Written evidence submitted by Disability
Alliance
1. SUMMARY
1.1 Whilst Disability Alliance welcomes
some aspects of the Government plans, including benefit simplification,
we have very significant concerns that many disabled people will
be affected by benefit cuts, reduced support to find work, enforced
work and even being cut from out of work benefits altogether as
a result of the Universal Credit (UC) and broader plans.
1.2 The Government has suggested disabled
people are protected during reform announcements. However, the
assessment system to judge level of needs, the Work Capability
Assessment (WCA) which will determine access to the UC, is severely
flawed. Many disabled people will be found fully fit for work
who we believe should be receiving Employment and Support Allowance
(ESA) and a higher level of support to find appropriate work.
Instead, many disabled people will experience the harshest elements
of reform - as stated in the Universal Credit white paper plans
to impose conditions and sanctions even on disabled people receiving
ESA.
1.3 In our response to the Select Committee
inquiry we outline concerns regarding several areas including:
the future of the discretionary social fund; council tax and council
tax benefit; permitted work for disabled people; defining disability
and accessing the Universal Credit; tackling poverty.
2. DISABILITY ALLIANCE
(DA)
2.1 DA is a UK charity seeking to break
the link between poverty and disability. We provide benefits and
other welfare guides and support to disabled people, their families
and welfare rights advisers. We are best known as publishers of
the comprehensive benefits guide: the Disability Rights Handbook.
2.2 Our Board of Trustees are mostly
disabled people and we are a membership organisation representing
over 250 organisations across the UK.
2.3 For further information about DA
please visit: www.disabilityalliance.org.uk
3. UNIVERSAL CREDIT:
WELFARE THAT
WORKS
3.1 Disability Alliance welcomes some
of the white paper's aims: tackling poverty; simplification of
the complex system; and ensuring people keep a greater proportion
of earnings when moving off benefit into work. However, we have
concerns about some proposals and interlinked Government plans.
3.2 Discretionary Social Fund
3.2.1 The white paper suggests (page
47) that:
"The current system of Community Care Grants
and Crisis Loans will therefore be reformed. In England, Local
Authorities will be responsible for administering much of the
reformed system - ensuring this support is tailored to local circumstances
and targeted only at genuine need. Local Authorities will be consulted
on the design of the new system. If there are new administrative
burdens on Local Authorities they will be funded by the Department
for Work and Pensions in the usual way. However, we expect Local
Authorities to utilise existing delivery mechanism and structures
where possible. The Devolved Administrations will determine the
most appropriate arrangements for Scotland and Wales".
3.2.2 The Public Accounts Committee
in its report "The Community Care Grant", published
16/12/10 states that:
"The way the scheme operates is both inefficient
and unfair: awareness about the grant is patchy; it is unevenly
distributed across the country and across different groups of
people. Errors are too common, with a large proportion of decisions
challenged and over-turned; and administrative costs are unacceptably
high."
3.2.3 In addition, the Public Accounts
Committee found that the cost of administering the course is unacceptably
high and states that it has concerns about the fairness of the
scheme:
"Funding is not fairly distributed across the
country, with a clear imbalance between funding in each district
and potential demand and need. Thus, an applicant's chances of
receiving a grant vary according to where they live. We consider
the Department should do more to forecast demand based on established
patterns and trends. Regional funding allocations are decided
by Ministers but it is up to officials to provide clear advice
about changes needed to improve the fairness of the scheme".
3.2.4 The Committee also states that
it considers that there is scope to help more people by making
the purchasing arrangements more efficient, eg by agreeing central
contracts for frequently requested items which could generate
financial savings of around £14 million a year and provide
a guarantee of quality to applicants.
3.2.5 DA believes that devolving CCGs
and CL's to local councils would reinforce these problems. Access
to help could become an even more significant postcode lottery
if each local authority has its own version of CCGs and CLs and
criteria for awards.
3.2.6 We believe this proposal requires
further development and scrutiny - and are particularly keen to
know if there will be a right of independent appeal (and where
from) if refused a CCG/CL as this may be harder to achieve under
a more localised system.
