White Paper on Universal Credit
Written evidence submitted by Scottish Association for Mental Health
SAMH
SAMH is a Scottish mental health charity which provides an independent voice on all matters of relevance to people with mental health and related problems and delivers direct support to around 3000 people through over 80 services across Scotland. SAMH provides direct line-management to respectme (Scotland’s anti-bullying service) and ‘see me’ (Scotland’s anti-stigma campaign).
Welfare reform has implications for people experiencing mental health problems throughout the UK. This response has therefore been endorsed by Mind, the leading mental health charity in England and Wales. A fundamental part of Mind’s work is provided though a network of over 180 local Mind associations who last year worked with over 220,000 people running around 1,600 services locally.
COMMENTS
Introduction
1.
Welfare reform is a key issue for many of the people who come into contact with SAMH and Mind. We are aware that the Committee’s Inquiry is likely to attract substantial interest. We have therefore confined our comments to those directly affecting mental health and people with mental health problems. Of necessity, some of our comments relate to the Work Programme, since its success is essential to the aims of the Universal Credit.
Summary
2.
It is undeniable that the current benefits system is confusing and often does not provide incentives for people to enter work. It is also true that, in general, "good" work is usually good for the mental health of most people. SAMH therefore supports a direction of travel that makes it easier for people to claim the benefits to which they are entitled, and which provides greater support and motivation for people to get into work. However, there are specific areas where people with mental health problems could be disadvantaged or unfairly treated by these proposals. Mental health problems account for close to half of all Incapacity Benefit claims in Scotland, so it’s crucial that welfare reform takes proper account of this. This response sets out potential problems with the overall approach, sanctions and conditionality, and where possible suggests solutions.
Overall approach
3.
Throughout the paper, it is made clear that the overall aim is to reduce poverty. Paragraph 26 states that public investment in tackling poverty must be about more than transferring money from those who have to those who have not. This is absolutely true: but nor should a system be created that puts all of the pressure of getting out of poverty on those who are in it. Being on benefits is not in itself a cause of poverty. Major financial cuts mean that early intervention and low-level support services are disappearing. Without investment in education, housing and support, the Universal Credit could lead to a process which simply expects people to get jobs without providing the necessary support, infrastructure and investment.
4.
There appears to be an inconsistency in the paper’s approach. The Executive summary states at paragraph 13 that the majority of people should move into full-time work, but that for some people there may be temporary periods when part-time work is appropriate. However elsewhere in the paper, notably paragraph 22 of chapter 7, the paper states that today’s labour market involves part-time jobs and flexible working much more commonly than in the past.
5.
This is relevant because it suggests that people receiving the Universal Credit, even those in the ESA Work Related Activity Group who may have significant illnesses or disabilities but still be able to do some work, will be expected to strive towards full-time work. If we are serious about helping people to realise their potential and ending the degrading practice of assuming people with disabilities and serious or recurrent illnesses simply cannot work, then we must create a system that accepts that for some people, part-time work may be long-term or permanent. Evidence that you can work should not automatically be interpreted as evidence that you can work more.
6.
The paper makes several references to the successful implementation of ESA. However the recent Harrington Review supports the evidence of SAMH and many others that there have been serious problems with the implementation of ESA, particularly the Work Capability Assessment, and particularly affecting people with mental health problems. The Universal Credit must be modelled on the lessons from this experience.
Structure of Universal Credit and practical considerations
7.
Paragraph 18 of the White Paper says that additional amounts will be added to the basic personal amount of Universal Credit in recognition of disability, caring responsibilities, housing costs and children. We would ask that the Committee seek information on whether people will also receive an additional payment in recognition of illness that does not constitute a disability. Currently, people in the Work Related Activity Group of ESA (who may be either ill or disabled) receive up to £91.40 per week, while those on Jobseeker’s Allowance receive £65.45. People can have a mental health problem which does not constitute a disability – if, for example, they have a first episode of depression which their GP believes is not likely to last for twelve months, and therefore does not meet the definition of disability - and should not be penalised for this.
8.
The White Paper suggests that people’s applications for Universal Credit will remain live for three months after they are no longer eligible, to allow for a quick transfer back if their circumstances change. This is welcome, given the ending of the previous "linking rules" which provided great comfort to many of our service users and members, assuring them that they could try a particular job without facing months if not years of trying to get back onto the correct benefits. However, SAMH would suggest a period of at least six months, rather than the proposed three.
9.
