Abstract
Down the ages, Christian thinkers have attempted to understand the main characteristics of what it is to be human, relating how humans have moral and practical responsibilities for each other. In that context, disability is often misunderstood when the “normal human” is too rigidly defined and adopted as the basis for our understanding disability. A wider and more satisfactory perspective is that an active and aware Christian society[1] should care for all, including those with physical or mental needs that define disabled people.[2] Indeed, the construction of disability theology should encourage a concept of equality that is intrinsically bound up with our humanity, informed by the love of God and carried through by his Church. Christianity, and significantly the Catholic Church, accepted responsibilities for the disabled and care of the elderly. Over the years many religious institutions gained experience in the disability field, but increasingly struggled to meet care needs because of limited resources, personnel or training. Love defines how best to address disability through care and support. Since the 19th century the state has become an increasingly significant provider of health and care for the disabled, often working hand in hand with religious groups and organisations. In an increasingly secular society, religious influences endure through defining morality and distinguishing right and wrong. Such religious influences should be enhanced, enriched and more widely understood. Ideally, religious voices should be more respected, listened to and discussed. This is an appropriate time in the political cycle in the UK, with the election of a new government in July 2024, to reconsider disability care. The paper considers the ongoing disability reform programme for the payment of disability benefits. It discusses current approaches to disability in the United Kingdom, with its emphasis on economic costs in the context of the social doctrine of the Church and the role of relational good.
Introduction
Pope Francis gives a succinct summary of the main challenges facing the disabled in a changing world, where the disabled may be dehumanised as economic units of resource. Pope Francis observed:
“In the end, persons are no longer seen as a paramount value to be cared for and respected, especially when they are poor and disabled, ‘not yet useful’ – like the unborn, or ‘no longer needed’ – like the elderly” (Fratelli Tutti 18).[3]
The paper outlines the planned reforms of the main disability benefits within the UK linked to its distinctive National Health System (NHS),[4] which is based around the hallmarked “Beveridge principles”, broadly-adopted by successive UK governments. Beveridge is premised on the application of the general principle of entitlement to most social care benefits based on need. Beveridge principles are under severe strain as economic policy and austerity has resulted in major policy adjustments calibrated in terms of a public/private split. This has meant tighter controls on disability payments and controls on public payments, together with greater scrutiny of claimants: many poor and severely afflicted people have lost out on discretionary benefits amidst the complexity of applications and delays in processing claims. Matters have deteriorated further due to the combined impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, regulatory changes since Brexit, and the war in Ukraine. Different forms of economic austerity set the context for an unfortunate time to examine disability. The most recent National Audit Office report makes sobering reading as the funding of the NHS has decreased, with many NHS bodies in deficit with its overall financial position weakening, with failure to invest in the estate and post-pandemic recovery. The scale of the challenge is unprecedented.[5] There is an ongoing large-scale reform of disability procedures and processing of payments. Disability payments are intensely debated by the main political parties. Welfare support for the disabled has been affected by the drive for savings and rationing resources. Shortages of medical personnel at all levels have hindered progress. Care and health form a single responsibility for the Secretary of State for Health, but the integration of disabled care and medical health is a work in progress. The National Health Service is under strain, health workers are deeply demoralised, and recruitment is challenging. As a consequence, the UK offers a fascinating study of disability provision within a health care system which is under reform and arguably underfunded.[6] Legal protection for disabilities through anti-discrimination laws provides an essential framework for the provision of health and social care of disability[7] and should not be overlooked.
The paper begins with the main aspects of contemporary welfare reforms in the UK and their potential impact on vulnerable and disabled people. Successive governments have sought to encourage and support disabled people into work.[8] Achieving this aim is coupled to the creation of a single unified welfare system. This is a complex task as there are specially tailored support and assessment systems delivered through costly commercial contracts. The system of assessment and approval has proved complicated and expensive to run. Existing IT systems will have to be redesigned and changed to accommodate the large number of disabled applicants. Assessment is complicated and difficult because each application is personal to the applicant, and involves assessing a wide spectrum of different medical conditions.[9] The assessment also and inevitably involves subjective as well as objective judgments. Appraisal is therefore time-consuming, highly specialised and complicated. It takes at least 14 weeks between making a claim for a benefit and receiving an initial decision from the Department of Work and Pensions. Between 2018 and 2022 at least 12% of decisions were overturned on appeal. The reality is that it is difficult to fit the system within any single template or IT app. The ongoing reform and eventual scrapping of the current system of disability payments, such as the work capability assessment scheme, is likely to see cuts in benefits for some.[10] The reforms are most likely to be completed by April 2029, subject to the policy approach of the new Government. It is clear, however, that the future number of claimants is likely to increase. Disability cases are steadily increasing, with many claimants needing to apply for additional benefits, especially as the cost-of-living crisis is greatest amongst the most vulnerable. The paper discusses some of the technical details and the main implications of the planned reforms, notably the findings of the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the House of Commons and the National Audit Office (NAO), which is the independent auditor of departmental public spending. Most controversial is the reform that would scrap the current Work Capability Allowance. This might lead to some existing claimants losing benefits, particularly in the discretionary areas of payments for extra costs associated with their daily lives. However, those disabled in work might be able to receive health-related benefits and some other additional benefits.[11] It is too early to be sure what will happen, but one scenario makes it possible that the burden on the taxpayer might increase and not decrease.
The reform plans should be seen in a wider context. Scholars[12] in many countries have detected the spread of “neo-liberal” ideas and the reduction of state regulatory intervention in public services to a bare minimum, with the introduction of market mechanisms to deliver social care and health services.[13] This brings a marketisation of services. Cost savings and efficiencies are claimed as a consequence of market competition. Non-state actors and stakeholders have become more common. At the same time external regulation has increased through expansion of the role of the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and inspections. This may not fit entirely with a “neo-liberal” construction of what should happen.
Disability should be set in the context of modern medical and anthropological studies that have advanced our understanding of the causes and treatment of disability.[14] Inevitably, many past myths have been debunked by modern medicine. Indeed, even recent medical discoveries have opened up possibilities of causes and treatments that would have been impossible a few years ago. There is a consensus that social care, health care and care for the disabled have to fit together in a coherent way. This means working across government departments and administrative systems, which sets considerable challenges, for attitudes, approaches and knowledge base across departments and systems. It is also likely to cause intense competition between disciplines and traditions. Political intrusion is also present, adding another tier of complexity and even unpredictability. There was rather disappointing news in December 2023, of a specially dedicated Cabinet Minister for Disability to be abolished and the job allocated to a more junior minister, an under-secretary of state. The new government has taken an important step of appointing a new Minister to the Department of Work and Pensions for Social Security and Disability benefits, an important step in the direction of better integrating care of the disabled.
