|
|
|
|
The Trade Union Disability Alliance (TUDA) is the Trade Union Disability Alliance.
The aims of TUDA are as follows:
What influence do we have?
17 TUC affiliates, including ‘the big four’ (Amicus, UNISON, T&G & GMB) are affiliated to TUDA on a national basis. Many other union branches, regions and individual members are members of TUDA.
TUDA welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Department of
Work and Pensions Green Paper on Welfare Reform.
Background
Since the 1990s the Incapacity Benefit entitlement has been under attack. Despite these various antifraud initiatives the numbers of claimants have in the main stayed static since 1995. Increases in incapacity benefit claimants are a consequence of the UK long hours culture and employees not seeking healthcare assistance when necessary. . This is because there is no systematic evidence illustrating significant numbers illegitimately receiving benefits .
The Department for Work and Pensions have not provided any evidence on how their target of removing 1 million off benefits can be achieved through a personal approach with supporting both disabled people who are able and willing to work and disabled people who are unable to work. This target continues to ignore employers’ negative attitudes towards employing disabled people despite the Disability Discrimination Act.
This is not unsurprising where CPID surveyed their members to
establish what their attitudes are like towards the employment of disabled people.
The findings published at the beginning of the year were:
This can be summed up by a senior personnel officer in a national company saying :
“Society is embarrassed and frightened of those people who are ‘different’, those who have physical disabilities. It’s this unease which makes the employment of a disabled person undesirable as their disruptive influence on a team at work can endanger the smooth running and the productivity of the organization as a whole…people work closely in groups and those who are perceived as being different from the norm – in its broadest sense – are a potentially disruptive force on the group. And as any job is critical to the future of the company, a person who disturbs the working environment jeopardizes the business.”
(Quoted in Barnes 1991 Disabled People in Britain and Discrimination Hurst & Company P.78).
TUDA have been at the forefront of the campaign for antidiscrimination legislation, since it’s conception, which amongst other provisions included the right to be treated fairly and equally when applying for and whilst in paid employment under the Disability Discrimination Act. Despite this law, discrimination in the work place has not been abolished. TUDA considers it unjust for disabled people to be forced into an inaccessible environment on the grounds that disabled people have theoretical rights under the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act.
“…A well-documented risk that the political dictum” work for those who can and welfare for those who can not” although well intentioned, oversimplifies the relationship between impairment, disability and employment, the benefits system and disabled peoples diverse constructions if the value and accessibility of paid work. “
And even in work disabled people are facing prejudices and bullying to such an extent that they want to leave.
“It’s very difficult because I look fit. In one job the foreman saw that my writing was really scruffy and he basically picked on me to the point that I had to give that job up. I used to think I wished I’d lost my arm, had my leg amputated. I almost came to blows in the depot because he kept winding me up. Because I left they stopped my benefits and now I’m getting £2 over what I’m allowed and it almost came to the point of packing this job in but Breakthrough are trying to sort it out for me”
TUDA will be focusing on the following areas to reflect the realities of disabled people getting into work.
Pathways To Work
Basic Disability Income
The Green paper proposes to retain the status quo (means-testing, linked to national insurance contributions and restriction of earnings) with conditions attached for the person receiving the proposed benefits.
In a BCODP, Crossroads, General Social Care Council. Local
Government Association and Social Care Institute for Excellence joint submission;
they identified some of the difficulties with interpreting the rules on legitimate
expenses such as
Additionally, Shaping Our Lives is an user-lead organisation have highlighted many issues of disabled people not only receiving a fee but also claiming legitimate expenses whilst receiving disability related benefits.
“…Anyone on Income Support should, in theory, not eat sandwiches if they attend a conference because they are breaking the rules. This is called ‘payment in kind’. I know a person now who will not accept lunch on representative work. I have studied the Welfare Rights CD Rom and this is correct. I am not on means-tested benefits, so I can eat the sandwiches. “What a farce, but I am not on means-tested benefits, so I can eat the sandwiches. What a farce, but true.” User / Survivor of Mental Health Services .