3.3 Council Tax and Council Tax Benefit
3.3.1 The white paper states (page 21)
that:
"Local Authorities will be given scope to take
account of the priorities of their own local communities when
determining the amount of support for vulnerable and low income
households to meet their Council Tax bills. Local Authorities
will be better able to provide a joined-up system of support for
people on low incomes that dovetails with the various rebate and
discount schemes which are already part of the Council Tax regime,
while at the same time protecting vulnerable groups. While the
aim is for a more cost effective system overall, any new administrative
burdens on Local Authorities will, as a matter of principle, be
funded by the Department for Work and Pensions in the usual way".
3.3.2 DA believes this requires further
consideration as there are similar potential postcode lottery
problems with each local authority administering its own version
of a rebate scheme.
3.3.3 We also fear that disabled people
will be less likely to be able to move under these proposals,
to a more affordable area for example with less CT or a better
rebate scheme.
3.4 Permitted work
3.4.1 At present those in ESA support
group can do up to 16 hours "permitted work" and earn
up to £95 per week indefinitely - and people in the ESA work-related
activity group for up to 52 weeks. The income is disregarded in
terms of income-based ESA and HB/CTB.
3.4.2 The ability to undertake permitted
work is an important way that disabled people or people with significant
health conditions can consider or make the transition back towards
full-time work.
3.4.3 However, although the white paper
suggests that earnings disregards will be more generous then at
present for certain groups (such as disabled people) permitted
work receives no mention and requires the Government to develop
or explain its plans.
3.5 Disability
3.5.1 The Government has suggested that
disabled people are protected from the harsher elements of welfare
reform, but with little detail. The two specific paragraphs in
the white paper (on page 18 of the white paper) relating to disability
in the white paper require significant development:
"The Government is absolutely committed to supporting
disabled people to participate fully in society, including remaining
in or returning to work wherever feasible. The model introduced
in 2008 for the Employment and Support Allowance has worked well.
This provides additional benefit components for people in the
Work Related Activity and Support Groups. We intend to mirror
this approach in Universal Credit. [And] The Government believes
the existing structure of overlapping disability premiums is overly
complex and causes confusion. We are considering what extra support
may be needed for disabled people in Universal Credit, over and
above the additional components mentioned above and the benefits
available elsewhere in the system".
3.5.2 DLA will not be part of the UC
and is to be reformed over a similar timeframe to UC introduction.
DLA (for working age adults) will become the "Personal Independence
Payment" (PIP) with fewer component rates than the current
DLA system. DA believes the Government must clarify the award
of premiums under the proposed PIP and UC system.
3.5.3 At present the lower care rate
of DLA gives entitlement to the following for example: disability
premium and tax credit disability element; qualifying benefit
for working tax credit; no non-dependent deductions; and student
eligibility for ESA. We are concerned this may mean people who
lose lower rate care component (from current DLA which will not
be replicated in the PIP) will not be awarded a UC premium. We
believe this requires further development in Government plans.
3.5.4 The white paper acknowledges further
consideration of support for disabled children is required (page
21) and Disability Alliance would also welcome further development
of Government plans in this area.
3.5.5 We are very concerned that the
Government plans to introduce sanctions on disabled people receiving
ESA (page 26) and we would also welcome a focus on how the Government
is developing the white paper statements that there will be requirements
for disabled people to undertake work related activity (page 26)
and what sanctions might be imposed. Disabled people experience
higher costs of living and greater barriers to participation.
Any work related activity must be appropriate and any sanction
for non-compliance must be proportionate, reasonable and not leave
disabled people unable to afford costs of living. We believe the
Government needs to be clear what its proposals will mean and
how many disabled people could be affected.
3.5.6 Due to the tough nature of accessing
ESA (through the WCA) it is very likely that claimants will meet
the Equality Act 2010 definition of disability. Many disabled
people will therefore be exposed to levels of conditionality and
sanctions never previously experienced. Government statements
on"protecting disabled people" may also confuse some
citizens into thinking proposals may not affect them. Developing
concrete proposals in this area would be very welcome, as would
knowing the process for implementing sanctions, where responsibility
for decisions would lie and how appeals might be taken, heard
and decided.
3.6 Accessing the UC
3.6.1 We are concerned that the route
into the UC will be through the Work Capability Assessment (WCA).
The WCA has not worked well and receives the highest rate of appeals
(46,500 in under two years) of any benefit and routinely assigns
disabled people to a benefit (JSA) which offers little tailored
help to get and keep work.