The paper considers two different perspectives. The first, is to explain some of the main shortcomings in the proposed reforms for the payment of disability benefits in the UK. The paper identifies an overreliance on financial systems, including IT applications, replacing paper-based applications for payments, that treats disability as it would any other tier of public spending. There are also more general concerns about AI systems being applied to disability claimants. Disability benefits are inordinately complex and hard to understand. There is an acute danger that disability is seen as “a unit of resource” that receives support from scarce public money, rather than a system that must take account of the difficulties facing individual disabled people when making applications. A humanitarian responsibility to disability needs to provide disabled people with ownership and empowerment that is more adaptive to their needs and listens to concerns. The reforms need to be disability led rather than administratively driven.
The second perspective is to consider the social doctrine of the Church and how this might be better informed. It is argued that disabled people are best helped through an approach that places love and care, the essence of belief in God, as the main rationale supporting disability care. A social model approach to disability linked to relational good underpins the needs of disabled individuals. There is the need for regular and sustained continuous education programmes explaining the needs of disability to be delivered across all sectors of society, including parishes and religious organisations. Viewing disability as a relational good seeks to match to the needs of people with disability available and relevant resources. Relational good may help combine the best aspects of economic modelling and a social model approach that emphasises the lived experience of the disabled in day-to-day life as a focus of what needs to be achieved.
Pierpaolo Donati argues persuasively that there are a number of significant approaches that might be taken to advance the needs of the disabled.[15] Caring is a gift and relationship good may be forged from this base. At its heart, human dignity is the guiding principle of understanding disability.[16]
The means to engage with disability include creating trust, co-operation, reciprocity, and sharing, such as co-planning and co-producing. The care giver provides to the care recipient based on trust a relational good. In delivering good quality care the disabled are enabled to enjoy independent living, an approach that builds on trust and ultimately independent living.
Part 1 Placing Disability as a Priority Within Health and Social Care Reforms
UK Disability Statistics
The precise number of disabled people in the UK[17] is hard to estimate. There is no national register of disabled people. Local authorities may register people with disability but this is a complicated and a largely voluntary system. There is no standardised system of registration. Official statistics are reliant upon surveys which are unreliable and open to distortion, depending on the methodology used and its accuracy. Much of the data is obtained from self-reporting, rather than from a reliable and independent data set that is subject to strict peer review. Indeed, there is an absence of reliable international data that allows sensible comparison across countries. The UK House of Commons Library Research Papers provides some useful data. There are an estimated 16.0 million people in the UK registered with a disability, that is, about 24% of the total population. Disability rises with age – 11% of children, 23% of working age adults and 45% of adults over State Pension Age. The type of disability may also be broken down as follows: for 47% mobility is a problem, followed by stamina, breathing or fatigue 35%, and mental health at 32%.[18] The latter is too often overlooked when the main focus is on physical health.
The National Audit Office (NAO) estimates that, in the next few years, the number of payment claims is likely to increase from about 4.8 million to 5.8 million in 2025-26.[19] The employment rate of disabled people is around 53.7%.[20] The impact of Covid and post-Covid ill-health is largely still-to-be quantified, but certainly is a factor in the increase in disability cases over the last few months. The King’s Fund,[21] an influential independent think-tank, records that in the first year of the pandemic “60% of those that died were disabled”.[22] Death rates were highest among those with learning difficulties, compared with deaths amongst the general population. Particularly vulnerable were disabled people who suffer multiple medical conditions and have poor standards of living. Post-Covid the current cost-of-living crisis, including increases in food prices and heating costs, has resulted in poor diet and living conditions. These, together with pressures on health care, are contributing factors to increased vulnerabilities.[23] The cost-of-living crisis exposes the most vulnerable in society to particular risk, a cause for serious concern.[24] The variety of factors at work have all contributed to a marked increase in disability claims. One estimate is that claims have trebled in the last decade. The Office for National Statistics notes a fall in life expectancy, and declining health throughout the country. It should be noted that the UK currently ranks with one of the lowest in terms of generosity in payments for out-of-work benefits, despite being the sixth richest economy in the world.[25]
It is concluded that creating an accurate world-wide data base of disability would provide a significant step in being able to address disability in all its forms and monitor the needs of the disabled. International statistics suffer similar problems with the creation of data bases that allow comparable data sets to be provided and developed, providing an accurate and up-to-date means to monitor trends.
There are increasing concerns that making a claim for benefits is much more difficult than it would appear at first glance. The system known as Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is an example of the problem. The application process for PIP is complicated and by common agreement is not working particularly well, especially as resources are stretched by the rise in numbers of applicants. In many cases, recourse to a Tribunal Adjudication results in 70% of decisions overturned. Solving the challenges of making a claim will take some time and will require skilful initiatives.[26]
There are a number of noticeable trends.[27] Since 2002-03 the prevalence of disability in the UK has risen. As noted above, the largest group is those in the state pension age and above, with a staggering 45% of that cohort reporting disability. There are some generalisable trends:
- Disabled people are most likely to not have a degree and many have no qualifications.
- There are around 3.9 million working-age people currently receiving at least one of the principal disability benefits.
- Disabled people have lower employment rates.
- Disability is prevalent amongst those who rent their housing and are entitled to social rent.
- Disability falls within the categories of some form of impairment, followed by stamina, breathing or fatigue. Mental health impairment features quite strongly. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, an independent think-tank, notes that the number of people suffering from mental conditions, including anxiety, depression and stress, all appear to be rising;
- Almost 10% of the population claim extra cost disability, a discretionary payment;
- Disability payments are a significant proportion of the total spending on benefits as a whole, amounting to £35.3 billion (two-thirds paid to people of working age) within the overall context of universal credits and tax credits of £83.0 billion.[28]
Disability and the law
Religious and philosophical discourses have always been influential in approaches to disability. The role of disability rights has taken centre stage in many contemporary approaches to disability, often with a pivotal role. In 2010, the UK set the general legal framework for disability rights in the Equality Act 2010.[29] The legislation was an Act of consolidation of some pre-existing laws; it also provided a more comprehensive approach to disability than was possible in the past. The foundational part of the legislation is the prohibition of all forms of discrimination in various areas, including employment, the provision of services and education, as well as the management and organisation of premises. The approach taken in the legislation is based on including disability as “a protected characteristic”, which makes it come within the scope of various legal protections. It is impossible to ignore the setting of a legal framework for protecting disability. Political change may adjust or attempt to re-set disability rights, but this would be in vain. given the role and significance of disability protection under the Act.
