 |
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
Disability Alliance response R39 Disability Alliance is a national registered charity with the principal aim of relieving the poverty and improving the living standards of disabled people.
We provide information on social security benefits to disabled people, their families, carers and professional advisers via our telephone helplines and training courses. We are best known as the authors of the Disability Rights Handbook.
We welcome this opportunity to respond to The Social Security (Incapacity Benefit Work-Focused Interviews) Regulations 2003.
There are to be no exemptions for any groups of disabled people from the requirement to take part in an initial work-focused interview. This reflects the existing provision within the Social Security (Jobcentre Plus Interviews) Regulations 2001. Whether or not the claimant has to take part in an interview is thus entirely at the discretion of the interviewing officer (regulation 6).
We believe that the rule was inappropriate in the earlier legislation and is inappropriate here. The element of compulsion is being hoisted onto a number of groups of disabled people who will clearly be incapable of any type of work. These groups will be at risk of being penalised should they not comply with the arrangements, without being able to benefit from the services offered if they do comply. In some cases, particularly relating to claimants with severe learning disabilities or mental illnesses the very nature of their condition increases the risk of non-compliance.
For the additional work-focused interviews an exemption list is provided by regulation 8 (using the provisions of regulation 10 of the Social Security (incapacity for Work)(General) Regulations 1995). It would seem entirely reasonable to extend this exemption list to the initial work-focused interview as well. It is quite true that many of the people who come within the exemption list would benefit from the support that is being offered in Pathways to work. However, to introduce compulsion rather than voluntary participation for severely disabled people will damage the credibility of the whole scheme.
This paragraph is clearly more comprehensive than the equivalent paragraph in the Social Security (Jobcentre Plus Interviews) Regulations 2001 (para. 10). In the former regulations there is a straightforward requirement for the claimant to provide answers (where asked) and appropriate information on a list of subjects. The new draft regulations go further than simply expanding on this list. Paragraph 3(b) introduces the new requirement that the claimant 'participates in discussions' with the officer.
We believe that this paragraph has the potential to create significant problems for all concerned. Whilst it is relatively easy to prove or disprove that someone has answered questions or provided information on a subject from a written account of an interview, it will be much more difficult to show that 'participation in discussion' did or did not occur.
The reason that this paragraph has been added we can assume is to cover the situation where the claimant has provided all the required answers to the questions and appropriate information requested, but the interviewing officer is still not satisfied with some aspect of the interview. Possibly they did not feel that the claimant was providing the answers with the required level of enthusiasm. This is not meant to sound flippant but to show that any judgement on the matter will be qualitative. Much will depend on the relationship between the claimant and the officer and the opinion that the officer forms on the claimant's character. A claimant could attend two interviews, providing similar accounts at each. The first officer warms to the claimant and considers that they have been involved in a healthy discussion. The second officer does not get on with the claimant and consequently considers that they did not fully participate in the discussion. Benefit is thus reduced.
Both the words 'participation' and 'discussion' are far to open to interpretation. They will provide Commissioners with much meat for debate, without a great deal of hope of eventual resolution. Claimants will suffer as their benefit is reduced and DWP staff and advice workers will get bogged down in having to deal with unnecessary appeals.
Disability Alliance 9th July 2003
