Welfare reform: the real deal

Rather than government proposing welfare reform that is really a euphemism for saying benefits cuts, Andy Rickell asks why not some real welfare reform, that would benefit us all

I have an idea for true welfare reform based on some principles. Firstly, the new system must be simple for the disabled person to understand and to participate in, supported if needed. Secondly, the state's right to challenge a welfare claim must be balanced by the disabled person's right to have expert advice. Thirdly, the system must be fair between disabled people, and fair between the disabled person and the rest of society. Fourthly, the system must be transparent, with the right to a fair appeals process. Fifthly, it must be based on the disabled person's right to independent living, to choice and control, and to individualised solutions. Sixthly, it must be holistic so that it deals with the person as a whole individual, and joined-up so that state support is used well. Seventhly, it must minimise the administrative costs, to maximise the benefit getting to the disabled person for a given cost
to the taxpayer.

Here's how it would work. We have a single annual supported self-assessment process for all state support to the individual - current cash benefits (eg ESA, DLA, IS etc) and benefits in kind (eg community care, access to work, specialist employment support etc) which could then be offered as a direct payment or individual budget. The disabled person has access to an adviser trained in understanding independent living support and state funded, though probably employed by a voluntary organisation, to complete their assessment. The assessment process could be online like tax self-assessment, and like tax, the assessment form can be split up so you only need to complete the relevant bits.

The assessment is reviewed by a civil servant trained in understanding disabled people's needs, probably employed by DWP, who would be the single funding conduit. The civil servant could challenge and ask for further proof of entitlement.

Their final decision could be appealed, through a Disability Appeals Tribunal, which includes a disabled member, and where the disabled person would be properly represented.

The resulting entitlement would then be in the hands of the disabled person, with support to use it if they needed.

There would be no need for multiple assessments, no need for multiple sets of politicians/civil servants/social workers to act as assessors or gatekeepers (and hence billions of savings), no problems about postcode lotteries, no problems about looking at the disabled person's needs/rights in isolation, no problems about decisions being made on inaccurate/incomplete information, no problems about the balance of power between claimant and the state.

It would result in an holistic identification of barriers faced leading to an holistic individualised solution, and hence most likely to result in the best quality of life outcomes for a given cost, including maximising the individual's capacity to take up a career, to manage their own life or otherwise contribute productively.

And there are lots of other ways to save public money and still end up with a better deal for disabled people.