How the British Government Scuppered Permitted Work

The Department for Work and Pensions regulations allow that a person who is claiming Incapacity benefit or Employment Support Allowance may do ‘Permitted Work’ while claiming. This regulation allows that a person claiming IB or ESA can earn up to £97.50 per week from working less than 16 hours per week without their benefit being affected. This amount is also passed on to Housing benefit and Council Tax Benefit as a disregard which is applicable under certain circumstances only. Permitted work is also an option available under the Provider led Pathways to work guidance, where a provider can obtain a ‘Job Outcome payment’ under specific circumstances.
On the face of it ‘Permitted Work’ seems like an ideal opportunity for claimants of IB and ESA who have been on benefit for a long time to see if they can actually do some work, and to be guaranteed to be better off whilst doing so. However in practice it seems that very few people are actually taking up this facility, exact figures do not seem to be available. A freedom of Information Request is still outstanding on this matter.
What then might the barriers be to claimants taking up permitted work? The first fear that comes to mind is that if you show any interest in doing permitted work, that you will trigger a re-assessment of your fitness for work. The DWP guidance states that anyone doing permitted work will still be subject to assessment of their fitness for work;
“If a medical assessment is due as part of your ongoing benefits-related review, it will go ahead as planned.”
Previous guidance to Incapacity Benefit claimants suggested that taking up permitted work may indeed trigger a re-assessment of their capacity to work. 
Another concern is that doing permitted work may affect your Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. It seems to depend mainly on if the Decision maker at DWP decides your work is ‘permitted’ and what disregard you are allowed, if you get the £20 disregard then anything you earn over this amount will affect IB,ESA and HB and CTB, similarly if your work is judged to be permitted and you earn in excess of the £97.50 disregard this too will affect your benefits including HB and CTB. Additionally if, in any one week, you work for 16 hours or more then your entitlement to Incapacity Benefit or Employment Support Allowance STOPS!
The main problem however is that if your work is determined by the DWP decision maker NOT to be allowed as permitted work your benefits are immediately affected by the full amount of your income from any paid employment. This is compounded by the fact that the claimant is NOT TOLD prior to starting any work if the work they are proposing to do is ‘permitted’, claimants must start the work, send in the PW1 declaring that they wish to work under the ‘permitted work rules’ and wait to see if the work they are doing is permitted, they are then completely in the hands of the DWP decision maker as to whether the work they want to do will benefit them financially in any way or if it will result in their benefits being cut by the amount they receive, the fact that they are then doing some work would doubtless be taken into account during their WCA assessment regarding their fitness for work.
A further concern is that it appears that on disclosing that you are doing work which you wish to be considered as permitted work under the permitted work rules, your claim for benefit is immediately suspended, pending the DWP Decision on whether such work is ‘permitted’.
It is this writers view that the regulations regarding ‘permitted work’ are a minefield for the claimant and for welfare rights advisers alike, with amendments to regulations, changes in types of benefits and a total lack of clarity as to what work is permitted. It occurs to this writer that this government has No Interest in encouraging the uptake of permitted work as provided for by the regulation because, if permitted, it does not reduce the benefits bill in the short term, no matter how much it may benefit the claimant. Further the regulations and subsequent amendments seem to have been so crafted that any claimant wishing to take up permitted work does so at the immediate risk of their entitlement to benefits.
In conclusion what could have been a significant aide to the long term sick and disabled in trying some limited work and being rewarded for doing so has been successfully scuppered by opaque regulation and lack of information. Whether permitted work, had it been implemented in a transparent and fair manner, could lead to claimants no longer needing  the support of these benefits in the long term is unknown, if the Freedom of Information request  is answered perhaps the answers to these questions will finally come to light. Instead claimants of ESA are now facing Mandated Work were the sick and disabled will be expected to work for their benefits for as much as 30 hours per week and for as long as 6 months at a time on pain of being sanctioned in exactly the same way as claimants of Job Seeker Allowance, among whom will be those of their fellows found ‘fit for work’ under the discredited WCA.

===========================================================

Update And response to kelly Peters:

"Claimants on ESA can never be asked to do any activity (i.e. training) that is over 16 hours per week. Mandatory Work Activity is only for JSA claimants. Under DWP guidance ESA Claimants can not (and will not) be forced to work or to apply for a job. There are various other false and/or misleading statements within this article. Given the high levels of anxiety felt by many claimants of incapacity benefits - please check your facts before posting articles on such an emotive subject."

