Welfare reform - are you scared yet?

“Coercion”. “People are ringing in tears”. “A state purge”. Peter Hain, the work and pensions secretary, cannot be pleased with the way in which his proposals to reform the complex welfare state have been described by disability organisations.

They, in turn, are incensed by both the reforms themselves and the language in which they have been described; ministerial talk of a “sick-note Britain” has led to a slew of articles excoriating benefit “scroungers”.

The plans target a number of groups (most notably disabled people, lone parents and the long-term unemployed) that the government wants to get back to work. Disabled people are most affected by the changes to incapacity benefit (IB). Around 2.6 million people claim IB, with a total bill of £12.4bn a year. The government claims that half of them are fit to work. From this October, IB and disability related income support will be scrapped and an employment and support allowance (ESA) will replace it, judging claimants, the government says, on what they can do at work, not what they can’t. It is thought that around half of new claimants will fail the test for the ESA. Employment advisors will also be placed in GP surgeries to help people to go back to work. And private sector organisations, as well as Jobcentre Plus and charities, will run local Pathways to Work “welfare to work” programmes.

The history of British welfare reform has been fraught with controversy. But this particular story starts in the early 1980s when Margaret Thatcher, alarmed at the unemployment figures, decided that switching claimants onto invalidity benefit would be a good way of massaging the dole figures down. The figures of those on IB soared and have remained higher than other European countries ever since.

But undoing the mistakes of the past is not easy, says Professor Bob Grove, from the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health. “The big lesson is that never again must we sign people off onto long-term health-related benefits,” he says, pointing out that even if some of those signed off were not disabled, many have become so because of poverty, social isolation and depression.

The employment gap between disabled and non-disabled people remains a chasm: only half of disabled people work, compared with 80 per cent of non-disabled people.

So why are disability organisations so upset about a plan that aims to close that unacceptable gap? One of the reasons has been the government’s rhetoric. Another is the government’s assumption that some 50 per cent of current claimants could work if they put their minds to it – and will be compelled to when they fail the eligibility test (see case studies, page 28).

Paul Treloar, policy director of Disability Alliance, has “grave reservations” about tightening up the eligibility test for IB and is appalled by the talk of “benefit skivers and scroungers”. He concludes: “The fact is that more people are going to fail the test. They are just trying to get people off benefit.”

Gareth Davies, president of the National League of Blind and Disabled People, is also “suspicious” about the plans. He says: “We are concerned about genuine claimants running into difficulties with the work test.” He adds: “We want to see a fully employed labour force but I think that they have underestimated the nature of the problem.”

Ian Charlesworth, director of the Shaw Trust, which has won a number of Pathways to Work contracts, is positive about the “direction of travel” but not the details. He believes that those with mental health problems and learning difficulties will continue to be failed by the system. This means, he says, that the government is unlikely to meet its target of removing one million people from IB. “With the provision we have got we can do no more than stem the rise in IB.” He praises Pathways to Work so far, but says that it is not as effective as it could be because it is cash limited, albeit generously-funded.

Susan Scott-Parker, of the Employers’ Forum on Disability, says that bosses have been pretty much ignored – a strange thing, given that the thrust of the programme is to get disabled people into mainstream work. “It is the employer who decides whether the system is working. The system has to make it easier for the employer to say yes.” And, she adds, caustically, the talk of people being “on the sick” is unhelpful. “I told the government, do you really want me to tell employers to hire ‘scroungers’?”

The British Medical Association is also worried, commenting that employment advisors in surgeries will only be effective “if they help patients return to work rather than acting as an enforcement arm of the Department for Work and Pensions with the sole purpose of getting people off benefit".

The third reason for so much suspicion of the government’s reforms is the heavy involvement of profit-making private bodies in Pathways to Work. The award of 15 out of 16 Phase One contracts to private sector organisations infuriated the body representing charity executives, Acevo.

Professor Bob Grove, who helped to set up Pathways to Work five years ago, says there is a “good and developing evidence base” that the original programme was working and that it has had what academic research calls a “sustained positive impact”.

But he is concerned that the private companies that will run much of Pathways to Work are not being asked to follow a proven, effective model. “We have spent a pile of paper and years evaluating a particular model and now they can do what they like,” he says, clearly disappointed.

Peter Hain, interviewed in this issue of Disability Now (Breaking News, page 8), says that he wants to create opport­unities for disabled people – although he defends increased compulsion. He wants to shift attention onto the welfare to work proposals emanating from David Cameron and the Conservative Party. It has just published plans to limit access to benefits – a likely harbinger of hard times for disabled people if it takes power.

But, for the moment, disabled people have enough to worry about. The Prime Minister used a recent speech to business leaders to promise sweeping welfare reforms, talking about a modernised IB and promising an “intensification” of compulsion to work. Ten years ago the government targeted lone parents with similar plans. Now the moving finger is pointing at disabled people.

On the frontline

Two disabled people give their view of welfare reform and explain why they fear Mr Hain's plans

Paul Davidson says that the government is “pandering to the taxpayer for cheap votes” with its plans for welfare reform.

Paul has panic attacks and post-traumatic stress disorder. He would love to work but says that he is prevented from doing so because of a combination of his mental health, intense physical pain and discriminatory attitudes in the workplace.

He is in favour of people working if they are able to, but asks: “How will they determine what you can do? How will they do the tests to find that out? Is it working at a height or on the ground? Or as a painter or in a restaurant?”

Paul says that the talk of a “sicknote culture” bandied around by ministers betrays a simplistic and “shameful” view of mental illness.

“Rigorous measurement of mental health conditions, it is said, will cut the number of people out of work. What is Mr Hain saying? The measurement of the illness is the cure? Work is the cure? Many more people will suffer as a result of his ineptitude and a total lack of understanding. There is no mention of the causes, symptoms, lack of diagnosis and treatment or support.”

He believes that the government’s welfare to work plans risk forcing people into unsuitable jobs.

Julianna Fejer has been receiving incapacity benefit (IB) since 2003. She worked in marketing and PR for 20 years before that and is “very keen” to do “some sort of work” in the future.

“The trouble is that there has been some very negative publicity about all of the reforms. So I, like a lot of people on IB, feel quite frightened about what is going to come along and whether the objective is to reduce the bill for the taxpayer.”

She has arthritis and her hands, back and neck “lock up” if she spends more than a couple of minutes writing or using the telephone or computer.

Julianna says that people should be moved off IB and supported into work if they are capable of working but stresses that there has to be a “recognition” that a person’s condition can vary and impair their ability to do a day's work.

“If somebody said ‘use this mouse with the computer’ I could do it but if I had to do that for 30 minutes I would not be able to pick up a cup of tea afterwards.”

Julianna has “no idea” whether she would be deemed fit to work under the new system but she hopes that she will not be forced to take up an unsuitable job.

“What is important is the quality of the support that is given to people. It needs to be about enabling and empowering people and not coercing them.”