Say your bit! Government Consultation on Work Capability Assessment

Jimm_Scope · September 18

Last week the DWP launched a consultation on changes to the Work Capability Assessment. This is something that concerns almost everyone in our community. We saw this in the discussions immediately after the announcement. There is of course scepticism about changing the already complex benefits system. If it will benefit disabled people like the government says.

Before I go further, I want to try and assure anyone who is worried. The government’s own timeline for any change states that the earliest they would come into effect is 2025. After the next general election, where much can change. WCA itself due to be abolished in 2026/2027 at the earliest.

Scope's Response

The following is a statement from James Taylor, Scope’s Executive Director of Strategy, Impact and Social Change:

"It's right that the government wants to provide more relevant employment support to disabled people, but it must be flexible, and voluntary.
"We're worried these proposals will end up forcing huge numbers of disabled people to look for work when they aren't well enough, making them more ill. If they don't meet strict conditions, they'll have their benefits stopped. In the grips of a cost-of-living crisis this could be catastrophic.
"It's especially worrying that the government is looking at removing the safety net for people who are at risk to themselves or others by engaging with work.
"Is this about improving employment outcomes for disabled people, or is this about reducing benefit spend?
"There's no reason why more tailored, flexible employment support could not be offered to all disabled people on a voluntary basis."

Responding to the consultation

All information about the consultation can be found here on the gov.uk site.

At the bottom of the page is a document explaining the consultation, the reasons behind it, the questions and the intentions behind the questions. It is recommended that you read the document before responding to the consultation. It has several different accessible formats, including large print, audio and British Sign Language.

You can respond to the survey in 3 different ways
- Responding online
- Emailing your responses to [email protected]
- Writing your response to the address detailed under "Ways to Respond" here

Do not provide any personal details such as your name or address or any other details that could identify you when replying to the consultation.

Let your voice be heard

We hope everyone here will respond to the consultation. We'd also love to hear your thoughts about the proposals in the consultation, if you feel comfortable doing so. We are mindful that this is a topic that brings up strong emotions and opinions. Please try to avoid getting into debates about other's thoughts.

Finally, even if you don't feel like sharing here I hope you share your thoughts with the consultation. Hopefully, the more they hear from disabled people the more they reconsider.

Biblioklept · September 19

This seems a pointless exercise if they're still considering the white paper of doing away with WCA.

They've done a good job of trying to appear that it's just out of 'concern' for disabled people and to support them into work. Without any real initiative with helping them actually get employment.

It's pretty clear they just want to reduce the number of benefit claimaints and those eligible to claim and seems to particularly focus on those with mental health or neurodivergence. At least in my opinion!

Biblioklept · September 19

The contradictions between these two sentences sums it up for me

"People assessed as LCWRA do not have any requirements to engage with this tailored work coach support. It is not right that so many people are left without support, and we must not hold people back from opportunity."

Just because it isn't a requirement doesn't mean they're left without support. What they're actually saying is they want to make it a requirement.

Also this...
"42. Secondly, we are also considering whether we remove the LCWRA risk criteria entirely, so that anyone who would meet the current threshold would instead be placed in LCW. They would then receive appropriate support and tailored work-related activity so that they would not be at risk to themselves or others.
43. As set out above, we would not expect claimants in LCW risk to engage in work preparation activity if it were not appropriate or tailored."

So you agree them doing work-related activity would be a risk but want to put them in LCW so you don't have to pay them more support...

Biblioklept · September 19

For those who don't want to or aren't able to read the whole document but want to know the changes, these are the main things they are wanting feedback on:

Mobilising

32. We are considering three options for change:

remove the Mobilising activity entirely (both LCW and LCWRA)
amend the LCWRA Mobilising descriptor to bring it in line with the equivalent descriptor in PIP - replacing 50 metres with 20 metres for both descriptors within the LCWRA activity
reduce the points awarded for the LCW Mobilising descriptors.