For some reason Blogger is not letting me reply to comments so ;

Kelly,  I agree that IB is currently an emotive subject, as I too am on IB waiting for Graylings' axe to fall, and from what I see in the press and media, I have little hope of getting a fair assessment under the WCA. We have seen no matter what DWP guidance is given that ATOS have been working to targets, as shown by C4: Dispatches. (When is a target not a target? when its a statistical norm, a target by any other name) . From what I hear and read the rules regarding ESA appeals will change as of April 2013 (Welfare reform bill, clause 99, source social welfare union), such that anyone appealing a decision on their entitlement to ESA will automatically be put on JSA, and thus one would expect to be subject to JSA jobseeker regulations, sanctions and mandated activity. Grayling has said elsewhere in the press that it is his intention to 're-design' the system so that those persons coming off IB/ESA whom jobcentreplus feels are too sick to take work placements will be forced to do so.

This is my blog, I will do , Kelly such fact checking as I am able and will post whatever I like in my blog. I therefore invite you to challenge any and all statements of mine which you feel are wrong or misleading, and please be sure to include your sources, or I will not allow your comment.

====================================================

Investigation into the source of claims made by SWU above: Original SWU post :

http://www.facebook.com/SocialWelfareUnion/posts/378098418924587 

source of the above post

http://www.youreable.com/forums/showthread.php/2086-Clause-99-of-the-Welfare-Reform-Bill-which-comes-into-effect-in-April-2013

source of that post :

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1633472

and the origination of the Chinese whisper :

http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/latest-news/1530-no-esa-for-claimants-who-want-to-appeal

In the above post benefits and work say that

“Given that reconsiderations could take many months, many claimants will be obliged to make a claim for JSA, even though they may consider themselves wholly unfit for any kind of work.  Alternatively, they will have to manage without either ESA or JSA, at least until their appeal is lodged.”

I accept that the word ‘automatically’ as used by myself above was incorrect but assert that my statements above regarding ESA claimants having to face the same requirements as JSA claimants, given the above statements from Benefits from work, were in fact substantially true, However is appears that currently available guidance from the DWP states that a claimant may continue to receive ESA at the  assessment phase rate.

The fact remains that persons having an illness and or disability which would give them rights under the UN Convention on the Rights of People with disabilities, will still face being forced to work for their benefits should they find themselves on JSA, in contravention of article 27 of the convention. Article 27 also implies that if it is a contravention of the convention that a disabled person is forced to work, it is also a contravention of the convention should any other person be forced to work. A converse (perverse?) interpretation could also be made , that if a non disabled person can be forced to work, then so can a disabled person, but I think that such and interpretation would be seen to be against the spirit of the convention.

=========================================================

Update 15/08/2012

The following article and documents from the DWP have recently been pointed out to me, this was originally reported on The Guardian website in an article entitled “Disabled people face unlimited unpaid work or cuts in benefits” published in February of this year. The title statement is supported by two DWP documents; The first is “Work Experience and work placements for ESA Work-related activity Group” and is a presentation from the DWP policy and strategy forum, December 2011. In this document the DWP shows its intention to introduce work experience and work placements for sick and disabled persons in the WRAG. In the second document which is a redacted copy of the minutes of the DWP policy and strategy forum meeting of 1st December 2011. In this document the intention to mandate this activity is made clear;

“Ministers strongly feel there is a link-up to support those who are moving close to the labour market and the individual’s responsibility to engage with the support. Ministers feel sanctions are an incentive for people to comply with their responsibility.”

The Guardian article includes information received from the DWP saying explicitly that some would be mandated to this activity and some would not. I am at pains to point out to any sick or disabled person facing such activity in the WRAG on ESA, or any person who is disabled under the terms of the UN Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and has been declared fit for work, and to the DWP and any disabled groups reading this article that under article 27 of the convention disabled persons “..are protected, on an equal basis with others, from forced or compulsory labour.”

An open letter to Nick Clegg MP

Dear Nick,

I have been a Liberal, and then a Liberal Democrat supporter for many years, in fact since Sir David Steel was leader of the Liberal Party. As a teenager I campaigned in elections, delivering leaflets for my local candidate as a member of the Liberal Radical Youth, and as an adult I have voted Liberal or Liberal Democrat in every election, bye-election, or local government election that there has been to date where I have been living in the UK.

