Ahead of the Conservative Government’s first Budget today, disabled people are experiencing mixed messages about what to expect from their future support, writes Rose Grayston.
On the one hand, the Government made welcome election commitments to halve the gap between disabled and non-disabled people’s employment rates, which currently stands at 31.3 per cent, and to enhance and safeguard Personal Independence Payments (PIP). On the other hand, many disabled people are concerned by media speculation about cuts, taxation and means–testing of the benefits they use to live, work and participate in society.
Scope’s recent Enabling Work report explores the important role the disabled labour force could play in the country’s economic recovery. Expanding disabled people’s opportunities to work and delivering a 10 percentage point increase in the employment rate by 2030 would deliver significant benefits:
- an additional £45 billion in Gross Domestic Product;
- savings to the Exchequer of £12 billion;
- a 3-5 percentage point reduction in the proportion of disabled people living in relative poverty.
Scope is concerned about the impact that £12 billion of welfare savings could have on disabled people’s opportunities to fully participate in their communities and the economy. Media speculation that Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and PIP may be taxed or means-tested is especially troubling. All disabled people face extra costs as a result of the need for specialist equipment and services, amounting to on average £550 of additional spending each month. DLA and PIP provide on average £360 a month, enabling disabled people to manage some of these extra costs. For the 368,000 claimants who are in work, over half say they would not be able to work without it, and moves to tax or means-test DLA / PIP will affect this group disproportionately.
The Government’s ‘Disability Confident’ campaign seeks to improve employer attitudes, an ongoing challenge which 74% of disabled people feel have led to them losing out on jobs. Beyond this, change to policy and practice in three key areas is needed to halve the disability employment gap:
- Personal Independence Payments must not be taxed or means-tested;
- Disabled people must be at the heart of plans to revolve employment and skills policy, such as the ‘Northern Powerhouse’;
- The Government and employers must ensure disabled people can retain work and progress their careers, for example by expanding Access to Work and providing flexible leave entitlements;
- Work Capability Assessments should be replaced with Distance from Work assessments, providing specialist support to disabled people through personalised budgets.
Enabling disabled people to play their full and active role in the recovery has clear benefits for disabled workers and for the economy. Scope will be interested to see how the budget, and the Comprehensive Spending Review to come, will support this goal.
Rose Grayston is Senior Researcher at Scope.
Rose, I do get fed-up with politicians, news media presenters and researchers branding the words “disabled people” around as if it ONLY means one specific group of people. Surely, you and other commentators know that this is not the case?
For example, those on ESA – challenged in a diversity of ways – are those who have different causations to the physical or/and mental challenges they are now living amid the aim, by many, to get back on their feet and achieve employment goals. However, does this mean that such groups have to settle for any job? Do these groups have aspirations – skills and talent – that need to be recognised?
I do feel that a leader that forms policy on the basis of not even engaging with real people is not a strong leader – nor an Inspirational one. This is a shameful conclusion and reality of politicians in government and an opposition Labour government.
If the emphasis by politicians , as is with the news media, that government has produced hundreds of thousands of jobs, surely this nature of forcing an unfulfilling role to someone is not going reward both that individual, group or achieve the national growth is sustainability is not achieved.
Improvement to productivity has to be based on coherent decision-making and policy development based on meaningful engagement and listening to the sort of people and groups that do want fulfilling careers… or jobs. Where is this evidence?