The definition of disability is related to the concept of “protected characteristic”. There are two aspects, namely, a physical or mental impairment and the impairment which must have a substantial and long-term adverse effect on an individual’s ability to conduct normal day-to-day activities. There are detailed definitions of what constitutes impairment, which are being driven by medical conditions covering mental and physical conditions. The Equality Act provides some helpful guidance, with additional guidance published by the Government from time to time.
The definition is sufficiently broad to include conditions that are non-visible and ones that recur sporadically. The protection is enshrined in the application of legality. Thus, it is illegal to discriminate against someone because of their protected characteristic. The protection also extends to those caring for disabled people. The form of indirect discrimination applies when a policy applied generally puts disabled people at a disadvantage.
There is also a correspondingly important duty to make reasonable adjustments. This is to ensure that the needs of the disabled are met. There is a new, specific, public sector equality duty. Public authorities, when exercising their functions, must meet various equality considerations, including advancing the equality of opportunity between disabled and non-disabled people. There are some additional requirements for premises and properties to meet disability requirements.
Case law, Judge-made and derived from the interpretation of the Equality Act 2010, provides useful guidance as to how the law should be applied.[30] The ebb and flow of judicial decisions is important in terms of developing protection against harassment and victimization. The Act is a living document as the case law develops. The main point is that the Equality Act provides a clear set of boundaries, as well as fundamental principles for the protection of disabled people.[31]
Disability is also addressed specifically by the UN International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities[32] agreed in December 2006. The Convention has some clear objectives: to eliminate disability discrimination; to enable disabled people to live independently in the community; to ensure an inclusive educational system; to ensure that disabled people are protected from all forms of exploitation, violence, and abuse. The main significance of the UN Convention is in the oversight it offers to member states in terms of setting obligations and monitoring compliance under the Convention. This is necessary as a means for oversight and ensuring systems of accountability.
In 2016 the UK was the subject of investigation by the UN Committee on Disability, following requests from disability charities and organisations. Their findings were highly critical of the UK. The UN Committee found that “grave or systematic violations of disabled persons rights had taken place because of welfare reforms in the UK since 2010”. The areas of concern that were specifically named include arrangements for the payment of benefits, including Housing Benefits, eligibility for Personal Independent Payment and social care, and also ending the Independent Living Fund. The UK government disagreed with the findings and the conclusions. A follow up review, as the First Periodic Review (2017), was undertaken by the UK’s Human Rights Commission, which concluded that the UK had taken insufficient action to implement earlier recommendations. However, in 2018 a review panel was set up by the Government, which found that the UK was taking appropriate steps, such as conducting a review of the Mental Health Act 1983. It also agreed that the UK had made significant progress in increasing the number of disabled people in employment. In June 2019, the Government initiated a cross-government approach to disability, including approaches to disability benefits. There is an ongoing review of benefits and a National Disability Strategy set up in 2021 to consider the most appropriate strategy going forward. Cross-government approaches are proving to be difficult and challenging. The new Government in July 2024 has announced a further review of health and social care. There are encouraging signs that cross-party cooperation will take place to provide effective reforms, particularly in mental health delivery.
Disability and employment
Providing employment opportunities for disabled people is the lynchpin of the policy on disability developed by successive governments and has cross-party support. There were 9.58 million people of working age (16-64) who reported they were disabled in January to March 2023. This is roughly 24% of the working age population. There are fluctuations in employment rates and the figures are reliant upon registrations and data collection. Many disabled people are not in employment, or even seeking work opportunities, which is a sizeable challenge for any policy making. Often the unemployed have certain kinds of disability, particularly those with learning difficulties and multi-disability conditions. Many aspirations for increasing disability employment are to be found in the government’s Disability Action Plan (2023)[33] and related documents that set out the main challenges facing disabled people.
There are also signs that the work patterns of disabled people may vary according to the prevailing economics of the time. High rates of economic inactivity in certain areas of the country are also reflected in the disability statistics. There is a Work and Health Programme (2017)[34] designed to help those in Northwest England and Wales in November 2017, areas with historical rates of low economic activity with high unemployment. The programme provides support to help find a job, with referrals from Job Centres.
The Government reported in 2019 that over 275,000 people, including 220,000 disabled, would be supported by the scheme over a five-year period. The two-year extension of the programme from September 2022 to September 2024 is expected to support 100,000 more people.[35] There is mounting evidence that disability is “a key driver on inequalities across the life cycle” of the disabled.[36] The desirability of achieving cross-party support is essential to address the needs of the disabled.
The UK’s Disability Action Plan
The UK government has advanced plans to implement and develop a UK Disability Action Plan, which encompasses a detailed consultation and builds on previous discussion and feedback. It has the primary aim of improving the lives of disabled people. Much of the plan has already been flagged up and discussed. Nevertheless, the plan brings together strands of thinking that are found in the National Disability Strategy. Indeed, much of the document published in February 2024 contains sound common sense and incorporates a number of important plans to encourage cross-government collaboration. It provides a strengthened evidence base for the specific needs of disabled people. The underpinning of any action plan, however, is finance and this is absent from the main analysis. The budget statements in Autumn 2024 will help clarify funding. In total, there are over 52 areas of action. There is a promise that the UK will provide regular updates on implementation at regular intervals after 6 months and 12 months. It is also expected that disability plans might be implemented at devolved levels, subject to respecting the powers and responsibilities devolved to the devolved areas of the country.[37] The new government elected in July 2024 is expected to continue this process.
Disability Benefits
The UK provides a number of disability benefits aimed at those who are at working age. There are three such benefits: Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), Universal Credit (UC) and Personal Independence Payments (PIP). The sponsoring department is the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). There are a number of other benefits and assistance. Underpinning the system of benefit payments is a controversial assessment system, undertaken by three main contractors that are specifically appointed as contracted out providers. Their task is to scrutinise applications to ensure that funding is directed to the applicants that need it. A staggering £410 million was paid for the administration and operation of the assessment process alone. Claimants seeking two forms of assessment, namely ESA and PIP, require two different forms of work capability assessment. Benefits claims are expected to increase to £73.3 billion overall in 2027/28. These are large sums of expenditure and are subject to UK Treasury oversight.
