Forum Home → Discussion → Work capability issues and ESA → Thread
Merging ESA with DLA
IDS looking at merging ESA with DLA (PIP) or merging the tests for the two benefits -
The work and pensions secretary, who says he has accepted the findings of numerous reviews (of the WCA), says he wants to soften what he describes as the “binary choice” in the system, which places claimants into three groups. These are: fit for work, unfit for work but able to take part in training for work, and unfit to work or train ...
He is ... looking at the idea of merging ESA (paid to those out of work) with disability living allowance (DLA – paid to fund the costs of disabled people who are both in work and out of work) under universal credit. Alternatively, he might just merge the two tests for the benefits.
Duncan Smith has a more favourable view of the DLA test. “My sense was if you just looked at disability living allowance, that doesn’t reach the same absolute. The test is not about ‘can you work or can’t you work’, it is looking at your condition.”
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/02/iain-duncan-smith-interview …
How much do you want to bet that DLA/PIP eventually become means tested?
Personally I am all for that happening.
I fail to understand the reasoning as to why multi millionaires are able to obtain a Mobility Car and have up to another £85 a week to spend on champers!
It will not change the ethos behind DLA/PIP but it should change the right for those to receive it when their already substantial capital/income is able to absorb those extra costs that a disability brings with it.
Hmmmm….have to say I don’t agree with you there.
For every lottery-winner PIP claimant (and I’d take a bet on there being very few of them) there are thousands of IR ESA-reliant claimants for whom that additional, non means tested income is essential (not to mention all those clients who have working partners, occupational pensions, etc, which mean they get only a years worth of CB ESA).
Having a long term disability generally means life is more expensive and whatever your income I don’t see why some additional assistance shouldn’t be available regardless of your circumstances. And if PIP does become means-tested don’t you just know it’ll be draconian means-testing (and will result in yet more financial hardship and desperation).
i don’t like that idea either.
quite apart from the unlikelihood of multimillionaires even bothering to apply ....it just wouldn’t work, and would end up with people who need the help not getting it, as now…..
that was the idea behind means testing child benefit, and theoretically that’s a nice idea.. but assumes that the people in control of the pursestrings in a well off family will in fact spend said money on the child. originally, that was given to to mothers, since that at least guaranteed that they had some money to feed their children with…
How much do you want to bet that DLA/PIP eventually become means tested?
I agree. Owen Jones makes a good argument regarding why means testing is not good for some benefits and by doing that what sort of society and view of people using the welfare state that creates. I don’t know if links work on here, so it may have to be a cut and paste job: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/dont-be-fooled-iain-duncan-smith-s-attack-on-pensioners-is-really-an-attack-on-all-of-us-8591518.html
The two benefits serve fundamentally different purposes, with ESA being an earnings replacement benefit for people with a health condition that limits their capability for work, and DLA/PIP being a disability benefit that is paid in recognition of the fact that living with an impairment brings about extra costs, over and above those for people without such an impairment. Highlighting the simple fact that the latter can be claimed by people in and out of work fails to understand the basic concept of why a disability benefit is an important measure in looking to achieve independent living for disabled people, by helping with the provision of sufficient funds to sustain a healthy and active life.
That said, I have long thought that there could and should be some thought given to some kind of harmonisation of the various assessments people need to go through for benefits, social care, housing and so on. I remember being part of a working group with Jeremy Hunt when he was in opposition, and his researcher estimated that parents of disabled children need to answer something like 1,700 different questions, of which around 25% are duplicated 4 times or more, in establishing their rights to support. The bureaucratic entanglement, which often seems designed to prevent, rather than enable, access to entitlements, must surely be something to look at reducing. However, if it’s being suggested by IDS, one cannot help but suspect that it’s basically looking to make cuts and save money, rather than any more profound ambitions.
The two benefits serve fundamentally different purposes, with ESA being an earnings replacement benefit for people with a health condition that limits their capability for work,
Didn’t sickness ‘pension’ end in 2008?
ESA was set up as a temporary benefit to assist people to move into work.
The Support Group was for those deemed too hard to help back into the workplace, but the assumption was the claimant would be heading back to work.
