Incapacity Benefit ‘MOTs’ –
Unnecessary and Counterproductive
by

Lynne Jones MP

The line in Alistair Darling’s speech on July 4 to the IPPR mentioning fixed periods for incapacity benefit "so that we can review the claim and offer more help and support" would have gone largely unnoticed had it not been for the press briefing he gave the previous evening. Journalists were told that, apart from those severely disabled people who had no prospects of recovery, all recipients of incapacity benefit would be subject to repeat medical tests every 3 years. These were immediately dubbed disabled MOT tests and led to angry exchanges during Prime Minister’s Question Time.

Tony Blair must have been briefed on the proposals when he told the Commons:

"It cannot be right that … people coming on to incapacity benefit will be paid an average of about 4000 a year for say 10, 15 or 20 years with no-one ever checking whether they have recovered from their injuries and are able to work"

and also emphasised the "vast" cost of 7 billion.

But was he well briefed?

During the passage of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, the Disability Benefits Minister, Hugh Bayley, explained that the doctors who carry out the All Work Tests on behalf of the Benefits Agency are given five options in terms of specifying intervals between subsequent tests. These options are 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months and ‘no significant change anticipated’. More than 50% of those who are tested are recommended for retest within 12 months or less. In only 28% of cases was no pre-ordained re-test time set. Subsequently, the Government acquired powers to carry out tests even if there was no obvious change in a claimant’s condition and introduced the Personal Capability Assessment (PCA), a stringent medical test which takes into account what work a person can do.

Furthermore, the latest figures from the Office of National Statistics show that the cost of incapacity benefit (IB) has been declining since 1994 and is expected to be nearer 6 billion than 7 billion. They also show that fraud in claiming IB (worth a meagre 69 at the long-term rate) is virtually non-existent. Only three cases (0.5%) were found out of a sample of over 1400, whereas official errors were four times this level.

Perhaps it would be too much to expect the Prime Minister to have grasped all the detail but how could he have been so wrong! And surely Tony should have been aware of the claim in the manifesto that the number getting IB has fallen by 11% since 1997!

I can only guess as to the rationale for this latest attempt to create the impression that thousands of disabled people are receiving generous benefits that they don’t deserve. Perhaps it is to divert attention away from the Government’s privatisation agenda or just simply because Alistair wanted to say something new to boost his tough image with Daily Mail readers. Either way, the Government quickly back-tracked and let it be known that the new arrangements would "only" apply to new claimants. Rather than having new legislation, as Alastair had initially told reporters, regulations would be introduced under the provisions for compulsory "work-focussed" interviews in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act. These will take place at least every three years and may result in a referral to an agency doctor for an assessment. The Government has avoided answering my parliamentary question seeking to ascertain how many extra PCAs will take place and what impact this will have on the current 90 to 170 day delays.

I share the Government’s aim of encouraging disabled people into work. One million of them say they would like to work and 400,000 believe they could work, given the right support. Programmes under the New Deal are giving that support but disabled people need the chance to consider the possibility of working in an atmosphere free from threats. The proposals for more medical tests are clearly unnecessary and counterproductive.

 August 2001