When disabled people are refusing food and drink at conferences
in order to feel safe with claiming benefits shows how difficult it is to have
an equitable system which allows disabled people to earn whilst claiming benefits
at the same time. This is because earnings are not simply about how much fee
or wage one may receive but what constitutes a ‘benefit in kind’ as
highlighted by Shaping Our Lives service users. Whilst welcoming Department
for Work and Pensions request for asking how disabled people can earn whilst
on benefits, the reality is it will be harder in practise to implement. Making
the benefit as a basic income is the easiest way of enabling disabled people
the right to work.
Additionally, the Green Paper proposes that the new benefit levels will be dependent
on the claimant’s NI contributions or income levels. TUDA think this will
be unjust because it is likely that non disabled people who become disabled
will benefit from the benefit entitlement. This is because non disabled people
who become disabled are much more likely to be in paid work than disabled people
who are born disabled. It would be unfair that a person who was born disabled
will have his/her and partner’s income taken into account for deciding
on benefit entitlement which would less likely be the case for a person who
becomes disabled.
The Green Paper does not say whether the Department for Works and Pensions will retain earnings disregard limit before benefit levels will be affected. TUDA are aware that disregard earnings limits (£5-20) are too low in order for disabled people to effectively participate in paid employment. The disregarded earnings limits has never kept up with the pace of inflation or earnings.
The difficulties are not restricted to what constitutes earnings, but whether it is was reasonable for a disabled person to have been paid a fee / wage regardless whether it was or was not claimed for. If the job centre staff thinks it was reasonable for a disabled person to be paid for the work undertaken then they can deduct his/her benefits accordingly. There is no universal guidance on whether attending user-involvement and indeed any other type of work are considered as pieces of work where payment ought to be accepted by the benefit claimant. There is no consideration given to the fact that disabled benefit claimants may not accept payments as they will affect the benefits received.
TUDA thinks that disability related income should be a high enough to meet the disabled person’s needs regardless of National Insurance Contribution levels.
Benefit Levels between different groups of disabled people
Rehabilitation and Support and Severe Disability Allowance benefits
The Green Paper proposes to have two different financial awards, the lower rate being paid for disabled people who have been assessed as able to work (Disabled Person’s Rehabilitation and Support Allowance) and a higher rate for disabled people who have been assessed for being incapable of doing any paid work. TUDA are concerned that this will create a two tier system on who will be on what benefit. The intent behind this proposal is to encourage greater numbers of disabled people back into work. This proposal assumes that it is easier for some disabled people to gain employment, those with more ‘manageable’ conditions. However, the proposal ignores the realities of finding work, where both disabled people with manageable or slight impairments / health conditions are treated no differently from disabled people with greater significant impairments / conditions as employers discriminate on the grounds of disability. This would further marginalise people who have conditions that require a higher level of assistance and it would in effect remove that persons feeling of self-worth.
TUDA would want only one level of benefit awarded for disabled
people who would face barriers into work. This is because disabled people with
different degrees and types of impairments and health conditions face the same
barriers into work.
DWP proposes that there is a holding benefit at the job seekers allowance level
whilst a disabled person waits and has completed the personal Capability assessment.
TUDA thinks this is unacceptable as incapacity benefit levels are set at a higher
level to reflect additional expenditure as a disabled person. And further, a
disabled person would be required to take a benefit cut if on Statutory Sick
Pay for 6 months whilst on the PCA waiting list which is equally in unacceptable.
Additionally, the reduced holding benefits assume that the individual is guilty
before proven innocent.
