Key points from the Gregg Review of Conditionality
Paul Gregg's review of benefits and conditionality was published on 2nd November. The web page and full report are available here. For ease of reference, I've put the main points and press coverage below. However, the actual report is definitely worth reading - just the list of recommendations at the end of the report is 7 pages long!
Three levels of claimant
The headline recommendation is a single working age benefit, with advisers splitting customers into 3 different groups based on their level of job readiness. The group memberships and required activities are outlined below. Gregg suggests that the groups could be approximated using existing benefits prior to the introduction of a single benefit, and recommends longer-term research into a screening tool to split customers into the groups, instead of basing the groups on the benefits received.
'Work-Ready' Group
Members:
- JSA claimants
Proposals:
- Mandatory fast-track to the FND Gateway stage for ex-offenders, people with health conditions or disabilities, the homeless, and drug misusers, in addition to existing fast-track claimants
- Various changes to provide more support for people with health conditions and disabilities, e.g. sharing doctor's assessments with JSA advisers, some kind of Condition Management Programme for JSA claimants
- Reviewing 'easements' from JSA that allow advisers to remove conditionality from harder-to-help customers. It's interesting that stopping the parking of JSA claimants is seen as increasing support to the hardest-to-help.
Progression to Work
Members:
- ESA claimants
- Lone parents or partners with a youngest child between one and seven
Proposals:
- Work Focused Interviews with mandated attendance
- Beefing up the action planning process
- Giving advisers more power to issue directions to customers, and mandating work-related activities based on the action plan
- Increasing lone parent support
No Conditionality
Members:
- Current ESA Support group members (severe mental health problems, undergoing chemo, terminally ill, or unable to speak/write/sign)
- Lone parents or partners with a child under 12 months
- Full-time carers
Proposals:
- Members of this group would still have full access to support on demand, but no requirement to attend WFIs and no action planning requirements
Sanctions
The report recommends using the same sanctions process and penalties across all customer groups, with faster and clearer decision making. The graduated system of sanctions is (1) formal warning, (2)1 week's JSA or 50% of WRA premium, (3) 2 week's JSA or 100% of WRA premium, (4) formal investigation, leading to e.g. full time community work, (5) 4 week's benefit loss or transfer of benefits to a responsible third party for Progression to Work group. Provider advisers should be able to use the same sanctions system as JCP staff. A larger scale, longer-term review of sanctions is also proposed.
Other recommendations
- As a trial, advisers should get a flexible discretionary fund to spend on customers during the FND Gateway, which would be taken out of the money saved on FND provision if it worked
- Work For Your Benefit should include support and jobsearch, rather than pure workfare
- ILMs merit a number of positive mentions, including as a way of improving Work For Your Benefit
Comment
The report is broader than the initial remit suggested, and substantially deepens the Freud report's recommendations. This is in part because it uses a more evidence-based approach to make specific recommendations about benefits structure, and suggests trials and gradual change where there is a lack of evidence. There are a few areas where conditionality would be reduced (e.g. full time carers), but the general thrust is that the vast majority of people should be talking about work and carrying out work-related activities on a regular basis. It's worth noting that both Purnell and Gregg made very clear that the report was independent and did not represent government policy, although Purnell did agree with its general thrust. It's also worth noting that the report provides answers to a fair proportion of the SSAC's concerns.
Press reports and reactions
BBC report
DWP press release
The Guardian highlights the clash between the report and the views of anti-reform campaigners
Cartoonist immediately picks up on the true message of the report
The Daily Mail agrees with cartoonists - it is all about forcing mothers of young children into work
Anti-reform campaigners are bereft of friends. Even the Independent is editorialising in favour of Gregg
Comments
Many health conditions dont have clear cut boundaries. I suffer with 'Multiple Sclerosis' and have numerous health issues and would find it impossible to work. I get fatigued very easilly, my hand trembles, my walking is very restricted, I have weak bladder, poor memory to name just a few problems. Hospital consultant has retired me from ever being able to work again so where would I stand with this situation.
One of the problems with welfare reform is that it worries everyone who claims benefits, because everybody fears they'll lose out by it. It probably doesn't help that I can't answer your question about how the changes would affect you individually. What would happen to you would depend on a number of factors, including whether doctors think you can work (which they don't, by the sounds of it), what benefits you're currently claiming, and what reforms actually take place in the end.
Probably the best indicator is your eligibility for the new Employment Support Allowance, which is actually in place now and is unlikely to be changed hugely by the proposals. Here's a page at the MS Society about the new allowance, which replaces IB and SDA. I would hope that any changes continue to protect people who can't work, while giving advisers the power to support those who can.
I have not read the report in full, but am assessing it from the perspective of the mentally ill. I would suggest that as well as single mothers the report is clearly aimed at people with disabilities, in particular mentally disabled. In the white paper "Raising expectations and increasing support: reforming welfare for the future. DWP, 10th Dec 2008" it is clearly stated that (my words) people with serious disabilities will not be subject to any process that could lead to an aggravation of their disability. However everyone claiming Income support will be and is being assessed. This assessment process in itself can lead to an aggravation of some mental disabilities. Also if I have interpreted the paper correctly 90 per cent of claimants on income support will be found to be eligible for preparation for work plans, and attendance will be mandatory, financial santions to be imposed on non compliance. Am I correct then in assuming that the govenment does not think withdrawal of benefits, visits to court, and being forced to interact with "normal" people cannot or will not or are not processes that aggravate a disability. Maybe they need to consult a Phychiatrist.
Hi Maureen,
I'm intrigued by your focus on the 'mentally disabled'. I think you're referring to people with learning difficulties/disabilities, rather than people with mental health problems. People with learning disabilities are probably the most vulnerable group in the entire system, but I'm not sure how they would be affected.
I suspect that if a person with major learning disabilities had benefits withdrawn because they were unable to comply with conditionality such as regular meetings with an adviser, there would be an outcry. I also suspect that nobody in their right mind in JCP would withdraw benefits from such a person for that reason in the first place, even with the powers under the new legislation. Do you have a reason for thinking otherwise?
Update 19/11 - The bill that codifies many of the Gregg recommendations has now passed into law. Story here.