Absence or loss of bowel/bladder control (Continence)

33. We are considering three options for change:

remove the Absence or loss of bowel/bladder control (Continence) activity entirely (both LCW and LCWRA)
amend the LCWRA Absence or loss of bowel/bladder control (Continence) descriptor sothat claimants are required to experience symptoms ‘daily’ rather than ‘weekly’
reduce the points awarded for the LCW Absence or loss of bowel/bladder control (Continence) descriptors

Coping with Social Engagement due to cognitive impairment or mental disorder

34. We are considering two options for change:

remove the Coping with Social Engagement activity entirely (both LCW and LCWRA)
reduce the points awarded for LCW descriptors for Coping with Social Engagement

Getting About (LCW only)

35. We are considering two options for change:

remove the Getting About activity entirely
reduce the points awarded for LCW descriptors for Getting About

Substantial Risk

39. We are considering two options for change:

Firstly, we are considering whether to amend the LCWRA substantial risk definition to reflect that this would not apply where a person could take part in tailored or a minimal level of work preparation activity and/or where reasonable adjustments could be put in place to enable that person to engage with work preparation. This change would represent an opportunity to better support claimants with challenging barriers to ensure they are helped and signposted to access provision relevant to their personal circumstances.

42. Secondly, we are also considering whether we remove the LCWRA risk criteria entirely, so that anyone who would meet the current threshold would instead be placed in LCW. They would then receive appropriate support and tailored work-related activity so that they would not be at risk to themselves or others.

Jimm_Scope · September 19

Thank you @Biblioklept, I wanted to write more but my post was already getting so long I figured people would have fallen asleep before getting to the part about answering the consultation.

I hope everyone does give their opinions to the consultation.

I also agree that it seems a very pointless move with WCA already on the cards to being scrapped. At least we have a way of telling them this opinion via the consultation.

DocG · September 21

Every year is the same and every year we are humiliated by their staff. In 20+ years ive only ever had one review where my award was extended with no issues. All the others have been totally wrong. Ive spent sometimes years getting awards put right. The issue is the assessments and the people who do them. They just want to get paid multiple times before the DWP finally steps in and returns your award to how it should of been.

norfoftheborda · September 21

To be honest I think it is yet another thankless task. There have been schemes to help disabled people return to work for years, resulting in adequate changes being implemented to the workplace to give the employee freedom within the workplace. The vast majority of disabled individuals who do not work, cannot work. Myself, I would end up falling asleep at my desk umpteen times a day, now, I don’t care who the employer is, they are not going to put up with that happening each and every day. There seems to be a push to get everyone disabled working, which is just not practical for a huge number of claimants. Even claimants such as myself who can look fine (I have invisible illnesses) should not be pushed, have benefits removed, altered, jumbled around every few years so we become, yet again, the target of everyone who doesn’t understand what it is like to live on a financial knife edge 24/7.

OSCAR1 · September 21

Its hard enough living and coping with a disability without the goverment forcing people two work...i,m sick of people thinking we are scroungers when we are not..so people with complex disabilities have to find a job..a job thats going to be suitable to there needs...so how can someone employ you when one day you could just about manage the next day you car,nt do anything what about doctors and hospital appointments..what about all the medication people take that can knock them for six...its alright the goverment going on about the disabled act and employers must make adjustments and adhere to these rules but i,m afraid that not all employess will stick to these rules..Don,t get me wrong i,m sure some people with disabilities will welcome this move but others wont this goverment is not fit for purpose and yes it is about getting the benefit bill down at the expense of US DISABLED...i,ve emailed lizz kendall the shadow person for the DWP asking why is,nt she fighting for disabled people guess what not heard anything...

shellbell20 · September 21

All the government want to do is bully people into work, especially people suffering from MH. I used to work, but I had a breakdown at work, I remember sitting at my desk and I just couldn't stop crying. I was dismissed for my MH and since being dismissed for being poorly my health has only become progressively worse.

So if their plan goes to plan, I will be bullied by them to go back to work and then bullied at work. Haven't there been enough deaths due to the government's bullying tactics? Does someone's life mean nothing to them? It seems to me they don't give a flying fig about anyone disabled but are using it as a tactic to report that the economy is amazing since we helped disabled people back into work., they don't care that the most vulnerable in society might lose their lives as a consequence of their actions, nor will they show the pictures of the people who take their own lives due to their draconian policies

Let's be honest here, haven't they been down the same avenue in 1996 when they said that removing the substantial risk rules would have no detrimental effect on disabled claimants? How did that work out for them?

I also feel it is should be a voluntary decision and not only should it be a voluntary decision there should also incentives such as retraining without fear of sanctions, work experience tasters without detriment to your payments, then perhaps something similar to disability tax credits, they use to pay that and it just seemed to vanish and wasn't replaced with any kind of safety net.

