FactCheck: Will disabled people suffer under the Welfare Reform Bill?
The background
The Paralympic athlete and cross-bench peer Baroness Grey-Thompson is the latest member of the House of Lords attempting to force the government to put the brakes on plans for reforms to disability benefits.
Ministers want to scrap Disability Living Allowance (DLA), a cash payment given to disable people with care and mobility issues regardless of their income and job status, and replace it with the Personal Independence Payment.
At the moment, around 3.2 million people claim DLA but that number is projected to rise to 3.5 million by 2016.
Ministers says the taxpayer can’t afford to carry on paying an allowance that is not automatically dependent on medical assessments, and the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) is proposing to bring in regular checks for the new benefit.
There have been a number of contentious claims made by the government and by opponents of the bill in recent days. Let’s look at them one by one.
The claim
“There is very clear evidence that there is some £600m every year going out in overpayments.”
Maria Miller, 17 January 2012
The Minister for Disabled People refers to research done under the previous Labour government.
A 2005 review of DLA found that £630m worth of DLA was being paid out every year to people whose health had improved to the point where they no longer needed the money.
But, as Ms Miller also pointed out, some £190m was also being underpaid. Some disabled people had seen their conditions decline gradually but had not realised they were now eligible for DLA.
So the government was making an estimated net overpayment of about £440m, according to the research.
Since ministers are proposing to deal both with under- and overpayments by reforming the assessment procedure, that’s probably a more accurate figure to use.
“They plan to cut the Disability Living Allowance budget by 20 per cent despite the fact that only 0.5 per cent of claims are fraudulent. This means that one in every five genuine DLA claimants will be losing out.”
UK Uncut
It’s true that outright fraud among sick and disabled claimants is low.
The latest figures show that only 0.5 per cent of DLA claimants were fraudulent in 2010/11. The other major illness-related payout, Incapacity Benefit, was even lower at 0.3 per cent. By contrast, fraud is thought to have accounted for some 4.1 per cent of Jobseekers Allowance claims last year.
But that’s not the government’s point. The “overpayments” aren’t down to fraud, but due to the fact that people’s conditions can gradually improve, but they have no legal duty to inform DWP of their change in circumstances, and there is no automatic reassessment of claimants.
The government doesn’t say these people who are receiving overpayments are doing anything illegal. They just don’t need the extra money any more, but the system allows them to keep on receiving it.
That’s the kind of thing the department wants to stop from happening in the future by introducing regular reassessments, so claimants’ medical progress will be checked regularly.
“It isn’t a 20 per cent cut.”
Maria Miller, 17 January 2012
The minister is right when she says the proposal does not represent a 20 per cent cut to the current DLA bill in real terms.
The government is proposing that the total DLA bill will be 20 per cent less in 2015/16 than it would have been if current trends had been allowed to continue.
DWP projections are that the total amount of money paid out on the allowance will rise from today’s figure of £12.6bn to more than £14bn by 2015/16 if nothing is done. But by that year the government only wants to be spending £12bn – a one-year saving of more than £2bn on the projected figure, according to DWP documents.
At time of writing, it remains unclear how the government attempts to make the two key numbers match up. On the one hand, it says there are only about £440m (at 2005 prices) of savings a year to be made by making sure only the people who need the allowance get it.
But the aim of the reforms, according to the latest forecasts from DWP, is to save £2.8bn over three years.
Logically, the only way to do that is to reduce significantly the amount that “genuine” claimants receive or raise the bar so that a smaller number of people with severe disabilities will be able to claim.
The government has not yet said how much new claimants will get or what the initial assessment will look like.
“This is being rushed through to meet Treasury targets.”
Lord Colin Low, president of Disability Alliance, 17 January 2012
Leaving aside the question of whether the Bill is being rushed, it’s undeniably true that Treasury cost-cutting is pushing the reform agenda.
The DWP has simply been told to make the 20 per cent saving on the projected DLA bill.
That number has nothing to do with an estimate of the needs of disabled people – which were not even mentioned by the civil servants who wrote the final impact assessment on the proposed changes – and everything to do with reducing the budget deficit.