3.6.2 The WCA is also getting tougher
under Government proposals tabled in August through changes to
the limited capability for work descriptors and an overall DWP
aim to increase the number of people found fit for work by 5%.
We believe this will mean further disabled people, including wheelchair
users and people with sensory impairments experience the tougher
elements of Universal Credit plans (including sanctions) as outlined
in the white paper (page 26).
3.7 Poverty
3.7.1 The Government expects 350,000
children and 500,000 working age adults to be moved out of poverty
through "changes to entitlement and increased take-up of
benefit" (page 5 of the white paper). We believe this statement
requires further depth/development and a clearer indication of
the timeframe for this figure to be reached. We are particularly
keen for the Government to measure and monitor disability poverty
if DWP is confident its aims will be reached and we hope the Committee
will explore this issue.
3.7.2 We are very disappointed that
the white paper did not come with a fuller equality impact assessment
which may have examined this issue. We believe that this should
have been provided under equality legislation when the decision
was taken to introduce the UC and hope the commitment (page 60)
to provide this in full in January 2011 will be met.
3.7.3 The take-up section of the white
paper (page 17) was very short and included little detail of the
costs or number of people involved. The white paper expects the
UC to save £1 billion in reduced error and fraud (page 60
of the white paper) but no figure is provided relating to additional
numbers of people claiming the UC (or other benefits) which is
also suggested in the white paper as a benefit of the Government's
proposed approach (see page 10 for example).
3.7.4 We are especially keen to understand
how many additional people will be entering the welfare system
as a result of the Universal Credit. We would also welcome understanding
if people losing all out of work benefits as a result of time
limiting contributory ESA to 12 months is implemented has been
factored into DWP tackling poverty estimates. The DWP have suggested
280,000 disabled people will lose contributory ESA and all out
of work benefits through this time limiting and we believe this
underestimates the figure - which our analysis suggests will be
closer to 400,000 disabled people. Disability Alliance has sought
answers from DWP on this issue and we believe these contradictory
figures and Government estimates of tackling poverty through the
UC require further examination and for Government plans to be
fully developed and clarified.
3.8 Costs
3.8.1 The cost of introducing the UC
is £2 billion (page 51) for the period of the current Spending
Review. This is the same figure as disabled people on contributory
ESA are set to lose under Government plans to time limit this
support to twelve months from April 2013. We are concerned that
disabled people are paying for the UC - which represents an unfair
burden falling on already limited shoulders. A third of disabled
people live in poverty in the UK and we believe the contributory
ESA cut and other welfare changes risk increasing disability poverty.
3.9 Simplification and timetable for reform
3.9.1 While the aim of UC is to simplify
the benefit system the social fund and council tax benefit proposals
may mean these become more complicated and unfair (see 3.2 and
3.3 for further information).
3.9.2 We are unclear why the Government
has chosen to exclude contributory benefits from the UC approach,
for example including income-based JSA and ESA but excluding contributory
JSA and ESA. This increases complexity to some extent.
3.9.3 Inevitably, changes to any system
also require a period of transition for people moving from one
to another benefit and this also institutes a degree of complexity.
The timeframe to introduce the UC is dramatically short and we
are concerned that Jobcentre Plus and DWP staff will be under
enormous pressure and unable to access appropriate training to
meet and identify disabled service users' needs adequately. This
could result in further barriers to service use - and to entering
work or leaving benefits for some disabled people. We are keen
to understand: the Government's plans to train staff before UC
implementation in 2013; when it will begin; and how many staff
will receive training before UC introduction. This is uncovered
in the white paper but paramount to disabled people having confidence
that the new system will be ready and able to meet legitimate
needs.
3.9.4 A further aspect of simplification
in benefits is devolution. DA is keen to know if the NI Assembly
is agreeable to DWP plans. On some benefit and other support for
disabled people, devolved authorities have chosen to provide more
generous support (eg on prescriptions and within care service
charges for example) and we are keen to learn what differential
impact introducing the UC may have in the component parts of the
UK.
3.10 UC payment and assessment periods
3.10.1 We would also welcome clarity
on proposed payment systems for the UC. We understand this will
be monthly but this may adversely affect millions of people used
to a different process and may mean changes of circumstances are
taken into account only in the next calendar month. We would welcome
the Government explaining its proposals on this issue fully.
December 2010
| 