In summary, though, I am appalled with their white paper, I feel this government is snidey and deceitful and will stop at nothing to deceive this nation, I don't trust them at all, if they get their way there will be innocent lives lost and they, every single MP that backs this paper, will have blood on their hands.

judie · September 22

Shellbell20 I totally agree with you that it is bullying the weakest members of society for political gain. The government will have more blood on their hands than they have already. This White paper is terrifying for me, since it was announced my MH has deteriorated drastically because of the feeling of hopelessness it induces

scrappydoo1967 · September 22

Why are they looking to reduce the disability bill payments?, because we’re paying out billions of pounds to house illegal asylum seekers in hotels, and our tax payers (me included) can’t bring in enough money to cover all the outgoings! So hitting the most vulnerable (me included again) is a way of reducing the outgoings. This is not about political gain it’s about balancing the books and the uk is struggling.
I’m not saying that it’s right but if you have an answer to our financial crisis then maybe you should apply to be chancellor of the exchequer!

judie · September 22

So you blame everyone except the people actually running the country
who got us in this mess

scrappydoo1967 · September 22

I think your attitude is very blinkered! I don’t blame anyone at all, I blame the current situation we all face. HMRC and the government supported us during lockdown, brexit was an issue as well as the Ukraine war and Russian oil issues, not to mention the environmental issues we all face but until we leave the ECHR we won’t solve the uks financial issues. I’m disabled and struggle to work, all I was saying is that the government is looking for ways to reduce the disability bill, which I think is wrong in many respects, but I’d like to hear your solution to our current crisis, perhaps you think we should borrow, borrow and borrow some more?

OSCAR1 · September 22

Does,nt stop the goverment lining there own pockets

scrappydoo1967 · September 22

You really don’t understand finance do you, so you think the government is keeping the money for themselves.
They aren’t lining their own pockets they are trying to reduce the amount we are spending, so they are looking at us a way of doing that which is wrong, some of us are incapable of work. I have multiple sclerosis and can barely walk.

So I’m not saying they are right to do this, I’m just saying that they are looking at ways to reduce our spending, but I was also saying we are spending too much on the asylum seekers, but you seemed to think I was attacking everyone.

judie · September 22

That wasn't me, someone else posted that. I understand fairness, how about you and I take control of the country between us? Can't do a worse job of it than the current bunch!

shellbell20 · September 22

The government not lining their pockets, with covid contracts etc? Anyway, I don't want to enter a debate about politics, of where the other money is going, we are focusing on them taking away benefits. Again I will say they are bullies, you only have to look at the following link to understand they will stop at nothing even trying to bully doctors https://www.unitetheunion.org/news-events/news/2023/february/doctors-in-unite-reject-government-plans-to-force-the-sick-to-work

kreacher · September 23

i think the government just pick on the people who find it the hardest to stick up for themselves

shellbell20 · September 23

kreacher said:

i think the government just pick on the people who find it the hardest to stick up for themselves

I absolutely agree. They look for easy targets. It has to be said they aren't just picking on people with disabilities, they are also picking on over 50s, many of whom do have disabilities, such as the start of arthritis. I am sure there are healthy 50-plus people out there, but a natural stage of ageing is having less energy, not to mention ageism in the workplace. I have had a few comments myself, let you're old, from a person only 18, whom had just finished school, so I ignored it. Heck, I had ageism when I was only 40 when some 21-year-old asked me what I was doing at work, shouldn't I go home and do my knitting? Then there is the segregation when you're too old to fit in with the training group as they are all young. The government want to bully 50-plus-year-olds back to work, not thinking of the consequences of the bullying culture I've seen.

But let's not forget their intention, it is to get everyone back into menial work where the pay is low so they can appease big firms who they often do deals with. It is often in the care sector or leisure industry or supermarket. I was in the care sector for nearly 5 years being paid a pittance and didn't even get my petrol money paid, it's physically and emotionally hard work and them saying it isn't as there are ways of lifting etc are talking rubbish.

Bettahm · October 3

Ok I dont understand all this political stuff but I got my LCWRA for finding being around people psychologically distressing due to autism, undiagnosed most of my life and believe mh issues I have now are result.
So am I in danger of losing some of my benefit now?

shellbell20 · October 3

Try not to worry about, no-one knows for certain what the future holds. At the moment its all conjecture. I doubt you will be affected if anything does happen.