By Patrick Worrall
There are 14 comments on this post
disabled people are being attacked by this government, and bit by bit its taking away disabled rights that have taken years to fight for, the disabled are now being gradually classed as scroungers, and that to be disabled is a national liability.that the country cant afford,and now you see the truth our peers are to finish early because they want their dinner,
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It seems to me to be perfectly legitimate to have periodic reassessments of people claiming DLA whose condition had some prospects of improvement, especially as it’s not means-tested. But that would just need the introduction of a re-assessment process rather than a whole new benefit. But, as you say, this reform is driven to make cuts not to ensure that the benefit reaches the right people. To that extent, opponents of the change are right. If DLA was retruned to the original interpretations of categories of need as when it was originally introduced, along with appropriate re-assessment, money would undoubtedly be saved, while ensure people who were genuinely disabled received benefits.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There are already regular reassessments. If you don’t meet the criteria for an indefinite award, you’re given a fixed-length award, at the end of which you must re-claim, going through the whole process again.
They already have the power to re-examine the case of anyone on any sort of award, even indefinite, whenever they like – they just don’t tend to use it. I believe previous explanations of this have been that it wouldn’t be efficient – it wouldn’t be likely to save more than it would cost. I have no source to hand for that, though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cathy/Patrick,
Dunno what all the shockhorror’s about. The Tories are simply doing what they always do – attack the poor, sick and old. They have never ever introduced a piece of legislation worth more than a carrot to help the most vulnerable. Their Yank-infected neocon version is even worse than their traditional manufacture of misery. They have as much social conscience as a cornered rat in a sewer. They’ll never change.
While you were about it you could have compared the total amount of Disability Allowance payments with tax dodging scams pulled by Hartnett at HMRC on behalf of Vodafone. After all, business scams fund the Tories via their Canary Wharf and transnational bankers paymasters and public school chums.
And next time we get all this tripe about “public debt” you might highlight the TOTAL amount of tax outstanding from transnational companies and rich individuals. That’s the ripoff the Tories don’t want anyone to examine while they’re robbing society to keep their chums wallowing in pigswill.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The fault lies with the DWP for not recalling people often enough for medical re-assessments by a doctor. If they did, they would find some people’s condition and disabilities had lessened reducing their beneit but also some had worsened thereby increasing the benefit.
What the gov are doing from changing DLA from a 3 tier system to a system is to save money. People in the middle tier with moderate to severe disabilities will have their benefits reduced to the lower level. This is how the gov expect to save money.
I have had 5 DWP medical examinations by independent doctors in 12 years. Some would say this is enough, some would say it is not enough.
Under the present system the DWP could recall my yearly for re-assessment if they wanted to. They choose not to, because in the medical report from the independent doctor app by the DWP the doctor has to give a prognosis. In my case it must be very poor as the DWP have come to the conclusion from this report that there is unlikely to be any improvement whiich is why I was awarded an indefinite award at the highest rate both for care and mobility. All this can be stopped and taken away if the DWP have good reason to.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
disabled people are already suffering even before the welfare reform bill goes though or not. i suffer with Epilepsy, Asthma,sever sleep apnoea,Diabetes, High blood pressure, Sever Psoriasis, Arthritis,and Depression. and i feel that the goal posts are being moved.So instead of being given an even playing field i feel i have to explain my disabilities then have to show that i am having to be cared for and who by. and now i am being asked if i can self medicate. i lost my job as a care assistant at a nursing home. now i feel i have been put out to die. i have been waiting over a year for an appeal and am still waiting.i was put on Employment and Support Allowence at the end of September then i was sent on an assessment on 8/12/11 which i was already told i would fail by some people i now when i said that i had a sick note for three months from my doctor the responce was thats fine when you are working but means nothing now you are on benifits. so i have to wait now for another appeal welfare rights have said could take a year. in the mean time i have no support at all. have no money for rent no money for food or heating or electric. so who do i turn too…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If you have an ESA appeal pending, they should be paying you ESA at the basic rate (if you meet the income criteria, at least). Once you inform them of your wish to appeal, they should start paying again. The amount paid is the same as JSA, but it is still ESA.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The fact that the government have stated they hope to save 20% by introducing the new system indicates they know exactly who will be most affected by this change. They couldn’t make this prediction without doing their maths and concluding which group of people they will to ‘cull’ from the new PIP which will replace DLA.