I now withdraw my support for this Liberal Democrat/conservative coalition government, and my support for the LibDems while they are led by you. This is because of your complete and utter failure to protect the rights of sick and disabled people in this country, because you have allowed sick and disabled people in this country to be portrayed as lazy scroungers, without once to my knowledge showing support for us or objecting publicly to those government policies and attitudes which demean us, policies which seek to deny us the right to live dignified and independent lives, because you have allowed this government to arbitrarily withdraw benefits from sick and disabled people based on a work capability assessment which has been thoroughly discredited by the British Medical Association, and because of your continued failure to support EDM 295 ATOS, which would at least allow these matters to be debated in the house.

Furthermore I commend your decision to continue to fight the next election as leader of the Liberal democrats, this shows me that you will continue to bury your head in the sand while innocent people suffer. My vote is one that you will not have, and nor I hope will you have the votes of those sick and disabled people that find themselves in my position.

The British Government attempt at Redefining Disability

The United Kingdom has signed AND ratified The UN Convention on the Rights of people with disabilities which states that;

“Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.”

The Equality and Human Rights Commission Guidance states that the convention is based on the Social Model of disability. The social model of disability sees the issue of "disability" as a socially created problem and a matter of the full integration of individuals into society, as opposed to the Medical Model which sees disability as  a problem of the person, directly caused by disease, trauma, or other health condition which therefore requires sustained medical care provided in the form of individual treatment by professionals.

However the governing Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition seems intent on denying that either of the above models apply. Perhaps as a reaction to the current economic situation, or as a matter of Tory Party ideology, they are applying what amounts to a purely Economic Model of disability;

“The economic model defines disability by a person’s inability to participate in work. It also assesses the degree to which impairment affects an individual’s productivity and the economic consequences for the individual, employer and the state. Such consequences include loss of earnings for and payment for assistance by the individual; lower profit margins for the employer; and state welfare payments. This model is directly related to the charity/tragedy model.”  - Source Wikipoedia.

The Coalition government has, in order to reduce the welfare benefits bill, introduced a new method of assessment and a new benefit to replace Incapacity Benefit and Disability Living allowance. The new benefits are at a lower rate than the above benefits and are assessed using a ‘Work Capability Assessment’. This method of assessment has been discredited by The British Medical Association, who have called for it to be scrapped and replaced with something more fit for the purpose.

That the Coalition government is using the economic model of disability is evident in the criteria used in the WCA, where claimants are found ‘fit for work’ and in the public  statements of its officials. Claimants have been portrayed in the media as ‘Lazy Scroungers’ and The Chief Operating Officer of the Department of Work and Pensions (Terry Morgan) made  the following statement to a public meeting of his civil service colleagues ;

“One of the things that distresses me greatly is when I see these headlines in newspapers when people have pretended to be disabled in order to get money out of the system.

“If I had my way I would put their photograph on every lamp-post in the street where they live because it is a very distressing thing for genuinely disabled people to see the reputation of disabled people damaged in the way that is by those people. We have got to do something about it constructively.”

The above statements make it distressingly clear that the DWP define a person who is ‘fit for work’ as not disabled, and a person who has been awarded benefit under the WCA as disabled, thus implementing the economic model.

Even more distressing to persons who have rights under the UN Convention is that this official advocates actions toward persons with disabilities that contravene article 15 and 16 of the UN Convention;

“Article 15 Freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

'No one must be tortured or subject to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.Degrading treatment means treatment that is grossly humiliating and undignified.'

Article 16 Freedom from exploitation, violence and abuse

'Governments must do everything they can to: protect disabled people from all forms of exploitation, violence and abuse at home and in the community'”

As of the date of writing the WCA is being considered for judicial review by a judge of the High Court, on the grounds that it discriminates against people with mental health problems. The official figures for fraudulent claiming of these benefit has been put at  0.5% . The number of disabled people previously classed as unfit for work, who are being re-classified as ‘fit for work’ and denied ‘Employment Support Allowance’ continues to rise, as does the number of successful appeals, and sadly also the number of people who have died where removal of these benefits is seen as a contributing cause.

=================================================

Update : Since this article was written a more detailed examination of the issues involved, the models used and their origins has been produced by Debbie jolly : A Tale of Two Models on DPAC’s website