Rebuttal of arguments currently used by DWP for changes made to AtW
There are regular arguments that Access to Work rely on to justify the changes being made to the Access to Work (AtW) scheme. We would like to address each of these here.
Fraud/AtW administrative issues:
Access to Work fraud is often cited as a reason for needing to change the system. According to statistics printed in 2014, provided anecdotally by AtW officials (https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/2014/January/appdg-meets-Mike-penning), fraud stands at less than half percent (0.3%). Current DWP published statistics on fraud do not include any data on AtW.
The administrative system the scheme uses is wide open to fraud (read article here). This has been raised by BSL/English interpreters on several occasions since 2013 directly with AtW officials. Deaf clients and interpreters were anxious that they might unwittingly get caught up in fraud and requested guidance and procedures they could follow in order to safeguard themselves. This was never provided by AtW. (Further reading available at bottom of post, see links 1-3).
More recently, the National Union of British Sign Language Interpreters (NUBSLI) have tried to sort out numerous problems with the payment system with AtW (further reading available at bottom of post, see links 4 – 5), which highlighted the lack of any robust financial controls. Some of the issues raised were: no remittance advice being received, payments being revived with no invoice numbers meaning no reconciliation could be done, partial/under/over payment of invoices. Further to this, interpreters who have been owed money have not been paid statutory late payment fees (the government have been in breech or their own rules). A Freedom of Information request asking for the internal audit recommendations made on the scheme was refused on the basis of public interest and is in the process of being appealed.
The system used, is not accessible. AtW have recently stated that they have moved over to a digital system, however no one we are aware of has been offered or is using this.
Due to the lack of accessibility of the claims process, many claimants rely on the support of others to complete their forms. They are being asked to sign something that they do not know is correct or not. Similarly, Deaf claimants are being asked to enter into a contractual relationship with interpreters without understanding this. If AtW doesn’t pay then they are personally liable for any interpreters fees. Many deaf people aren’t aware of this. It is only good will that has prevented interpreters taking Deaf people to small claims court. The government has taken advantage of AtW being a discretionary grant and the arrangements place deaf and disabled people at risk.
AtW say they have only received eight complaints during September (2017). According to an FOI response: “The reconsideration process applies to decisions and the complaints process applies to other aspects of our service delivery as explained in the answer to FOI 3293. If a customer is unhappy with a decision they should request a reconsideration or, for example, if they are unhappy with the service they received they should complain. Once the reconsideration process is complete a customer cannot make a complaint about the decision at tier one or two”. 
“Reconsideration” is in itself a claimant making a complaint about the level of award they have been offered, yet these figures are not made available. Again, an FOI has been submitted and we are awaiting a response.
The cap being introduced is considered reasonable by AtW who say that no one person should receive in support costs more than one and a half times the average worker’s salary. They believe that by limiting the support rewarded to each individual they can “invest in reaching more people”.
There are several problems with this:
• It disproportionately impacts people who have higher support needs and is therefore discriminatory in nature.
• It limits AtW users ability to progress in their careers and creates a glass ceiling. Deaf and disabled people should not be disadvantaged by their access needs and have the right to be ambitious.
• Successful Deaf and disabled professionals encourages others to enter the job market.
• The government is encouraging people to take jobs that are manual or unskilled setting the disability movement back 30 years, when deaf job clubs were used.
It is widely accepted that Access to Work brings the treasury a return on investment. (See the Sayce report and the select committee report into AtW). Whilst the amount has been contentious, this fact has never been shown to be untrue.
Therefore the argument that reducing support will serve more people simply does not follow. The scheme does not impact on the governments spend, in fact it brings money in. It is for this reason that more people should be encouraged to use the scheme.
- DWP finance meeting 8 February 2016
- Meeting with DWP 16 November 2015
- NUBSLI evidence to Select Committee