Chapter 4 of the White Paper proposes that most applications for Universal Credit should be made and managed online. While we appreciate that this is part of an overall "digital first" strategy and that for many people this is the most convenient method, internet access remains inaccessible for many people with mental health problems. We know that many of our service users and members find internet use difficult and confusing, and would be extremely anxious about managing a main source of income in this way. Paragraph 27 of the White Paper states that for a minority of people, phone or exceptionally face to face contact will also be available. We seek information on whether people will easily be able to use these channels if they are most appropriate, or whether they will be required to demonstrate in some way that they need to communicate in this manner. If the latter, then this is likely to make it more difficult for people with mental health problems to use the system and may make it more likely that they will face sanctions if they are unable to do what is expected of them.
10.
Chapter 5 sets out measures to deal with fraud and error. Paragraph 14 proposes a £50 civil penalty to be imposed on people who fail, without "good excuse", to report changes to personal circumstances. We oppose this proposal, which is likely to affect those who have difficulty in understanding and complying with the system and the threat of which will lead to even greater anxiety about the Universal Credit. The income it would generate would be small and possibly even outweighed by the cost of collection. It is not unusual for people with mental health problems to disengage with dealing with documentation because of confusion, fear or anxiety. The existence of this penalty could well cause sufficient stress or anxiety to exacerbate a mental health problem. It will undermine efforts to persuade people that the Universal Credit exists to help them into work where possible, rather than find new ways to penalise them.
11.
Finally, we note that the shift away from local authorities handling some benefits will require detailed discussions with the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) and trust that this will take place in good time.
Sanctions and conditionality
12.
The White Paper makes clear that while sanctions will not apply to those who would be in the Support Group of ESA under the current system, they will apply to those in the Work Related Activity Group. Current practice tells us that people with quite significant mental health problems can be placed in this group, therefore these proposals are very relevant to SAMH. We note the recent publication of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s report on the effectiveness of sanctions and trust that the Committee will receive detailed evidence from others on the desirability of this approach.
13.
Those in the "work preparation" conditionality group may well have mental health problems. They will be subject to the proposal that 100% of payments will cease until the recipient re-complies with requirements and for a fixed period after re-compliance. Evidence from the implementation of ESA and the associated WCA suggests that mental health problems are often ill-understood by decision-makers. In particular, a mental health problem can fluctuate, meaning that it may well be unrealistic to expect people to constantly engage in work preparation at a consistent level. This raises the prospect that people with mental health problems may face sanctions when their condition has meant that they are unable to comply. It should be noted that in order to comply with human rights law, the welfare benefits system cannot be administered arbitrarily or on a discriminatory basis.
14.
If proposals on sanctions and conditionality are to be implemented, the following points are crucial:
·
The level of work-related activity expected of an individual on ESA must be realistic, individually tailored and based on an understanding of their condition, with input from medial and social care staff as required
·
People in the Work-Related Activity Group of ESA must receive meaningful and tailored support via the Work Programme, and this should be assessed through an independent evaluation of its actual implementation, not a pilot phase.
·
Decision-makers should have a proper understanding of mental health problems and should not issue sanctions without consulting a Disability Employment Advisor
·
Sanctions should not be automatic for those on work-related activity ESA. It is likely that "non-compliance" will often be due to a fluctuation in health, a difficulty relating to personal circumstances or a difficulty in understanding what is required. Applying sanctions rigorously and frequently will do nothing to assist people in this group back to work and will in fact undermine efforts to persuade people that they are able to move towards work and should see this as a positive and not a frightening prospect.
15.
There are many lessons to be learned about engaging people with mental health problems with return-to-work activity. While mainstream welfare to work programmes are often inadequate for people with higher levels of need, specialist DWP programmes have had a very low take up by people experiencing mental health problems. A 2009 report identified a number of reasons why Pathways to Work has yielded mixed results for people with mental health problems, identifying constraints on support and suggesting a number of ways in which the programme could be improved. This experience should be built upon.
16.
No doubt others will comment on the difficulties of getting people into work during a recession. We would like to raise the additional barrier faced by people with mental health problems, that of stigma. Fewer than four in ten employers would consider employing someone with a history of mental health problems, compared to more than six in ten for candidates with physical disability. Initiatives to address misunderstandings about mental health among employers and employees should be supported and the UK Government must encourage employers to recognise and fulfill their responsibilities under the Equality Act.
Transfer process
17.
The fear and uncertainty that this further welfare reform will create should not be underestimated. While we do welcome efforts to make the system more supportive and responsive, it is unfortunate that the ESA transfer process has begun but will now be replaced by the Universal Credit. This creates the prospect of two phases of upheaval and anxiety. SAMH service users and members are already afraid and unsure of what the ESA transfer process holds for them, and many of them will now have the added uncertainty of another future transfer onto Universal Credit. Clear, simple, regular and widely disseminated communication about exactly what will happen when and to whom is absolutely vital. We know that the stress and indignity of the ESA transfer process is already causing some people in the Aberdeen trial to become more mentally unwell than before. We must not repeat this in the transfer to Universal Credit.
December 2010
|