The complexity of the system has shortcomings, including the likelihood of many errors or mistakes, mainly due to increases in technical difficulty, over time. This may give rise to claims against the government on the basis of errors.[38] Litigation is not uncommon, with legal cases brought by claimants to achieve payments. Cases of discrimination against disabled people are regularly upheld in the courts. For example, in 2023 the Court of Appeal had ruled that a temporary measure introduced during the Covid time had resulted in an unlawful discrimination against disabled people.[39]
Reforming the system of the Work Capability Assessment is challenging. The previous government decided on a two-stage process. The first is to tighten up the Assessment procedures and reduce the number of claimants to save money and make efficient savings. The Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS), an independent think tank, estimates that some claimants will lose out on £390 a month, meaning that the individual will have to conduct additional work to make up the difference. Estimates of any savings in costs to the state are very hard to calculate and this leaves many uncertainties.[40]
The second phase of reform is more radical than the first. It is potentially very far reaching. The aim is to scrap the Work Capability Assessment completely, thus breaking the link between capacity to work and benefit entitlement. Determining the potential impact of the change is very difficult. The IFS estimates that 320,000 will see their entitlements rise by about £390 per month, with an estimated £1.5 billion additional spending.
In order to accomplish the various reforms, the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) has introduced a new Health Transformation Programme from July 2018. The main focus is digitalisation of both the functional health assessment and the PIP application process. This is intended to allow access online through an IT portal for applications and consequently make the process simpler, user friendly and more effective through better value for money. Overall, the budget is expected to amount to £1 billion. By March 2023 the Department had already spent £168 million on digitisation. The projected overall benefit of such a shift to digital systems is expected to provide savings of over £2.6 billion, but it is hard to know if this is ever realisable.
One aspect of the phasing in of the reform of disability benefits is how to move some pre-existing claimants who are still claiming “legacy benefits” onto the newer universal credit payment system. This is an essential first step if the IT scheme is to work. The plan is to move 900,000 claimants, by the end of 2024, onto the universal credit system. The signs so far are not encouraging. About 31% have had their legacy benefits stopped without the move to universal credit. The National Audit Office is concerned that some claimants may be incorrectly deprived of support. It is estimated that 1 in 5 people may find their benefits cut because of the changes.[41] It is hard to know how accurate this assessment might be or the difficulties, if any, that may lie ahead.
An important aspect of the disability reforms is that claimants have to undergo a system of “triage” to help identify the most urgent cases, through online IT systems to facilitate their claim. The same information might also be used in different applications processes. The underlining point is that an integrated service will have to work across England, Wales, and Scotland. It is also the case that many disabled claimants may operate in a climate of suspicion that claimants might be defrauding the system, a commonly held concern.
Reforming and improving disability payments
Reforming disability payments is an important part of the DWP, which initiated a new programme (the Health Transformation Programme) aimed at changing the functional assessment and PIP in 2018. The aims are highly laudable and desirable and have received support from many disability charities and organisations. This includes making the system easier, quicker and simpler for users. Underlying the system is a user-friendly approach to applicants. This is one of the most ambitious programmes and the largest transformation of delivering benefits in the Department’s current portfolio.
The National Audit Office and the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC) each provide useful assessments of the work of the DWP, and specifically the proposed new Programme. Their findings are a means to access the work of the Department. The findings of the PAC make interesting reading. There are a number of serious concerns about the reforms that may be summarised as follows.
The National Audit Office[42] has expressed concerns that functional health assessments are by their nature inherently “judgment based” This makes them resources intensive and difficult to administer in a consistent way. From the Claimant’s perspective, it is difficult to know whether their disability is such that it makes it impossible to do certain functions that would qualify them for benefits. Providing documents is also complicated: many are hand-written and in the form of notes. From the assessor perspective the need to review submissions and the documents in a case can prove to be very time-consuming and complicated. This is especially so when the relevant evidence needs to be sifted, assessed and considered, leaving lots of material to be discarded or ignored. The pathway of reform has to be able to allow judgments to be made and evaluated against a set of relevant, transparent criteria contained in complicated regulations.
The NAO also cautions about how public bodies face real challenges when they are contracting out services that they are simultaneously reforming. This can lead to disputes, delays and cost overruns that are often expensive and hard to control or influence.
There are also concerns about the ability for the Department to meet their estimate of savings, currently calculated to be £2.6 billion, over the life of the programme to 2035-36. These substantial savings are supposed to come from efficiency gains on the basis of the working of the functional assessment. It is not certain how this might work out in practice and on predictions made so far in the future. Already there have been revisions, in fact, as recently as March 2023, but a new business plan is expected to be ready some time for September 2024. Clearly, this puts considerable challenges for the Department, particularly how it is going to assess whether the programme will deliver its intended benefits. Inflation, delays in supply chains and the availability of trained personnel may also create costs and expenses that are not fully priced into the costings of the programme.
There is a clear need to continuously assess the progress of the reform programme. Accountability is the central issue in order to anticipate any problems or unexpected shortcomings in the system. Careful monitoring of the programme will require significant effort and will be challenging, especially if the Department is determined to hide information or even misrepresent events and facts. Monitoring is critical as the move from largely a paper-based application system to one of digital technology is highly problematic, not matter how good the intentions or planning may be. Collaborating with contractors and coping with disputes, time frames and costs will require careful oversight and scrutiny. In all this the Department may be at a disadvantage in comparison to the contractor. Designing and maintaining the system is time consuming. The contractors designing the original system are likely to have an advantage over the award of future contracts. The tax-payer may be at risk of being exposed to liabilities and uncertainties. One option that is worth considering in 2027, after the completion of the first phase of the programme, is for the Department to take the contracts within the Department. There is some precedent for this approach. In Scotland when Social Security Scotland adopted a Departmental-based house contract system. Lessons from the Scottish example might be useful for England and the Department would be best advised to consult with Scotland to discover how the in-house service system is working.
The reform programme has to pass a straightforward test. Will it transform and improve the lives of disability claimants? The answer will require normative, as well as analytical data. There are some underlying fault lines that may de-rail high expectations of success. The first is that government departments often favour process and procedures over substance. Process and procedures are relatively easy to achieve, and can be demonstrated statistically. Quantification is often skewed over qualitative systems. Indeed, the preference for objective criteria is often balanced against subjective measurements and markers. Best value for money and economic measurement are much in vogue. The new Health Assessment Service is likely to be delivered in some form by 2029. However, the Parliament’s financial watchdog, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), fear that the greatest risk might be that the although the delivery “might be achieved”, it will not improve the life of disabled claimants.
The programme is in its early stages. It was first reset in 2019 and it was further reset because of the Covid pandemic. Setting up continuity contracts to continue the current arrangements for benefits is ongoing and taking up a large part of the department’s time. The programme may prove more difficult than expected, which is always the challenge with large and often time-consuming programmes with long time-frames.
