. There is a gulf between the provision and the implementation.
We had on the 13 March 2007 the introduction of a new convention on the rights for people with disabilities and so far some 70 countries have signed up to it. We have had precious little discussion of the convention in this country so far. We now have an opportunity using the newly established Equality and Human Rights Commission to remedy this.
There were two workshops, Equality at work presented by Doug Paulley and Liz Sayce and Access to Work presented by Philip Connolly.
1. Equality at work
Doug Paulley started the workshop:
He gave some background to his employment problems. He worked for William Hill the bookmakers but they could not provide accessible toilet and also they had a policy of providing a taxi for staff on the late shift but would not provide the vehicle needed by Doug when worked the late shift.
Liz Sayce stated:
Employers need to make adjustments. Radar has over 400 groups and the vision is that human differences should be taken into account and employers need to understand the full range of disabilities to ensure routes out of benefits. There is a great deal of in-work discrimination at a time when the government is emphasising getting people into work. We need to shift the debate to the quality of employment. There is also a lack of knowledge of entitlement or help. Radar are producing booklet called ‘Doing work differently’, which will be available in December 2007, on this issue.
Liz went on to describe some legal cases that came to light when in her previous job at the Disability Rights Commission (DRC). She described some discrimination cases e.g. a man Mr W who applied for a job, got it then had it withdrawn once his disability was known. The employer admitted discrimination and Mr W got compensation. In another case a man, Mr P, was not offered a supervisor’s job due to his depression. The court found that “reasonable adjustments” had not been considered.
She went on to say that there is ‘public stereotyping’ in relation to mental health e.g. can’t do stressful jobs. Liz also described the case of a woman, Ms M, who worked in a school and had a deteriorating sight problem. She required help to continue to work but this was not provided and she had to leave. She won her case - on grounds of ‘no adjustment’. Liz added that people were written off too easily.
Liz went on to say that with reference to the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), public authorities want to promote equality but there was a quality and skills gap. Responses fell into two areas; either tokenistic or really good and engaged at an early stage. She gave an example of the latter. A Primary Care Trust thought they were doing what disabled people wanted by making physical adjustments etc. but took care to ask disabled people themselves and found that in actual fact the ‘attitudes’ of other workers came top of their list of required changes.
There also needs to be a cultural change so that people do not have the dilemma of whether to be open or not about “hidden disabilities” such as diabetes for fear of being treated differently in their jobs.
Policy implications – it is really important that the government works on skills. They should relate to disabled people. She mentioned prosperity for all in the global economy - world class skills - the Leitch report of skills. Health and social care need to co-ordinate so that care is provided when required by the disabled person not at the convenience of the carer. In their leaflet ‘Doing Policy Differently’ they urge that disabled people should be included in all government policy.
Question– What can we all do to overcome barriers?
Among the conclusions were:
Roundup:
2. Access to Work (AtW)
Access to work has many advantages:
It can be used to:
It has a number of problems:
There have been a number of recent moves to change the scheme:
In November 2007 there will be a green paper reviewing all current disability related employment services, including access to work.
There is currently another green paper - in work, better off: next steps to full employment - which sets out how the Government aims to move towards full employment, and asks for views on the proposals set out, by 31 October 2007. Those submitted views will be carried forward for discussion in relation to the November green paper.
Philip Connolly was anxious to use the workshop to elicit comments from participants that could feed into this consultation process. RNIB want:
Participants were asked the following questions:
Q1. What 3 changes to access to work guidance would improve delivery of the program?
Q2. How would you promote access to work?
Q3. How should we ensure that access to work stretches and does not substitute for the reasonable adjustments required of employers?
These issues were discussed in 6 groups. Among the conclusions were:
Paul talked about some of the work he has been doing for Disability Alliance. Over the past year he has been working on the Welfare Reform Bill, which has now received royal assent. Working with other disability organisations Disability Alliance managed to secure a few amendments, most notably concerning the revised personal capability assessment.
More recently he has been working on the green paper in work, better off: next steps to full employment.
Paul wanted to challenge the overarching government agenda that work is the way out of poverty for two reasons. Firstly 50% of working age disabled adults are dependent on benefits. Within specific disabilities the rates are higher.
This is particularly true of those with mental health problems (20% employment rate) and those with learning disabilities (10% employment rate). The employment rates for those who are blind or partially sighted have not changed for 10 years.
In work poverty is also a big issue. Disabled people are paid less and are less likely to progress in work.
We hear about a great deal about "work for those who can" but far less about the "support and security for those who can't". He disputes Jim Murphy's ministerial statement that benefits should not be seen as a route out of poverty. There are now more disabled adults living in relative poverty than there was 10 years ago.
The original Beveridge model of the welfare state was predicated on full employment. It was a system where people paid contributions into the system. Below these were the safety net benefits, the means tested benefits.
Those with a disability, carers and lone parents did not fit easily into this system. The needs of disabled people were not really recognised until the 70's.
We are now have a system that has been turned on its head, where safety net benefits are paid at a higher rate than contributory benefits.
He made 6 suggestions for change:
This is a brief report of what was said at our Disabled people and work: access, discrimination and benefits conference. The views expressed, other than those by Disability Alliance employees, are not necessarily the views of Disability Alliance.
Note: for pdf files you will need to download adobe acrobat reader. To convert the pdf to alternative formats or for more information on accessibility go to access adobe.
