Here are my answers & comments.
1 Labour will ‘start by transforming the way the WCA is designed to make it more effective at helping disabled people into work’. There are no details of what this transformation will involve, except that ‘disabled people would receive a copy of the assessor's report of how their health condition may affect their ability to work, and information about the support that is available in their local area to help them’.
1a. Labour must ensure the disables persons’ Doctor, specialist & support workers letters & medical diagnosis, prognosis & assessment of the individuals Health/disability. The assessor must not disregard medical practitioners’ information submissions, these people have often worked with the individual under assessment for many months or even years.
1b. Many physical disabilities, physical illnesses & mental Health Illnesses create a variable level of ability/disability from day to day. This cannot be seen by an assessor during a one-off interview. It would be more appropriate to ask the individual and/or his/her carer to keep a diary of their condition over one four (4) week period. This information should then be added to the report.
1c. While, I agree that it is beneficial to have people join the workforce, any attempt to do this must be balanced with ‘common sense.’ It is all very well getting a disabled person working, but if the cost of support staff for him/her & the overall cost of employing the individual is outweighed by their productivity and the health benefits of him/her working then forcing them to work should be scrapped.
2 Labour will also ‘continue to produce an independent review of the WCA’. In addition, they will ‘ask the Office for Disability Issues to support an independent scrutiny group of disabled people to work together with the independent reviewer to assess whether the test is being conducted in a fair and transparent way’. Labour says it will only ‘commit to responding to the recommendations of this report’, there is no undertaking to actually act on them.
2a. An ongoing assessment of the assessment process is crucial – one area of concern is that this should include after three (3) Months a report from the individuals’ medical practitioners and ‘a second 4 week diary’ produced by the individual and/or their ‘in-work’ support staff. This would show two things – 1, How accurate and fair the original decision was and – 2, whether the individual is coping with the number of hours, the work environment and/or working.
2b. Labour must undertake to act in all cases where there are shown to be discrepancies’ documented circumstance changes, additional health, mental health, or disability problems especially if these are caused or thought to be caused by working.
3 Labour will introduce ‘penalties for poor performance by assessors, measured both on the number of times decisions are overturned by DWP decision makers, and the number of times they are overturned on appeal.’
3a. It surely isn’t enough to ‘penalise’ assessors when assessments are shown to be below standard, factually faulty or deliberately fraudulent, the assessor must be disciplined, an apology issued & compensation paid to the person of whom the report was written.
3b If an assessor acts in an unprofessional manor, continually makes below standard, factually faulty reports s/he should be retrained. If an assessor makes a deliberately fraudulent comment or full assessment of an individual they should be dismissed (and never employed in similar work again)
3c. If Management or supervisors fail to carry out ongoing assessments, ongoing in-house training and/or fail to meet performance targets the too should be disciplined, in extreme cases dismissed.
Critics may argue that: offering unspecified changes to the WCA amounts to very little; that a group of disabled people put forward by, for example Disability Rights UK, may not command universal support, especially if there is only a commitment to ‘respond’ to recommendations, and that penalties that are hidden behind a cloak of ‘commercial confidentiality’ – as they undoubtedly will be – will offer no reassurance whatsoever.
Commercial confidentiality – in this instance (if the assessments are carried out by a private company) privacy and confidentiality rules must be relaxed so a full and fair assessment of the company’s performance can become a matter of record.
But would Labour’s proposals be an improvement on what we have already? Tell us what you think in the comments section below and we’ll ask the Labour party for their response.
