“The one thing I am absolutely unreservedly and implacably opposed to in all of this is a real world test.” – Chris Grayling, Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, 2011.
But the current, not-real-world test isn’t working.
It is not uncommon for a claimant to be signed off work by a GP, and yet be refused benefits. Nor is it unknown for an employer to consider an employee to be too ill to return to work, yet the employee is refused ESA. The DWP argue that this is because the ESA assessment considers the ability to carry out any job, not just the one the claimant was in before becoming ill. However this still conflicts with the GP’s judgement, and the questions asked are so poor that it is often unclear what job the DWP has in mind when assessing a person as fit for work. …
When a system works well, appeals against decisions occur in marginal cases. In terms of the WCA, the only people appealing should be those who received just under the required points. After all, most people know whether or not they can walk 200m, dress themselves, prepare a meal, remember to take all their medicine etc. They won’t appeal if they can appreciate that the decision was fair (n.b. fraud in DLA costs a mere 0.5% of DLA payments, less than the cost of official error. Fraud in Incapacity Benefit is even lower at 0.3%. ESA will not be assessed until 2013). Yet up to February 2010, 60% of appeals overturned in favour of the claimant were for cases that had originally been awarded zero points. A further 23% had been awarded between 3 and 6 points (there are no 1 or 2 point descriptors), leaving just 17% who had been awarded between 7 and 14 points. This is unacceptable. A high percentage of claimants are failing to even come close to having a proper assessment of their health made. …
There is high variability between decision makers [who are non-medical staff at the Department of Work and Pensions]. Professor Harrington, the head of the independent reviews into the ESA assessment, said that “consistency and quality of decision making appear to be key issues.” This is particularly the case now that Harrington’s previous recommendations have led to an increased importance of the decision maker’s role, relative to the ATOS assessment. …
Professor Paul Gregg, before the WCA was rolled out nationally, reported that, “the test so far has caused a huge amount of anguish to the people who have gone through it. We need to have something that is working accurately before we apply it nationally. We shouldn’t roll this out until we have something that is working.” Gregg was involved in the design of the new system (ESA and WCA)and has been described as “one of the most rigorous and high-impact social policy academics in the UK.”
 Dryburgh and Lancashire,The Work Capability Assessment, 2010, Citizen’s Advice Scotland http://www.cas.org.uk/publications/work-capability-assessment
 HC Deb, 28 June 2011, c662W
 New disability test “is a complete mess,” says expert. 22nd Feb 2011, The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/22/new-disability-test-is-a-complete-mess
Baumberg, September 27th 2012, Paul Gregg: new ideas for disability, employment and welfare reform. Inequalities. http://inequalitiesblog.wordpress.com/2012/09/27/paul-gregg-disability-employment-speech/