TUDA would like the benefit to be given as entitlement regardless of income
or NI contributions record and same level given whilst waiting for a CPA. TUDA
wants only one benefit level for all. Personal Capability Assessments
The Green Paper proposes some changes to the Personal Capability
Assessment which would assess what a person can do and to reconsider automatic
exemptions. It was noted that the PCA is one of the world’s toughest qualifying
medical tests to receive disability related benefits . Despite this, fraud still
occurs. However, it is worth noting that it is non disabled people who are pretending
to be disabled rather than disabled people claiming they have a more serious
medical condition which prevents them from undertaking paid work .
TUDA recognises the difficulties that Governments have with determining who
is generally disabled and would therefore face barriers into work. There have
been several attempts to bring in independent and tougher medical assessments
in order to determine who ought to receive incapacity benefits. There is a real
difficulty on how the PCA can be an equitable tool to determine whether individuals
are capable of work. The PCA currently assess abilities and impairments and
health conditions of a person against an ‘abstract concept of work’.
The PCA assesses an individual’s ability to perform certain functions,
e.g. walking, standing, seeing and hearing .
TUDA would like the PCA to have a radical overhaul to reflect disabled peoples disadvantage in the labour market rather than solely focusing on whether a person is able to undertake a range of physical and mental tasks. Assessments should not be restricted to individual capacity to perform tasks. An assessment process must be holistic examining the environment which the disabled person must interact with when taking on paid work . Such factors would include accessible transport, the routes to work are free from abuse and intimidation from example local school kids, social care support is flexible to enable the disabled person to go to work especially if this involves varying shift patterns like in retail or service outlets and alike.
TUDA welcomes the DWP’s proposal to consult with disability
organisations on a fair and equitable assessment model to determine a person’s
capacity to do paid work. However, the Green Paper only specifics two organisations
which are not in the main run by disabled people or where its constituents are
not benefit recipients, the Disability Rights Commission and Employers Forum
for people with disabilities. We would have liked to see organisations of disabled
people such as the British Council of Disabled People and campaigns set up by
disabled claimants being mentioned in this list. Similarly, there is no mention
of mental health survivor groups as a source of expertise for reconsidering
the mental health element in the PCA.
TUDA welcomes the DWP’s suggestion that they will consult disability organisations
of designing an incapacity benefits qualifying test which will be “fair
and equitable in application and operation. However in asking for a wider consultation
group care must be taken to make sure that organisations wholly controlled by
disabled people are fully consulted.
Healthcare staff role
The DWP’s Independent Doctors are required to consider the claimant’s doctors reports when deciding his/her capacity to undertake paid work. Traditionally, claimants would rely on their GPs and other professionals known to them to freely make decisions on ability to work. However, the Green Paper is proposing that it would be part of the PCT’s contractual arrangements to be more proactive with supporting disabled people into work which includes staff being awarded accordingly. Thus GPs will also be expected to take a more proactive role with supporting disabled people to gain work via demonstrating what advice was given which would be recorded on the new sickness notes that GPs sign. TUDA express the unacceptability for PCTs and indeed any other medical staff member to receive inducements for determining whether a disabled person is ‘fit for work’. Such inducements or pressure will lead to medical staff acting in contradiction to the Hippocratic Oath and their legal duties to act in their patient’s best interests. As a result the patient and GP or medical staff relationship will be undermined and may well have an adverse affect upon a patient’s health condition. Such concerns about doctors becoming benefits enforcement officers have already been expressed by the BMA GPs’ chair, Dr Hamish Meldrum . One of the concrete proposals is for GPs to accommodate job centre staff in their surgeries for disabled people seeking work. It is difficult to imagine how employment staff will effectively operate in such surgeries. Patients are likely to treat this with suspicion where job centre staff will be used to effectively spy on who is in the doctor’s surgery. And on a more practical note, how likely will a patient be receptive to advice if in chronic pain or on receiving news that his / her condition has deteriorated or is of a life threatening nature. TUDA thinks that GPS and PCTs should only concentrate on the areas they are contracted to do, that is to provide health care advice and options to their patients.