There are further concerns, indeed warnings. The first is related to the UK’s history on infrastructure capital spends. The history of large public spending projects is not good in the UK. Large infrastructure projects such as HS2 (fast rail link) have costed more than expected; and are the subject of political interventions and changes with expensive adjustments to the original contracts and plans. The complexity of delivery was under-estimated from the start and costs have escalated because of higher than predicted inflation, problems of staffing and major changes to the management structure and in the delivery system agreed by private companies. At scale, there need to be lessons from this experience across all government departments, in implementing disability benefits reforms.
The second are questions about the rolling out of computer technology, including its design, implementation and monitoring by the Department. Does the relevant government department possess the necessary know-how, experience and understanding to be able to oversee different stages of the project and its iterations? Then there are party-political vagaries of elections, especially the change of government, as well as changes of ministers and financial constraints that are inevitable during the time of the contract. The UK Treasury may delay or query costs and this may cause problems during the life of the project. In the case of disability reforms, there is the proposal of DWP to adopt a Post Office variation of the Horizon style scanning computer system to scan the Bank Accounts of all benefit recipients to detect fraud in applications or unusual activity on Bank accounts.[43] Disability claimants are included in the general category of benefits claimants, which makes separating out any specific issues rather complicated. The aim is to reduce fraud and provide a strong deterrent by suspending benefit payments until any anomaly in the benefits claimed is explained or excused. The Government’s response to such concerns about potential computer glitches is that there would be no automatic system of conviction through AI detection alone, as a member of staff would be able to make an independent decision rather than place reliance on an AI detection system. Adopting such a system might produce real savings. Estimates of savings total £360 million per annum, which makes such a programme highly attractive to the Government. The enabling legislation to introduce such a scheme for social services payments is currently before Parliament and awaits final approval. There are fears that such legislation might lead to mistakes or errors and cause false claims to be made against claimants, as shown by issues raised in the use of surveillance in the Post Office over sub-postmasters. There are serious doubts that the legislation is fair and proportionate and the independent Information Commissioner is concerned about privacy laws and their observance. It must be remembered that many claimants are from the poorest and most disadvantaged and vulnerable sections of society. There is also the troubling aspect of reversing the onus of proof and assuming that all claimants might be guilty of wrong-doing. This is a deeply troubling development in how benefits are overseen and delivered. Many mistakes or errors might result. Stigmas are being created and developed through an approach that may reinforce perceived prejudices that claimants are likely to be dishonest or underhand. Sensitivity in dealing with benefit claimants and treating all claimants with respect and understanding is essential. This is hard to maintain under a culture of suspicion. The introduction of such surveillance measures is troubling. Effectively claimants are being treated as a numerical unit capable of cost savings. There is considerable “group think” that public payments need to receive a uniform approach, notwithstanding the vulnerability of different groups in our society.
IT Lessons from the Post Office Scandal – a cautionary tale
The third issue is the question of the reliability and durability of the computer technology adopted to handle claimants, including the disabled. The UK has still a lot to learn about placing any reliance on AI computer technology. A recent example is indicative of potential problems. The lessons that need to be learned from the failures of the recent and widely publicised Post Office scandal is now at the centre of an independent judge-led statutory public inquiry. The Post Office Scandal arose when false prosecutions and convictions of Post Office Post Masters were made on the basis of a flawed and incorrect computer programme which falsely found deficits in the accounts. False convictions will have to be set aside, pardons granted and compensation paid for the loss of earnings and bankruptcies. Uniquely the government has passed emergency legislation to provide a statutory framework for acquittals to be granted, which is highly controversial as such legislation may impinge on the independent role of the judiciary to find guilt and undertake sentencing. Recent revelations show that the Business Department was aware of shortcomings in the computer system and the main contractor was able to alter entries in individual post-master accounts without transparency or disclosure. It is too early to summarise all the lessons of the Post Office Scandal,[44] but clearly such lessons will have to be addressed if the Government continues with its plans to use advanced technology for a single system for the payment of benefit claims, including disability claims. It is clear that the worst possible manipulation of accounts and debits is all too easily undertaken in the absence of rigorous transparency or disclosure. Even the Court of Appeal relied on many assurances that manipulation of the accounts was impossible when the opposite was true.[45] It is clear that the UK courts will have to be sufficiently resourced to be able to investigate and hold to account the systems of IT and not accept their so-called infallibility. The dangers of accepting the IT systems on face value may haunt the roll out of any new computerised systems for public service delivery.[46]
The reliance on objective criteria for the evaluation of programmes and the application of value for money considerations is an understandable driver of the Department’s system of control and accountability. Disability payments create a challenging set of issues about how to protect the most vulnerable in society. There is a counter-narrative based on the values and ethics that define our humanity. The value of individuals and the need to provide resources to help disabled people live worthwhile and valued lives cannot be put into financial terms or evaluated according to a financial index.
The prosecution of Carers: lessons still to be learned.
Concerns have arisen amongst disability groups that voluntary carers have found themselves prosecuted because of the discovery of alleged overpayments made by the Department of Work and Pensions. Many carers take employment outside their care responsibilities. There is a threshold of £151 and any payment over that amount results in the loss of their entire entitlement. There is no taper relief rather than an automatic cut off. It is easy to make mistakes. For example, one of the carers prosecuted has learning difficulties and over a period of six years he had unwittingly been paid an overpayment. On the claimant’s form he had ticked the box as being unemployed, which was an error. He continued to file complicated forms required for payment but was not told about the error. The error was small, about 30p per week, but over many years it built up to a sizeable amount of money. The computer programme knew about the error, and recognised it, but it was not brought to his attention for many years. There appears to be a large number of claimants in similar circumstances. Many commentators, including MPs, feel that there should be no further prosecutions until the issue of delays in informing claimants is explained and assessed.[47]
This is an ongoing example of many of the serious problems facing disabled people when faced with complexity and difficulties[48] in administration that are a pre-requisite for disability payments. The lessons that can be learnt from such prosecutions need to be understood and addressed going forward. It is clear that the needs of disability need to be directly addressed as a special cohort, which is vulnerable to IT systems and errors that may prove a deterrent to making any claims, even though they are qualified for the benefits they apply for.
In conclusion, warning about the use of AI systems is evident from the aftermath of the Post Office Scandal in the UK and the prosecution of unpaid careers for mistakes in their application for benefits. Pope Francis has argued that AI has to be accepted only if it serves the “common good and does not increase inequalities”.