FWIW merging the ‘test’ would make a lot of sense imo considering the policy intention of ESA.
I don’t remember ESA being a “temporary” benefit at all to be honest. It replaced incapacity benefit and income support paid due to incapacity, i.e. the contribution-based benefit and the means-tested benefit. It was founded on the notion of “looking at what people can do, rather than what they can’t”.
Thus the work capability assessment (WCA) was introduced, with the third part of the test, the work-focused health-related assessment (WFHRA) intended to produce a report as to how people could be assisted back into work. The WFHRA was suspended by the Coalition government back in 2010, because it was claimed that results were mixed and they wanted to concentrate on reducing the backlog of WCA’s. And we all now how well that went….
Personally I am all for that happening.
I fail to understand the reasoning as to why multi millionaires are able to obtain a Mobility Car and have up to another £85 a week to spend on champers!
It will not change the ethos behind DLA/PIP but it should change the right for those to receive it when their already substantial capital/income is able to absorb those extra costs that a disability brings with it.
So on this logic you are in favour of means testing Retirement Pension, or indeed, all of the non-means tested benefits?
I don’t remember ESA being a “temporary” benefit at all to be honest. It replaced incapacity benefit and income support paid due to incapacity, i.e. the contribution-based benefit and the means-tested benefit. It was founded on the notion of “looking at what people can do, rather than what they can’t”.
Thus the work capability assessment (WCA) was introduced, with the third part of the test, the work-focused health-related assessment (WFHRA) intended to produce a report as to how people could be assisted back into work. The WFHRA was suspended by the Coalition government back in 2010, because it was claimed that results were mixed and they wanted to concentrate on reducing the backlog of WCA’s. And we all now how well that went….
It’s possibly with the benefit of experience and hindsight - but this says temporary to me.
23 Existing claimants will remain on their
existing benefits. However, many have
potentially manageable conditions
which may have changed or improved
while they have been on benefits.
We propose to work more proactively
with this group of people, balancing
their responsibilities to prepare for a
return to work with the need to treat
them fairly.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/272235/6730.pdf
It’s possibly with the benefit of experience and hindsight - but this says temporary to me.
23 Existing claimants will remain on their
existing benefits. However, many have
potentially manageable conditions
which may have changed or improved
while they have been on benefits.
We propose to work more proactively
with this group of people, balancing
their responsibilities to prepare for a
return to work with the need to treat
them fairly.https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/272235/6730.pdf
I am really struggling to see your point John. The intention of the introduction of ESA was certainly to try and move people off incapacity benefits and into work, but I still don’t see how this translates into claiming that, in entitlement terms, this makes ESA a “temporary” benefit, whatever such a thing is in the first place. Nor what relevance that has to apparent kite flying proposals to merge the assessments of ESA and DLA.
Nobody likes a smart arse but here goes.
I did predict in a number of threads on here some time back that the inevitable consequence of PIP and ESA adopting points scoring models that utilised private agenices to assess would be a merging. One form and one face to face to cover 2 scenarios. Obvious cost savings to government. Joe Public will buy it totaly. DWP will adore it. I totally disagree with it as an idea but the logic is sadly easy to sell to those it needs selling to.
Can’t find the aforesaid contributions now. Rightsnet seems to have deleted them or at least not made them accessible by search. Anyway, IDS clearly listens to me so if you have anything you want me to pass on… 😊
It’s possibly with the benefit of experience and hindsight - but this says temporary to me.
23 Existing claimants will remain on their
existing benefits. However, many have
potentially manageable conditions
which may have changed or improved
while they have been on benefits.
We propose to work more proactively
with this group of people, balancing
their responsibilities to prepare for a
return to work with the need to treat
them fairly.https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/272235/6730.pdf
I am really struggling to see your point John. The intention of the introduction of ESA was certainly to try and move people off incapacity benefits and into work, but I still don’t see how this translates into claiming that, in entitlement terms, this makes ESA a “temporary” benefit, whatever such a thing is in the first place. Nor what relevance that has to apparent kite flying proposals to merge the assessments of ESA and DLA.
I’m sorry I’m not able to make my point clearer. I’ll try my best.