TUDA sees there is a serious conflict of interest between
giving GPs inducements for getting disabled people off incapacity benefits and
acting in their ‘best interests’. Further, GP surgeries should be
used for their purpose, to seek initial advice for patient’s healthcare
needs.
Participating in Condition Management Programmes
The Green Paper proposes that activities suitable for inclusion in claimant’s action plans include condition management programmes and activities to stabilise health conditions, including mental health conditions. These action plans are likely to have a conditionality element for receiving the rehabilitation and support benefits. TUDA are aware that some disabled people do benefit from receiving some of these healthcare condition management treatments, like for example mental health system survivors for the first time having access to talking therapy. However, TUDA are very concerned that disabled people may be coerced into participating in such treatment programmes in fear of losing benefits. Whilst the Secretary of State has confirmed that such coercion would be unlawful as consent to healthcare treatment must be freely given, TUDA are concerned that disabled people may feel unable to withhold consent in fear of jeopardising their benefit claims and the stress of going through the legal process. This will be compounded by the difficulties of what are and are not considered as healthcare interventions. TUDA would not want healthcare condition programmes and activities to stabilise conditions to be included in the claimant’s benefits action plans. There are often good reasons why disabled people withhold consent to healthcare condition programmes as treatments may often have adverse side effects or the sole aim is to make the person as “normal” as possible.
TUDA thinks the best people to decide on work-related activities to be undertaken are disabled claimants themselves. The plan must be developed with the disabled person without coercion. We think this list ought to be left open in order for disabled people to determine what these activities ought to include.
TUDA wants assurance that disabled people will not be compelled
to take part in healthcare treatments and that Job Centre staff will clearly
explain this is their right under current legislation. And further TUDA does
not want condition management programmes alongside activities to stabilise conditions
to be included in a benefit claimant’s action plan as suggested in this
paper.
Right to Work
The Improving Life Chances Report has stressed the need for greater disability equality awareness amongst employers. This would assist with the Government’s intention to expect employers to create healthier workplaces for its employees. Such measures will encourage the spirit of everyone including disabled people to have the right to work, or the right to feel they want to work. This is crucial as disabled people continue to face discrimination in the work place. Research like Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People and Breakthrough has found that disabled people do gain a lot through being gainfully employed. Whilst recognising the potential benefits of organisations of disabled people providing fulfilling and meaningful employment opportunities, we believe there would be a conflict of interest for an organisation to provide Pathways-To-Work services whilst at the same time providing work / employment opportunities and advocacy for disabled people.
The main source of support disabled people receive once in paid work is via Access to Work. TUDA totally condemns the proposed plans to change the “ownership” of Access to Work. Many disabled people think the Access to Work principle is right where the additional costs of their work placement should not be passed onto the employer and employee alike . Despite this many disabled people face difficulties with obtaining appropriate support. Work assessments can take a long while to arrange, inappropriate assessments and recommendations are made, and the actual equipment and adaptations are of poor quality . And further, the purchasing procedure is also an additional barrier where employer or self-employed person must pay for the support and make a claim for 75% of it from Access To Work. Small companies and self-employed individuals may have insufficient cash flow to pay for the Access to work recommendations and therefore will be a barrier for entering into the workforce. The percentage that employers or self-employed workers must pay towards Access To Work support varies between regions which is obviously unfair. TUDA are increasingly aware that Access To Work is using the DDA to make employers pay a contribution towards their costs by citing the employers duties to make reasonable adjustments is clearly unacceptable.
Access to Work is not available for job-seekers and disabled people in unpaid work. This means that any access requirements which include BSL provision must either be paid for by the employer or worker. Access to Work must be available to all disabled people either in paid or unpaid work or attending a job interview.
TUDA considers a need for Government to become more proactive
with dealing with discrimination in the work place. This ought to begin with
strengthening the DDA to include widening who qualifies as a disabled person,
imposing the same disability equality duty upon both private and public sector
employers. Employers ought to be legally required to design their own disability
equality plans and to make organisational and structural changes rather than
simply relying upon individual changes meeting an employee’s specific individual
needs.
