These are changes which most disabled people are very worried about and which will plunge many into poverty and despair. While the changes are comprehensive and also involve issues of personal choice and civil liberties, the main thrust of the changes is that there will be a penalty /cut of over £20 (well over a third of benefit) if the person receiving Incapacity benefit does not attend what they (the Gov’t) are calling ‘work-focused interviews’ to prove they are actively seeking work.
Clearly, as this will be based on targets not need, (over 80% of IB claimants will be required to attend), we will have the frightening and frankly bizarre situation whereupon hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable people in the U.K who find it hard to ‘just get through the day’ will be pressured into looking for work that is not available or impossible to undertake, or face losing this money.
However a new campaign has been launched which aims to challenge these reforms and argue for a positive and decent welfare
system.
http://www.swansheffield.org.uk/
Sick and disabled targeted in benefit reforms
By Andrew Grice, Political Editor
Published: 27 December 2005
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article335224.ece
Most sick and disabled people will have to seek work to receive maximum state benefits under welfare reforms to be announced next month.
John Hutton, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, has disclosed that the 2.7 million people on incapacity benefit will have to earn the right to it by taking advantage of expanded help to find work, training and rehabilitation.
"The principle will be something for something - increased support addressing people's right to work in return for an obligation for people to do what they can to return to the workplace," he said.
A green paper on welfare will propose more frequent medical tests for claimants in an attempt to stop them remaining on it for years. It will also include curbs on housing benefit and state support for single mothers, who will have to attend work-focused interviews or training when their youngest child reaches the age of 11, rather than 14 as at present.
Although targeting the sick and disabled will provoke controversy, ministers will insist that the "carrot and stick" approach is in line with Labour's traditional values. To limit the prospects of a rebellion by Labour MPs, some draconian ideas proposed by Downing Street will be dropped - including a time limit for which people can remain on incapacity benefit.
Ministers hope to wean between one and two million claimants off benefit into work, even if it is part-time. Only those incapable of any work will be exempt from the new "conditionality" rules, which are expected to take effect in 2007 if the legislation is passed by Parliament.
Although the changes could eventually cut the £7bn annual cost of incapacity benefit, Mr Hutton will argue that they are not "a cuts exercise". In the short term, existing claimants will not have their benefits reduced, and the tougher regime will apply only to new claimants. But ministers hope to transfer existing claimants to the new rules over time.
The Government will abolish the system under which jobless people are either deemed fit to work and receive jobseeker's allowance, currently £56 a week for over-25s, or classified as sick and are paid £57 a week for up to 28 weeks, rising to £68 between 28 and 52 weeks and £76 after 52 weeks. The rising scale of payments is seen by ministers as an incentive to remain on the benefit and will be scrapped.
Government sources said the new rate for incapacity benefit would be "significantly above" the jobseeker's allowance but would have to be earnt by work-related activity appropriate for the individual's condition. It could leave a new claimant who refuses to attend work-focused interviews, training or rehabilitation £20 a week worse off than under the current system - in effect, receiving jobseeker's allowance rather than incapacity benefit.
Writing in next month's edition of the Labour modernisers' journal, Progress, Mr Hutton said: "We need to help the many people with a health condition or disability who get trapped on the incapacity-benefit system. There are, of course, many who genuinely cannot work, and these people should feel secure that the state will support them
Comments
Hide the following 4 comments
Another view.
29.12.2005 17:50
JSA (over 25 yr old) - £56 per week = £2,912 per year
IB (1st 6 months) - £57 p.w. = £2,964 p.y.
IB (2nd 6 months) - £68 p.w. = £3,536 p.y.
IB (1 year +) - £76 p.w. = £3,952 p.y.
Minimum wage (over 22 yr old) - £5.05 per hour x 16 hrs = £4,202 p.y.
Minimum wage (over 22 yr old) - £5.05 per hour x 40 hrs = £10,504 p.y.
The point I am making is that even at the highest rate of IB, a person is still better off working only 16 hours per week at the pathetic minimum wage. That's only 2 days a week of work.
Although I am very sympathetic to people on benefits, having been on them myself, I think that these figures speak for themselves. It is easy to get stuck in the rut of being on benefits and in some cases a little pressure may help people back into work. However, I would suggest that there should be safeguards in place that if people get back into work and aren't happy or comfortable they have an opportunity to go back onto IB where they left off rather than re-apply. I doubt the government will be this considerate.
According to a recent news report, the two main causes of people being on IB were bad back and depression. I think that only the most severe cases of people with these would not be able to work at least 16 hours per week or more after a year of being on benefits.
I do not agree with the New Labour government and it's Tory strategy of targetting the most vulnerable in society. However, I am a realist. What would really help the poorest and most vulnerable people would be an increase in the tax-free allowance from £4,500 per year to £10,000. And an increase in the minimum wage to at least £7 per hour. This would both benefit society and get people off benefits and back into work.
Brutus
Those on IB for longer
30.12.2005 16:57
I have been on variously titled sickness benefits for 20 years now due to mental health problems. I am also now further 'disabled' due to physical if 'invisible' illnesses.
Over the last 20 or so years I haven't just sat back and done nothing, I have involved myself in Community activity of some sort on the basis that I dont have to go to meetings/events if i dont want to and dont have to do anything if I go. That remains the ONLY way I feel I can 'contribute' something. The stresses of having to go to paid work of any sort are not something I can cope with or wish to even contemplate (I have done and it just stresses me out to do that much). It has also though, along with needing a special diet and occasional medication, means that in order to 'have a life & take part in even comm work' I've had to go into debt on cards to some extent. (I helped start a local mental health group, resource centre,service user group. The after a period of really bad health 9stuck indoors), I joined some NGO's (eco and human rights) stuff, then some ,local comunity groups and have just done those as I felt able ( having to take occasional 'breaks' though)
I have since &recently , started to take a 'back seat' even on Community stuff as again becoming too stressful and as said expensive.
However, I somehow dont think the DWP (Dept of Workhouse and Poorlaw surely) will see it that way. The article says that only those deemed fully unable to do any work are likely to get away with staying on full benefits. (ie at deaths door).
The same can apply to the likes of Disability Living Allowance- only those barely able to move tend to get anything.
I am not looking forward to 2007 or so now. Indeed the whole thing is depressing in itself...
and all just to satisfy corporations, the treasury and Bliar's whipping everyone to 'beat' the Chinese etc....
pr
still another view
30.12.2005 17:50
IB does not exist in isolation. People returning to work stand to loose or have reduced other benefits like housing assistance and income support. On the minimum wage, this can lead to having less money as a worker than as a claimant. This problem is well known as a "poverty trap"
Bobby
Too Ill to work
31.12.2005 11:54
Don't you just know that the press will start to run stories 'Claimant receives £loads whilst working on the side' and 'Nice disabled person gets job collecting trollies and says - Its the best thing I ever did thank you tony'
Just before the last election some labour party sicophant knocked on my door with the prospective mp and (after establishing that we both worked) told us how they would invest to stop benefit fraud. when I asked if they intended to commit an equivilant level of resourse to ensuring people receive their full entitlement they could not answer!
If your government want to hit real fraud it should investigate 'white collar crime' which, I can assure you involves more that nicking paper clips & the odd elastic band.
CMEIMOK