As all present recipriants of DLA including those on indefinite awards will be required to submit to this new medical, those whose benefit is decreased or removed will undoubtedly appeal.
The cost of all these appeals will be astronomical. Millions upon millions.
One wonders if the govt are going to save all that much money in the long run, what with ESA and the new PIP appeals starting April 2013.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“. . . but they have no legal duty to inform DWP of their change in circumstances, and there is no automatic reassessment of claimants.”
That’s not true – there is a legal obligation to notify improvements in condition – as long as they’re permanent, it would be foolish otherwise (though I know one person who was so panicked by the instruction that she thought she had to report every good day, until I put her right). That’s made perfectly clear on the notice of award and on the annual increase notices.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Philip 17 January 2012 at 7:43 pm
It seems to me to be perfectly legitimate to have periodic reassessments of people claiming DLA whose condition had some prospects of improvement, especially as it’s not means-tested”
The question of means-testing is entirely irrelevant to the question of periodic reassessment.
It’s in the nature of disabilities that they do have a tendency to be permanent, I don’t know a single person on DLA, and over the years I’ve known a lot, whose condition is even remotely temporary. But Atos seems happy to reassess amputees, just in case they have lobster genes and have regrown a missing leg or two, or congenitally blind or deaf people in case they’ve magically recovered their sight or hearing. For pity’s sake why?
Reassess those with conditions likely to be temporary by all means, though I can’t think of one which would warrant DLA offhand, but just leave alone those with conditions that are never going to improve, or can only get worse with time – there can be no justification for making already difficult lives harder.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
One has to examine what a ‘life’ is and means to justify illness and money given in conjunction with quality of life. It seems logical to see and test people properly and take account of their family life. I am nearly 50 years, had one hundred jobs and clearly mentally ill. I got diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome. I would have loved to have had mental health support, to which I was not deemed serious enough. I have no relationships except my elderly mom there and never had no children, which deep down upsets me. I have now had my DLA, lowest care component taken away – do you call that fair and where is my quality of life ? I feel people are ‘evil’
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just done a comparison between my current DLA award and the new replacement PIP.
The new system is a points system and its not looking good for me at least.
Despite now being on the highest award now for care and mobility under DLA, I could expect to placed in one or both of the lowest award categories in the new PIP, which would mean a loss of hundreds of pounds per month.
I could expect to lose as much as £500 per month, plus the extra severe disability premium of £231 per month I get because I am currently on the highest award.
If I get awarded approx £180 per month on the PIP system then I will consider myself very lucky.
Who says this Welfare Reform is not about saving money.
Who says this new system is not about saving money. Of course it is.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] Independence Payments, by 20% (actually it’s a bit more complicated than that; see Channel 4′s FactCheck for a breakdown) – a figure that campaigners and independent assessments say will result in [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As a disabled person who had to wait 18 years for a diagnosis, and a further 3 years and 4 appeals to finally get disability, I think the cuts to disability are totally wrong. Why not cut the 2nd home income to MP’s and such, how about a higher tax on those with enough income to afford it, those who can afford 3 homes, fancy cars, boats etc. How would they like enough of a cut to their income to cause them to have to turn off heating, to not be able to go out because the cuts to the disabled taxi cards have made it too expensive to go anywhere but round the corner, especially when you can’t use public transport, not to be able to afford the cost of the foods necessary for a diet that helps with IBS & such. As someone who is supposed to be on a Wheat, Gluten, Dairy free diet I can’t afford the alternatives already, I will be caused even more suffering if my income is cut any further. I wish some of those fools making the decisions could take my place for a week, then see what they’d cut. I hope they are all able to live with their conscience’.
I am not a scrounger, generations of my family have and are working & paying tax, including myself, My benefit has been more…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0