A Disability Equality Duty is really important for example where Public Bodies
and Private organisations are increasingly tendering existing and new services
out under the competitive tendering process. It appears that disabled peoples’
organisations or organisations which are more likely to employ disabled people
are being disadvantaged in this process. Many organisations of disabled people
who provide invaluable work opportunities and fulfilling jobs should not be
disadvantaged by the competitive tendering or the procurement processes. Recognising
that such organisations can provide work opportunities for local disabled people
would assist with creating employment opportunities for disabled people. This
would require proper investment and capacity building within organisations of
disabled people. Organisations not run by disabled people are able to pick up
the tenders by offering lower unit costs as they are under no commitment to
pay for the additional costs of employing disabled people which includes the
unspecified 25% Access to Work requirement. For organisations of disabled people
who are committed to the employment of disabled people, the additional access
and training costs will need to be inbuilt into the tender cost and therefore
making their tenders significantly more expensive.
In addition, there needs to be a right to disability leave for disabled people in paid work. Disabled people should have a right to disability leave if the work will have an impact upon their impairment or health condition.
This would compliment sick leave where entitlement begins
once a disabled person becomes sick. Disability Leave would be an entitlement
to take time off for health condition management like for regular diabetes monitoring
or where there is a direct interaction between work and person’s impairment
which may lead to an adverse affect on health. An example may be a disabled
person being required to sit in an inaccessible chair whilst waiting for an
accessible chair or waiting for appropriate support to assist a disabled person
with AS where there is routine change within the job or office.
Right To Maximise Support
Whilst many disabled people can and do want to work, TUDA recognises that there are occasions when disabled people will be unable to undertake paid work. This can be for a number of reasons, a person’s nature and degree of impairment, the work environment and practises may not be possible to be adapted to such a degree to support his / her inclusion. Additionally, how easy it will be to find work will depend on the region’s labour market and unemployment figures. E.G it is likely to be harder for disabled people to find work in regions where heavy industry and manufacturing jobs were plentiful. And further, to a degree, we accept for example that pregnant women have a right to support via maternity payment and leave, so the same principle should apply for disabled people who can not work. Whilst disabled people entering work will save on benefits, but the long-term costs may well be even more which includes returning to benefits and paying for additional healthcare services which were not needed in the first place.
“Workers at Mind in Derby report a female claimant took an unsuitable job out of fear of a total loss of income, only to become too unwell to continue working. Her health deteriorated to such an extent that she had to engage with secondary mental health services where previously she had only needed to work with primary health services.”
TUDA would like to see the same status given to paid and
unpaid or voluntary work. Additionally where disabled people are unable to undertake
paid, there needs to be a right to purposeful activities.
UDA completely rejects the use of sanctions and conditions as part of claiming rehabilitation and Support Allowance.
Pathways to Work
The “pathways to work: helping people into employment” document is wholly medical model in it’s outlook, with graphs and tables focusing on types of impairment, insinuating that some people with some impairments can work whereas some people with other impairments cannot. What would have been a real assistance is research carried out by disabled people on how the Pathways to Work pilots have worked from the perspectives of disabled people.
The disabled person being interviewed about their ability to work should be listened to and given a chance to do a job they want to do and that their skills are matched should they feel capable of work rather than collecting super market trolleys from car parks. Under no circumstances should a disabled person be forced into doing a job they are not suitable for or that their impairment makes it difficult to do. This can be achieved by disabled people carrying out training for the Pathways To Work staff and being involved in the appropriate decision making processes and policy formulation. TUDA would welcome an opportunity to be involved in any further Pathways To Work consultations.
For further enquires please contact Ju
Gosling – Co-Chair of the Trade Union Disability Alliance.
Using this site: A word in bright blue indicates a link that you can access by clicking on it; a word in orange indicates that you have followed this link already.