As I wrote last week about employment/self-employment options for people with disabilities, it would seem perverse to disregard the recent kerfuffle over disability benefit claims and “fit for work" assessments.
The argument has, perhaps not surprisingly, become polarised between on the one side government and right-wing media, and on the other, disability organisations. The former feed a regular drip of statements about the small number of claimants who are judged to meet the eligibility standards to receive disability benefit, while the latter protest that the tests are unfair.
Those who inhabit the middle ground – the great British public – are probably terminally confused, and ready to give up on their attempts to make sense of the conflicting messages.
But I think it is important to make the effort to understand what is happening. First of all, work is a good thing. Studies have repeatedly shown that people with a real job are healthier and generally happier than those who are unemployed. Our aspiration should, therefore, be to enable as many people as possible to enjoy the benefits of employment. Apart from the well-being dividend, there are financial benefits, as the welfare bill is reduced, people who have been receiving benefits start paying taxes instead, and the NHS saves money on treating the extra illnesses accompanying unemployment.
It really does seem, though, that we are going about this in the wrong way. Work assessments are carried out by a private company, Atos Healthcare, who have been criticised this week by the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee. Their service has often fallen short of the standards we should expect, and they wield some Draconian sanctions, such as stopping an individual's benefit payments when through no fault of their own, they failed to attend for their assessment. Equally, the headline figures about the number of claimants found fit to work conceal the fact that a third of claimants appeal, and 40% of the initial decisions are overturned. The cost of dealing with all these appeals has been estimated at over £30 million a year, and the system is really struggling to cope with the number of cases coming through.
The company is paid per assessment, without any penalty if their assessment is subsequently shown to be wrong. Which means that taxpayers are footing the bill twice: we pay for people to be assessed, we then pay to sort out the facts about their condition subsequently.
The person being put through this process clearly pays in many ways, including the stress of the assessment itself (which is probably unavoidable), but also the fear that however ill they are, they may well be judged fit enough to work, and have to endure an appeal process in order to prove otherwise. All the while dealing with an organisation which seems to be on a mission to make their life as hard as possible, and being portrayed in much of the media as a “benefit scrounger".
In fact the only people who don't seem to be paying are Atos, who apparently have no real incentive to improve the quality of their service or the accuracy of their assessments. They are shielded from the financial consequences of getting things wrong, which would be the usual correction mechanism in the private sector, and despite the widespread criticism of their service, they are picking up further government contracts, which does tend to make people believe that the exercise is purely about saving money on disability benefits.
You don't have to be a disability activist to feel angry about all this. Yes, by all means assess people to see whether they are able to work, with the right support, but let's do it in an intelligent and compassionate manner: and let's not forget that the other half of the equation is putting in place adequate and timely support for employers and jobseekers, so that the aspiration of finding and keeping a job can be realised.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As an Occupational Therapist I feel that our profession has the skills to enable people to get back into work again but sadly the Government do not make use of our skills.
ReplyDeleteI feel that people on disability benefits are overly-criticised in an unhelpful way when we could be assessing what skills, and abilities they do have (as opposed to the severity of their disability) and using these to maximum effect, for instance can someone tolerate working part-time at a job where they are sitting down or have regular breaks.
As OTs we would work with an individual to grade a return to work in order to gradually increase their tolerance and confidence in their abilities. This would have both a positive effect on the individual and benefits for society at large.
Thankyou - luckily for me I don't have to face a further assessment to keep on claiming attendance allowance, but it's good to have a well-reasoned article which explores the issue of how disabled people are treated in what is supposed to be a compassionate society i.e. one like ours that willingly spends billions on weapons to kill people who live in situations our 'leaders' in Govt dislike (translate as, who are unwilling for us to grab their oil or mineral wealth) but who begrudge decent pensions or disability payments to those who are in need.
ReplyDeleteToo true that people with learning differences, learning disabilities or disabilities should be afforded meaningful and realistic opportunities to be able to better support thmeselves. I wonder how this can be achieved when much of the focus for support in Independent Living is still seen by commissioners of services and providers to be one of 'care' rather facilitating skills & independence?
ReplyDeleteStill, this is in itself dependent on the availability of a suitable skills and professional development framework for staff who work in Supported Living. Colleges, Universities and Care Providers need to get together to develop this with a far better remuneration and career structure.
In reality, employers tend towards a mercenary rather than an enlightened approach to developping their businesses so perhaps it is time for those involved in service delivery to raise their expectations of staff skills which just might in turn facilitate skills and personal development for those people who they support. As ever, it's a training and development initiative that beckons; neither the government with its current economic programme of cuts in services, nor employers are likely to take a lead. Indeed with many students leaving further education with limited career or job prospects, the time might just be right.
On the other hand, you say that, "Studies have repeatedly shown that people with a real job are healthier and generally happier than those who are unemployed" but this is only showing contrasting living circumstances in a society based on consumption and, largely, the pursuit of material goals. There are some people with 'Learning Differences' who might have an altogether different consciousness when it comes to preferences and living styles. Still, that's an altogether different basis for a discussion.
Graham
Hi Graham
ReplyDeleteReally thoughtful points you make, and I'm sure that greater expectations of what people can achieve with the right support to develop their skills would make a big difference. Unfortunately, as you say, neither government nor employers are likely to jump into anything that involves investment at this time of cuts.
I don't think that employment makes people healthier/happier because of giving more opportunities to consume (although for some, that is enough!). Personally, I think it is more about achievements and valuing yourself, being valued by others. The money is a secondary issue. Necessary, because life involves expense, but certainly not a prime motivation.