365days of entitlement makes it a temporary benefit.
My POV is that the idea ESA is an ‘earnings replacement’ benefit is false other than for for the first 13weeks - NI conts and Sick Note and then post WCA =365days unless an exception applies from Sch3 or Reg 35.
ESA otherwise is as IS and dependent on other income and is therefore not an earnings replacement benefit.
It’s possibly with the benefit of experience and hindsight - but this says temporary to me.
23 Existing claimants will remain on their
existing benefits. However, many have
potentially manageable conditions
which may have changed or improved
while they have been on benefits.
We propose to work more proactively
with this group of people, balancing
their responsibilities to prepare for a
return to work with the need to treat
them fairly.https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/272235/6730.pdf
I am really struggling to see your point John. The intention of the introduction of ESA was certainly to try and move people off incapacity benefits and into work, but I still don’t see how this translates into claiming that, in entitlement terms, this makes ESA a “temporary” benefit, whatever such a thing is in the first place. Nor what relevance that has to apparent kite flying proposals to merge the assessments of ESA and DLA.
I’m sorry I’m not able to make my point clearer. I’ll try my best.
The necessity to invent ESA was that claimants were highly unlikely to come off ‘the sick’ and move into work.
Therefore ESA was always focussed on returning claimants to the workplace - or at least according to the blurb, sorry, policy details/explanations.
As ESA evolved to include the 365 day limit of entitlement to Contribution Related ESA.
My POV is that the idea ESA is an ‘earnings replacement’ benefit is false other than for for the first 13weeks - subject to NI conts and Sick Note and then post WCA =365days max. unless an exception applies from Sch3 or Reg 35.
ESA otherwise is as IS was and dependent on other household income/capital.
The reasoning for the merging is related to the changes to ESA and it being of temporary benefit as an Income Replacement Benefit.
As UC rolls out further why would an administration want the mess of a WCA and a PIP assessment for IR ESA?
Unless that sounds wrong?
‘temporary’? - there has always been a degree of ‘short term’ & ‘long term’ in NI based (earnings replacement)benefits for ‘incapacity’. In the old days DHSS National Insurance benefit offices were split into short term and long term benefit sections (and were often located seperately from Supp Ben offices).
The length of time after which claimants moved from the short term to long term benefit changed with each reform - for example Sickness benefit to Invalidity Benefit (& eligibility for SDA) after 28 weeks. Remember when there were three rates of IB so the long term (higher - ‘long term’) rate was only payable after 52 weeks? Now - SSP for 28 wks then ESA - but 13 weeks assessement period for ESA. Arguably, the assessment period is the ‘short term’ part of ESA (at least where SSP is not payable).
The concept of ST & LT NI benefits become further complicated by merging separate NI & means tested benefits for specific claimant groups into a single ‘combined’ benefit (Unemployment Benefit and Income Support, Incapacity Benefit & IS). Further by having 2 levels on ‘limited capability’ - WRAG & SG (although IVB had an ‘intermediate’ ‘fit within limits’ category).
Then consider (arguably) the use of a measure of ‘disability’ as a proxy for ‘incapacity’ (the original All Work Test criteria).
So there has always been some overlap at a theoretical level between incapacity and disability. Those historic concepts and overlaps suggest there would be nothing to stop the ESA ‘support group’ simply being re-labled as the ‘disability’ benefit (and regarded as ‘long term’) to replace DLA/PIP.
So ESA inc. ‘LCFW’ would be regarded as the ‘incapacity’ (and short term?) benefit (within or outside UC) but with no additional WRA component rate payable.
Confuse further by having ESA(C) outside of UC but still limited to 365 days unless SG - or only available if meet SG?). Note the nice little saving!
Which of course would leave the interesting question of whether ESA(C) with the support group crtieria as a ‘disability’ benefit would also be available to claimants who met the SG, but not the NI conts, qualifying criteria but whose income exceeded UC? If not, in effect, means testing the ‘disability’ benefit for those who had not paid sufficient NI and/or counting as income in the means test. Another nice little saving!
All things are possible in the Alice in Wonderland world of welfare ‘reform’!