The assault on benefits and welfare which generations have fought for is relentless, SWAN have provided a briefing/commentary which people can use, there is also a parliamentary Early Day Motion by John McDonnell MP which is worth getting behind, write to your M.P to support it.
Early Day Motion
EDM 877
POVERTY IN THE UK
05.02.2008
McDonnell, John
That this House notes the recent comments by the Government's welfare reforms adviser, David Freud, about those on incapacity benefits, by the newly appointed Work and Pensions Secretary of State on the unemployed and those on incapacity benefits and by the new Housing Minister on eligibility for council housing; further notes two recent reports by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and by the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group, which respectively show the UK income inequality to be at its highest levels since the late 1940s and that fuel poverty targets will be missed, which follows the failure of the Government to meet child poverty targets; and therefore calls upon Government Ministers to concentrate on attacking poverty rather than attacking the poor.
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDe...53&SESSION=891
Early Day Motion
EDM 877
POVERTY IN THE UK
05.02.2008
McDonnell, John
That this House notes the recent comments by the Government's welfare reforms adviser, David Freud, about those on incapacity benefits, by the newly appointed Work and Pensions Secretary of State on the unemployed and those on incapacity benefits and by the new Housing Minister on eligibility for council housing; further notes two recent reports by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and by the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group, which respectively show the UK income inequality to be at its highest levels since the late 1940s and that fuel poverty targets will be missed, which follows the failure of the Government to meet child poverty targets; and therefore calls upon Government Ministers to concentrate on attacking poverty rather than attacking the poor.
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDe...53&SESSION=891
Sheffield Welfare Action Network: Commentary/Briefing
The End Of Welfare?
Cuts/Coercion/Privatization
With the Welfare Reform Act 2007, the Freud Review/ Welfare Green Paper, and now ‘Freud Redux’, plus others, the scope, speed and, yes, ferocity of welfare reform has been breath-taking. One can argue this is ultimately about the end of a rights based welfare system in the UK, coupled with a move to a privatised and minimal U.S model with only the big private training companies benefiting. Disabled people, single parents and the unemployed are all affected. However, this commentary will focus on disabled benefits.
The Welfare Reform Act 2007
The Welfare Reform Act (WRA) (1) has the ambitious target of taking over 1 million people off Incapacity Benefit (IB.) and will become operational in late 2008. While much still remains vague, many disabled claimants will see significant loss of benefits (over Forty pounds in some cases as it impacts on other benefits), even ‘harsher’ medical tests with the Work Capability Assessment (WCA), forced into unsuitable work and in some cases, medical interventions. Others deemed to have "limited capability for work" will face training/work trials/frequent work-focused interviews, benefits will be docked for non compliance. There is also the threat of losing homes as housing benefit in the private rented sector is replaced by a fixed rate for the city. While, the new regime will initially affect only new claimants, existing claimants under the age of 25 are included from 2009, While it is possible the ‘severely disabled’ will see some financial benefit as the new Employment Support Allowance (ESA) may be set higher than IB, they too may face constant interventions.(2)
The Freud Review/Welfare Reform Green Paper: In work, better off: next steps to full employment The market enters welfare….
Gordon Browns endorsement of the Freud Review, (compiled in only twelve weeks!) by the Investment Banker, Matthew Freud, (3) will see a number of private companies and charities making profits from claimants as they are hired to push disabled people, single parents, etc back into work or training, etc. Significantly they will be paid by results only increasing pressure on advisers and ensuring even more pressure and an increasing level of invasiveness in claimant’s lives. Compulsion will also be a central element of all these changes, with benefit cuts making life for claimants even more difficult. One more alarming reform is that a claimant can still be monitored, advised, etc by private companies, three years after they first get a job! Freud has now been rehired to pursue a ‘revolution in welfare’. This revolution includes the notion that ‘the market will decide who is ill’ and who isn’t, ‘bounties’ will now be payable to the private companies, making claimants into outlaws .Apparently those on disability benefits are not ‘hassled enough’
In the UK, the big private training companies have made millions form often coercive schemes such as New Deal and are now recruiting for staff to run the new programmes
What the other parties want
The Conservatives policies are just as draconian: under their proposals every existing/new IB claimant would have to attend "in-depth assessments" , those deemed fit to work put on Jobseekers' Allowance(JSA), face a massive cut in benefit and a requirement to seek work immediately. Even those considered ‘not fit to work’ would be constantly monitored and ‘advised’ an invasiveness that would prove highly stressful to very ill people and the severely disabled. Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem leader, has stated he would like all IB to be abolished completely.
