Work and Health green paper

Just wanted to say thanks to everyone to sharing their analysis so far.  Anyone have a plan of attack other than sending in a written response to consultation (the contents of which will inevitably be ignored)?

Andrew Dutton - 01 November 2016 11:41 AM

Is the ‘Health and Work Conversation’ not just a re-hash of the Work-Focused Health-Related Assessment?

Little or no consideration that work is not a solution or even an option for some people, or that UC is especially disastrous for those who are unable to work at all, (and for those who are also carers)

Yes to both I think. And as for your subsequent post, I’d also agree that it’s leaning on the shirker narrative, even if it doesn’t say so out loud.

To that end, and given the paper’s heavy reliance on the Waddell paper about working setting you free, this is an interesting paper by Tom Shakespeare and others called Blaming the victim, all over again: Waddell and Aylward’s biopsychosocial (BPS) model of disability

Rather than emphasizing the supply side and blaming the victim, it is the demand side that should be targeted to ensure that employers are encouraged, supported, regulated and finally forced to give due consideration to disabled people as workers (Minton et al 2012). It is here that the greatest success in returning disabled people to the labour market is likely to be achieved. The comparison with Australia, which uses a more barriers-focused approach, shows that there are practical alternatives to the UK emphasis on the individual (OECD 2014).

It is also important to remember that some disabled people will not be able to work, regardless of the accommodation and provisions designed to help them into employment (Abberley 1996). Society must accept that work is not always appropriate or possible, and that for many disabled people humane and supportive alternatives to work are needed. These must not stigmatise those who are so supported, nor should non-working disabled people have to suffer poverty and social exclusion.

To an extent, this paper does at least begin to broaden some of that thinking to the responsibilities and roles of employers but the benefits side of thngs seems less clear cut to me.

Putting a line of communication between WRA provider and Work Coach will mute the effect of IM.

Continued imposition of in work conditionality in UC by the looks of it.

And an analogous scheme to reg 10 IFW, quelle surprise!

The govt has this afternoon added an equalities impact section to the green paper consultation:

There are now 46 questions in this consultation. On 16 December we added an extra equalities impact section.

https://consultations.dh.gov.uk/workandhealth/consult

(.... bit of an oversight!)

The Spartacus Network has published a response to the Green Paper -

What we found was truly shocking. In a Green Paper, touted as being mitigation for the cuts to the sickness benefit ESA, there was very little evidence that the cuts would be mitigated at all. Instead the Green Paper outlines yet another series of Work Programmes, using many of the familiar Prime Work Programme providers, supported by many of the same community and charity organisations as sub-primes.

What is truly startling ... are the numerous hypotheses put forward as facts, supported in part by evidence based on reports written by the DWP or for the DWP, or extremely weak evidence – one survey used only 5 people.  There is a deliberate conflation of sickness and disability – and there is no plan to provide specialist support to those who are healthy and disabled ....

.... This Green Paper should be read with caution; it works excessively hard at not justifying the cut it refuses to mention, and to distract the reader by painting sick people as a hairs-breadth away from recovery – which of course the Government is prepared to supply in the most ‘cost effective’ and consequently ineffective way possible.

https://spartacusnetwork.wordpress.com/2017/02/15/smokescreen-response-to-green-paper/