PART 2 Addressing the Church’s Social Doctrine through a partnership with disabled people and by adopting a social model approach of relationship good for health and care
The Church’s social doctrine on disability has been consistent for many years about the necessity of addressing disability[49] in terms of valuing a person and undertaking practical advice to address access and inclusion in the Church. It is clear that much is needed to address the needs of disabled people. The King’s Fund, a UK based influential think tank on health and care, has undertaken research into building good relations between the health care system and those with disability needs. The starting point is the legacy of the high number of Covid-related deaths: 60% of those that died in the first year of the pandemic were disabled. Health inequalities left disabled people more vulnerable. The publication of Baroness Hallett’s first report from the Covid-19 Inquiry in July 2024, makes sobering reading about the pandemic:
The impact of the disease did not fall equally. Research suggests that, in the UK, mortality rates were specifically higher among people with a physical or learning disability and people with re-existing conditions such as dementia and Alzheimer’s, heart disease, high blood pressure and diabetes.[50]
The lessons of the pandemic are that designing and planning the future requires more active engagement with disabled people than in the past. The King’s Fund research shows that the broad diversity of disabled people’s needs should be appreciated. Adopting a social model approach to disability is necessary to be able to address current shortcomings. Expertise in disability must be appreciated and the voice and lived experience of disabled people needs to be respected and understood. Disabled people’s organisations should be strengthened through local organisations, including at Parishes, with disability champions to inform strategies to allow a more coherent voice in policy making, including the Church. There is a concern that, too often, current arrangements are tokenistic rather than serious.
One way forward is through the application of a social model approach to disability. The essence of such an approach is to integrate the system of disability payments to meet the challenges facing disabled people in their day-to-day lives. Disabled people should be at the forefront of any reform programme. This would be a major step forward in understanding the world of disability through the lens of disability.
The physical and mental challenges vary according to the extent of the disability, and understanding a wide spectrum of medical conditions is essential, including multiple conditions.
Even direct communication with disabled people may prove to be impossible or limited. Recently the major train companies and the Department of Transport engaged in a cost-cutting exercise under the previous government, which would have resulted in no manned ticket booths for the sale of train tickets or the provision of information on the best fare prices. The proposal was cost driven and would have resulted in the UK being the only country in the world where stations did not have manned ticket booths. IT systems were suggested as offering an alternative service to staff in ticket booths. It was claimed that the proposal would allow the release of platform staff who could assist with inquires. The initial consultation was rushed and disabled people felt that it was not sufficiently detailed. Disability organisations took the government to court through an application for judicial review. A fresh consultation was undertaken, with a large response and online objections. The new consultation revealed a detailed explanation of the lived experience of people with diverse disabilities. It proved decisive to the voice of disabled people being heard across society. A petition that collected over 106,156 signatures against closing the train ticket offices proved a remarkable achievement in public interaction and empathy with disabled people. Their “voice” had been heard. This improved the understanding about the life of many disabled people. The previous government and the train operators withdrew their proposals in the face of such strong opposition. It is possible that the train tickets debacle could have a long-term impact on how disability is regarded in society.
A social model approach provides the means for thinking about disabled people in a positive way, allowing their full participation in the process of health and care decisions. This would allow cross-participation with housing and need. There is an educative element through the Workforce Disability Equality Standard. Staff and clinicians need regular re-training to have a deeper understanding of disability. There is also an aspect about the culture of leadership, which should value direct engagement with disabled people. The need for specialist staff and regular updates on understanding and valuing of the voices of disabled people need to become part of any institutional culture. More generally, education about disability should inform parishes and seminaries of the continued need to listen to the voices of disability with regular and sustained updates of what it means to be disabled in society today – the lived experience.
Disability, a social care model and relational good
The social care model provides evidence for the benefits of understanding disability which can and will have a positive impact on society and the way everyday working is conducted. Relational responsibilities shared between the able bodied and disabled people might forge a relational good that sits comfortably with the values of a familial relationship.[51] This has a positive outcome for all in society. Pierpaolo Donati draws a sharp distinction between a relational constructionist approach and a critical realist approach to relational good. The former is simply a transactional relationship, the latter is related to the creation of structures and networks. There are substantial and transformative outcomes bringing out individualism into a more collective and communitarian outcome. Society becomes less conflicted and more consensual. Building on pragmatic and thematic approaches, the capability of individuals can be harnessed for the common good. This is not a lineal approach, instead it is multi-purposed and it may provide more humanizing outcomes capable of viewing the world from the perspective of disabled and disadvantaged people. Short, medium and longer-term relations are capable of being focused on care and disability. Generating a relational good acknowledges differences and, through the interaction between disabled and able-bodied people, can enhance communication and understanding. It is essential that this is a progressive and supported policy. Institutional understanding must be developed to change pre-existing cultures and prejudices. Education and training are essential and should exist side by side with appropriate processes and procedures. Delivering programmes for disabled people requires both economic systems that are combined with the aims and objectives of what the delivery model is intended to achieve and societal systems embedding our humanity.
The social model approach has the potential to address prejudices and provide equality through an inclusionary approach to disability.[52] The signs are not encouraging. The previous UK government has been reluctant to provide evidence to the UN Committee on Violation of Disability Rights. The UK was found to be in violation of the UN Convention in 2016 and since then has failed to give evidence on the subject.
Defining a single narrative to fit disability is complicated. Often disability rights are contested in religious and philosophical writing. There is a dominant orthodoxy of remaining true to dogma and the teaching of the past. McCrudden[53] and other scholars observe how the orthodox approach to tradition may inadequately take account of more contemporary approaches. This is when the past is treated as a means of ensuring the present and is created as an accurate reflection of what has gone on before. A refreshing suggestion is that sociological and philosophical thought should be explored to discover how the present may best be interpreted. It emerges that tradition is not static but in continuous flux and may be more a reflection of the times than a construct to view the future. Rationality in our thinking suggests that interpreting tradition is about how ideas and learning are transmitted, and change with time. Many writers see that the interaction of reason, faith and tradition can only be for the good. Thus, human dignity through the refinement of secular influences should be re-considered, and better understood in the religious sense. The interaction between religious faith and a secular understanding of dignity and disability is essential to going forward.
Conclusions
In the UK, the number of working-age people receiving disability benefits is currently estimated to be at 3.9 million. This figure is expected to increase over the coming years. More and more workers require long-term support and assistance. This is a worrying trend in the UK’s labour market. The UK suffers from lower productivity rates than comparable countries and the rise in long-term illness with disability is not encouraging. A salutary warning comes from many of the causes in the rise in the numbers of disabled people. Disability is linked to education, poor physical health increase with age, poor mental health and inequalities in wealth as set out in the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Deaton Review of Health.[54] Disabled people[55] struggle in finding work, which is a great challenge in most Western societies. The UK is no exception and arguably has made some real efforts to ensure more disabled people are able to find productive work.[56] The costs are high and undoubtedly put a major burden on public expenditure totals. It is understandable that seeking to find efficiency savings is a focus of any reforms. However, as an end in itself this is highly controversial when set against the need for other goals to enrich and improve the experience of the claimants.