Immoral, rushed, unworkable?
Sadly, the govt can exploit a general lack of knowledge most people have about benefits, welfare etc. It is certainly no ‘soft touch, Even Freud notes: "the UK has a more demanding benefits regime than many other countries for people with disabilities” It is already extremely difficult to claim benefits such as IB: the process involving stringent eligibility criteria, massive application forms, regular interviews and 'tough' and invasive medical tests, amongst the most stringent in Europe. In terms of fraud among people claiming IB, it has described by the DWP as 'negligible'. There is also no guarantee such brutal policies work. A Canadian Govt report has shown their Welfare To Work programmes just didn't achieve their aims. The report clearly showed that there had been no increase in the numbers of employable welfare clients declaring employment income after leaving welfare. In fact, many actually have died on the streets.(4) Further, a new report commissioned for the DWP has found that the use of benefits sanctions can ‘worsen existing health problems’ and ‘provoke new mental health problems’ It’s conclusions suggest that benefit sanctions should play a more limited role.(5) While, in Australia, major charities like the Salvation Army refused to work with similar programmes.
The legislation on which much of this policy is based (see above), has also been criticized as ‘rushed, prejudiced and ‘short on detail’, with the government also ignoring the many submissions to its consultation’s which were critical of the reforms, including SWAN’s. Finally there are good reasons why IB is paid at at a higher rate: they are ill and disabled people who have extra needs. IB replaced single payments, which were for needs like extra laundry after wetting the bed or extra heating as many cannot go out during the day.
Unsavoury Friends?
One can note that much of this welfare reform has been driven by advisers such as the massive US Insurance multinational Unum Provident, described in the US as a ''an outlaw company that for years has operated in an illegal fashion." and been accused of racketeering and cheating tens of thousands of insured Americans out of their claims.
Clearly it would be in their interest for the UK to adopt a US style basic welfare system with private unemployment insurance for those who can afford it.(6)
Media Misinformation/Prejudice
SWAN has also identified that although these are the most significant welfare reforms since 1945, the media debate (including in the ‘quality newspapers’) has been limited or even misinformed. A clear example of this was the verbatim reporting of Freud’s claim that G.P’s decide who get benefits, they don’t, a private company Atos Origin contracts private doctors to carry out medicals. The majority of the media approach to claimants is to demonise and label them as scroungers, fiddlers, etc - the narrative being ‘its their own fault’. This has an impact on all claimants, many feeling harassed and targeted even if they have never done anything wrong. Indeed recent research has shown how Govt and media attitudes and policies to claimants etc, has skewed public perception of this group, often alluding to a ‘benefit culture’ Further, claimants themselves are very rarely consulted and coverage of their own views is limited if non-existent.
Punishing the vulnerable and the ‘invasive state’/ The Best Way Forward?
As Kevin Maguire noted in the Daily Mirror, all parties seem to be presenting ever harsher reforms with a seemingly endless 'race to the bottom'. The new ambitious Works and Pensions Secretary, James Purnell will certainly push through with zeal even the harshest of reforms. All these proposals seem rushed and ill thought out, never mind the sheer nastiness and invasiveness of the US style 'blame the poor' nature of them. Indeed, a whole new ‘welfare industry’ is being created on the strength of 13 weeks research! Of course, it won’t end there: there is also talk of tagging of certain disabled groups which would clearly have an effect on their benefits and plans for ending specialist disability employment services. Much of the ideology behind these reforms is based on the neo-liberal notion of the 'active citizen' which is sweeping the world. Only by working or training or studying can a person be 'good' but what about those who just cannot work?
Other Govt departments are staking their claim with Housing Minister Caroline Flint floating the idea of linking social housing to looking for work, anyone requesting council housing would have to sign contract agreeing to look for work, etc. The Health Secretary Alan Johnson is to announce the introduction of what is being called the ‘Well Note’ Instead of Doctors signing a sickness note to allow people time off work, the new note will focus on what the Patient can do , rather that what they can’t. One could argue these are not policies for 2008, but are more suited to 1888: the politics of the workhouse.
