"The 'vision' statement that everyone is expected to contribute is a superficially attractive maxim, but it must be recognised that a significant
number of disabled people cannot reciprocate similar economic benefits to those conferred on them by society. It is therefore vital to be clearer about the meaning of contribute, to avoid stigmatising unemployed disabled people." (Ecas consultation response.)

Ecas has responded to the Department of Work and Pensions' welfare reform consultation entitled 'No one written off: reforming welfare to reward responsibility'. This response is available for download from the document list on this site. The response raises a number of concerns about the Government's welfare reform proposals, including the definition of disability, assessing work capability, the Access to Work scheme, disability discrimination, 'work for your benefit' and the proposed sanctions.

Definition of 'Disability'

Ecas believes that there should be greater clarity in the paper about the definition of disability. Current equalities policies emphasise the social model of disability and better account should be taken of the insights this achieves.

Assessing Work Capability

One of the key proposals is for a new Work Capability Assessment (WCA). It is a positive and appropriate step that the assessment procedures for
capability to work are refocused to emphasise what an individual can rather than cannot do, however Ecas has serious concerns that the proposed
procedure is overly medical in nature. This ignores the social model of disability. We also question whether a health professional, who may not have
experience in recruitment and selection or making adjustments to the workplace, is the best person to undertake this role, as planned. The WCA may result in the individual being identified as capable of work with adjustments or assistance in theory, but this is only meaningful if the assistance is available. In making this judgement, it is vital to accurately assess the framework of support that might be available, yet the WCA appears divorced from this assessment and a meaningful view of job prospects would be hard to achieve. Work capability does not automatically result in job prospects.

Access to Work

Ecas believes that the Access to Work scheme is tokenistic and that it is misleading to imply that it makes a significant contribution to allowing disabled people to be employed.

Access to Work currently helps approximately 16,000 people; however it is planned to increase the number of people benefiting from special aids and
equipment to 48,000 by 2013-2014. This means that, assuming the scheme reaches its target, Access to Work will only benefit approximately 0.7% of the
population of disabled people who are of working age. We believe Access to Work mainly benefits employers, rather than disabled employees or job applicants, because the application to the scheme is made once the individual is already in employment. Irrespective of the scheme, the employer is under a duty to make reasonable adjustments and in many cases would be likely to have to pay for adjustments even if the scheme did not. An applicant is not in a position to predict that he or she will benefit from the scheme at interview stage, so there is unlikely to be much of an influence on the employer's recruitment decision.

Disability Discrimination (Unfair Barriers)

The paper makes misleading claims about the role of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) in helping disabled people get jobs.

The Government falsely implies that it introduced this legislation, when in fact this was the work of the previous government. There is absolutely no
evidence provided for the claim that: "The DDA is already making a real difference to disabled people's lives". On the contrary, the DWP's own main research concludes from case studies that: the effect of individual disabled people enforcing their employment rights via the DDA, contrary to leading to improvements, creates cynicism on the part of employers; and that: "The reaction is often to blame the applicant". We believe that, if more disabled people are to gain employment, they must be granted far stronger means of enforcing their antidiscrimination employment rights.

'Work for your benefit'

The paper proposes introducing a stronger 'conditionality' principle - 'more support, more responsibility'. This principle also leads to a new 'workfare' policy.

The 'vision' statement that 'everyone is expected to contribute' is a superficially attractive maxim, but it must be recognised that a significant number of disabled people cannot reciprocate similar economic benefits to those conferred on them by society. It is therefore vital to be clearer about the
meaning of 'contribute', to avoid stigmatising unemployed disabled people.

For example, some of Ecas' clients receive benefits, and their impairments are severe enough to prevent them from being employed – we believe they
still make a valuable contribution to society by taking part in the classes and activities which we offer. Likewise, we do not believe that disabled volunteers
receive benefits without 'contributing'. There are more ways to contribute to society than paid work - there is, after all, 'more to life than work'.

Sanctions

The Government proposes to increase the level of sanctions for benefits offences, including the withdrawal of benefits entitlements.

Ecas believes that reducing or withdrawing entitlements for disabled people is likely to be a counter-productive step and will lead to greater public
expenditure in the long run because it will still be necessary to provide healthcare and welfare through alternative means.

For many who are likely to suffer these sanctions, the only alternative to benefits is private or voluntary sector support, which is inconsistent and is not
guaranteed. There is a serious risk that a 'spiral effect' will be created - once benefits are removed, the rest of people's lives tend to quickly disintegrate.

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, of which the UK is a signatory, demands commitment to satisfy the social, human right to
life, health and welfare. In particular, Article 28 determines that the UK is under a duty to provide an adequate standard of living and social protection
for disabled people. These rights might well be breached if benefits are withdrawn.