This study of the reform programme points to the need to shift the focus from narrow economic evaluations to a broader, more inclusive approach that considers how best to educate and inform society as a whole about the values that underline the benefit system and particularly how society should treat disabled people. Disabled people have enormous potential and their role in society should not be under-estimated. There is a concern that the result of the UK’s reform programme might be to save money and cut expenditure costs, rather than improving the life of the disabled. This would be a disappointment and in part might negate the point of having the reform programme in the first place. There is also a disturbing rise in the use of litigation, such as judicial review prompted by disabled claimants in order to secure their rights and achieve their recognition when making claims.[57] The need for disabled people to be part of the mainstream is essential. Some ideas come from the experience of the Human Rights Act 1998. After the Act was passed there was some delay to allow appropriate education and training on human rights that crossed public and private sectors and included the judiciary. Accompanying the Act was the certification of all legislation as being compatible with human rights, that had to be signed off by the relevant Secretary of State sponsoring the legislation. The certification process is important, as it brings to attention the priority given to human rights. A similar system of certification might be adopted for disability for all relevant Bills. This simple step might alert all government departments to the needs and impact of any legislation on disabled people. The certification process might include questions of asking whether there is sufficient trust between the application and interpretation of the legislation and disability groups. This might also include co-operation, reciprocity, co-planning and co-providing. Pre-existing consultation systems often appear to be “tick-box” exercises rather than substantive engagement.
The main argument in this paper is that the UK’s reform programme should be more clearly calibrated to prioritise the needs of disabled claimants to ensure that their experience of government support respects their important role in society. Such a focus is inevitably going to be very challenging. Educating the wider community is essential. Indeed, drawing on Christian and other religions beliefs and philosophies may connect relations with disability as intrinsic to being human.[58] Human characteristics are such that it is possible and desirable to discover a unifying common bond to help each other. There are many diverse ways this may be achieved, but the definition of what is normal is not helpful in appreciating what disability means. Instead, it is best to concentrate on bringing those on the margins of society into the mainstream. In the traditions of Saint Augustine, it is possible to show love, meaning that engagement through care and assistance is an essential facet of our Christianity. Transforming the lived experience of disabled people is a craft task – working with groups and disabled people to enable and empower their voice in society. Influencers in society have to exert pressure on the government to ensure that economic delivery of goods and services is not an end in itself but a pathway to improving the life experience of disabled people.[59]
Thus, disability benefits and their distribution to the disabled must be seen as a shared responsibility that seeks to alleviate the stigma associated with disability and enjoin disabled people to be accepted as the mainstream of society. The most important aspect of disability is integration within the broader family of humanity. Seeking an integrated approach that accepts and respects disability means finding a common approach, emphasising all aspects of relational good as a means of discovering the virtues of inclusion within society as a whole.
Christianity continues on its journey[60] advancing mutual respect, care and understanding and finding the relational love that extends the hand of friendship to all, irrespective of the human condition, including disability, poverty[61] or disadvantage. The aggregation of human resources is necessary to share and encourage mutual respect and understanding, which could form the foundations of an effective reform of disability benefits.
Relational good will flow if disability claimants are better understood by the wider society. Without an overarching approach to disability, it is very likely that the disabled will end up more marginalised and excluded from the mainstream of society. There is a great deal at stake.
Some tentative conclusions may be summarised from this paper. Caring about everyone is essential. Avoiding stereotypes, self-awareness, understanding and sensitivity are all necessary. The key question is, what can we do for others? Many possibilities exist, but the social and political agenda needs to be considered; the lived experience of the disabled needs to be better understood and respected. Public funding for disability must keep pace with the cost of living, while the opportunities for making lives better should be articulated in terms of the moral and religious responsibilities we all share. The UK welfare reforms bring with them some cautionary lessons. Administrative and bureaucratic reforms should not de-humanise disability or create structures of control that fail to honour the responsibility to care for each other. Political constructions of what is or is not affordable should not detract from moral principles of how to make the lives of disabled people more tolerable and liveable.[62]
[1] M. Hill, Social Policy in the Modern World: A Comparative Text. London: Blackwell Publishing 2006, pps 23-29.
[2] See: Brian Brock and John Swinton, eds., Disability in the Christian Tradition. William B Erdmans, publishing. Michigan USA, 2012. Roy Hanes, Ivan Brown and Nancy Hansen, The Routledge History of Disability. Routledge, 2018.
[3] Pope Francis, Address of His Holiness Pope Francis to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences (11 April 2024).
[4] House of Commons Library, The structure of the NHS in England Number 7206 (10 July 2023).
[5] National Audit Office, Report, NHS Financial Management and Sustainability Session 2024-25 HC 124.
[6] A preliminary point is that the term “UK” is misleading as a description. The Health Service is, since 1998, a devolved function to the devolved nations of Scotland. Wales, Northern Ireland. This leaves England as the only sovereign nation that may change and influence devolved policy making. Policy making is mainly driven by England but devolved nations may adjust policy to meet their needs. The NHS is a complex system of integrated care systems, see House of Commons Library Research Briefing, The Structure of the NHS (10 July 2023).
[7] R. v Islington ex parte Rixon (1997-98) 1 CCLR, R (Graham) v Secretary of State for Health [2009] EWHC 574. Elaine McDonald v the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2011] UKSC 33.
[8] See: Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition Chicago University Press, 2018.
[9] Contemporary disabled welfare reforms are of long standing and successive government policy focused on the greater employment of disabled people consists of detailed plans set out from November 2017 through a ten-year plan to get more disabled people into work. In March 2023, the Government’s plan was published in a White Paper, Transforming Support. This had been preceded by a consultation exercise linked to July 2021, Shaping future Support: the health and disability green paper. This was accompanied by the National Disability Strategy (July 2021). There is also published in July 2023 the Disability Action Plan that sets the agenda for the future, subject to consultation. The timetable is that a finalised Disability Action Plan will be published at the end of 2023. The planned general election is set for no later than January 2025. It is highly unlikely than any future government will change the general direction of current policy. The general focus of that policy is to ensure that getting disabled people into work is the main priority. Thus, employment support and support through the benefits system is soon to be reformed for disability after the publication of the Action Plan in late 2023.
[10] The Guardian, 15 March 2023.
[11] IFS Report R283, The Effects of reforms to the work capability assessment for incapacity benefits. October 2023.
[12] See: Tanja Klenk and Renate Reiter, “Hospital Privatisation in Germany and France: Marketisation without Deregulation” in Hellmut Wollmann, Gerard Marcou, Ivan Kopric eds., Public and Social Services in Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, 2016, p. 265 and T. Clemens, and others, “European Hospital reforms in time of crisis: Aligning cost containment needs with plans for structural redesign?” (2014) Health Policy, 117(1) 6-14.
[13] See: Tanja Klenk and Renate Reiter, “Hospital Privatisation in Germany and France: Marketisation without Deregulation” in Hellmut Wollmann, Gerard Marcou, Ivan Kopric eds., Public and Social Services in Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, 2016, p. 265.
[14] See: Roy Hanes, and others, The Routledge History of Disability. London: Routledge, 2018.
[15] Pierpaolo Donati, The Family as a Relational Good: The Challenge of Love, Vatican 2022.
[16] Pierpaolo Donati, 2022 The Pandemic: An epiphany of relations and opportunities for transcendence”. Church, Communications and Culture 7(1) 23-57.
[17] House of Commons Library, UK disability statistics: Prevalence and life experiences. Number 09602 (23 August 2023).
[18] This is a large number and there may be some that are not reporting their status and are not applying for benefits.
[19] The National Audit Office, Report: Transforming health assessments for disability. Session 2022-23 (23 June 2023) HC 1512.
[20] House of Commons Library: Disabled People in Employment. Number 7540 (19 June 2023).
[21] The King’s Fund, Towards a new partnership between disabled people and health and care services: getting our voices heard (27 July 2022).
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid.
[24] An informed view may be found in Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) Report R245, The Cost-of-Living Crisis: a pre-budget briefing, February 2023, setting out the various strains on the UK economy.
[25] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9602/
[26] The Guardian, 12 January 2024, Polly Toynbee, “Britain is a poorer, sicker place. No wonder disability claims have trebled in a decade”.
[27] House of Commons Library, UK disability statistics: Prevalence and life experiences. Number 09602 (23 August 2023).
[28] The Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR), A Brief Guide to the UK Public Finances, 2023. The amount raised from the public sector taxes and other sources us £1,058 billion, a considerable sum. However, the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) expects spending totals to be in excess of revenue and spending is £1,189 billion.
[29] Northern Ireland has a separate arrangement but the 2010 Act applies to England, Wales and Scotland.
[30] See: Barrow v Kellogg Brown and Root (UK)(Ltd.) [2021] ET 23036483/2018, All Answers Ltd. V W and Anor. [2021] EWCA Civ. 606, Adermi v London and South Easter Railway Ltd., [2012] EAT /0216/12/KN.
[31] House of Commons Library, Disability Discrimination (4 January 2023) Number CBP 9061.
[32] House of Commons Library, The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: UK implementation (10 November 2022) CBP07367.
[33] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/disability-action-plan
[35] House of Commons Library, Disabled People in employment (19 June 2023) Number 7540.
[36] James Banks and others, “Inequalities in disability” (2024) 3, i529-i548. Oxford Economics (2024) 3.
[37] Cabinet Office, Disability Action Plan, CP 1014 (February 2024).
[38] The Guardian, PIP Investigation: Claimant seeks judicial review over assessment flaws. 2 March 2017.
[39] Philip Wayward and others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2023] EWCA Civ. 24.
[40] Institute for Fiscal Studies Report R283, Sam Ray-Chaudhuri and Tom Waters, The Effects of Reforms to the Work Capability Assessment for Incapacity Benefits. October 2023.
[41] The Guardian, 27 February 2023.
[42] NAO, Transforming health assessments for disability benefits, review of the Department for Work and Pensions Session 2022-23 HC 1512 (23 June 2023).
[43] The Guardian, 4 March 2024.
[44] The Horizon Scandal raises serious questions about the reliance on IT and assumptions about its reliability. The Scandal is about the failure of regulation, and the absence of controls over the activities of the Post Office. An informal pressure group, the Sub-postmasters Alliance proved effective in lobbying for their convicted members. There is emerging evidence that the Post Office may have engaged in a “cover-up” of the evidence. In February 2000, an Inquiry was established by the Prime Minister which was made into a statutory inquiry in June 2021. The inquiry is ongoing and is taking evidence in public. His findings are expected to be published at the end of 2024.
[45] Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill, Explanatory Notes Bill-16 EN 58/4.
[46] UK Parliament Post, Artificial Intelligence: An explainer (14 December 223). John Croker, The Law that Shapes Us: Law, Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights: Connecting the Dots HL Bill 37 of 2023-24 Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill (22 December 2023). UK Parliament POST Use of artificial intelligence in education delivery and assessment (23 January 2024).
[47] See: The Guardian, 24 July 2024.
[48] The Guardian, 12 April 2024. Carer convicted over benefit error worth 30p a week fights to clear his name.
[49] Basil Hume, Archbishop of Westminster, Valuing Difference: People with disabilities in the life and mission of the Church, 1998.
[50] Baroness Hallett, UK Covid-19 Inquiry Module 1 The resilience and preparedness of the United Kingdom, London, HC 18 (July 2024).
[51] Pierpaolo Donati, The Family as a Relational Good: The Challenge of Love. Vatican 2022.
[52] The King’s Fund, Towards a new partnership between disabled people and health and care services. July 2022.
[53] See Christopher McCrudden, Litigating Religions Oxford; Oxford University Press, 2018. Pps 159-161.
[54] James Banks and others, Inequalities in disability, Oxford Open Economics (2024) 3 pps i529-i548. More generally, see the IFS Deaton Review of Health (2024). The Marmot Review, Fair Society, Healthy Lives Strategic Review of Health, 2010 and 2020.
[55] Quick Guide: Disability history, Leonard Cheshire 2023.
[56] The King’s Fund, Towards a new partnership between disabled people and health and care services: getting our voices heard (27 July 2022).
[57] See: Lisa Scullion and others, “Welfare conditionality and disabled people in the UK: Claimants perspectives” (2017) Journal of Poverty and Social Justice. Vol 25, no 2 177-80.
[58] See: Brian Brock, “Disability and the Quest for the Human” in Brian Brock and John Swinton, Disability in the Christian Tradition: A reader, William B Eerdmans Publishing Company Michigan USA 2012. Pps 1-21.
[59] IFS Report R 283, The effects of reforms to the Work Capability Assessment for Incapacity Benefits. October 2023.
[60] Pierpaolo Donati, editor, The family as a relational good: The Challenge of Love (The Proceedings of the 23rd Plenary Session 27-29 April 2022) The Vatican 2022. Pope Francis, Address pages 16-17.
[61] IFS Report R245 The Cost-of-living crisis: a prebudget briefing (February 2023).
[62] See: Scope, Manifesto for an equal future 2024.