SWAN believes it is disabled people themselves who are the best-placed people to decide on suitable programmes and work-related activities, to be undertaken at their own pace and at the right time. This can of course be aided by sympathetic, trained and competent advisers, counsellors, etc. These programmes certainly do not fulfil this principle. With these latest proposals many hundreds of thousands of disabled people and others are now fearful of the future and feel personally under assault. Welfare reform should be based on the experiences and needs of claimants, rather than on Neo-Victorian prejudices and rushed research.
Sadly, with these all these changes, Britain is about to become a much harsher place.
SWAN 2008
(1) http://www.swansheffield.org.uk/wra.php
(2) For a detailed analysis of the controversial genesis of the reforms
http://www.lwbooks.co.uk/journals/articles/rutherford07.html
(3) tp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/02/nbenefit202.xml
(4) http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/11/12/NoWelfare
(5) http://www.cpag.org.uk/press/280108.htm
(6) http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=2940
SWAN hopes to have a national Conference and possibly a national protest on the issues in the Spring, contact us for details/offers of help, etc.
The End Of Welfare?
Cuts/Coercion/Privatization
With the Welfare Reform Act 2007, the Freud Review/ Welfare Green Paper, and now ‘Freud Redux’, plus others, the scope, speed and, yes, ferocity of welfare reform has been breath-taking. One can argue this is ultimately about the end of a rights based welfare system in the UK, coupled with a move to a privatised and minimal U.S model with only the big private training companies benefiting. Disabled people, single parents and the unemployed are all affected. However, this commentary will focus on disabled benefits.
The Welfare Reform Act 2007
The Welfare Reform Act (WRA) (1) has the ambitious target of taking over 1 million people off Incapacity Benefit (IB.) and will become operational in late 2008. While much still remains vague, many disabled claimants will see significant loss of benefits (over Forty pounds in some cases as it impacts on other benefits), even ‘harsher’ medical tests with the Work Capability Assessment (WCA), forced into unsuitable work and in some cases, medical interventions. Others deemed to have "limited capability for work" will face training/work trials/frequent work-focused interviews, benefits will be docked for non compliance. There is also the threat of losing homes as housing benefit in the private rented sector is replaced by a fixed rate for the city. While, the new regime will initially affect only new claimants, existing claimants under the age of 25 are included from 2009, While it is possible the ‘severely disabled’ will see some financial benefit as the new Employment Support Allowance (ESA) may be set higher than IB, they too may face constant interventions.(2)
The Freud Review/Welfare Reform Green Paper: In work, better off: next steps to full employment The market enters welfare….
Gordon Browns endorsement of the Freud Review, (compiled in only twelve weeks!) by the Investment Banker, Matthew Freud, (3) will see a number of private companies and charities making profits from claimants as they are hired to push disabled people, single parents, etc back into work or training, etc. Significantly they will be paid by results only increasing pressure on advisers and ensuring even more pressure and an increasing level of invasiveness in claimant’s lives. Compulsion will also be a central element of all these changes, with benefit cuts making life for claimants even more difficult. One more alarming reform is that a claimant can still be monitored, advised, etc by private companies, three years after they first get a job! Freud has now been rehired to pursue a ‘revolution in welfare’. This revolution includes the notion that ‘the market will decide who is ill’ and who isn’t, ‘bounties’ will now be payable to the private companies, making claimants into outlaws .Apparently those on disability benefits are not ‘hassled enough’
In the UK, the big private training companies have made millions form often coercive schemes such as New Deal and are now recruiting for staff to run the new programmes
What the other parties want
The Conservatives policies are just as draconian: under their proposals every existing/new IB claimant would have to attend "in-depth assessments" , those deemed fit to work put on Jobseekers' Allowance(JSA), face a massive cut in benefit and a requirement to seek work immediately. Even those considered ‘not fit to work’ would be constantly monitored and ‘advised’ an invasiveness that would prove highly stressful to very ill people and the severely disabled. Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem leader, has stated he would like all IB to be abolished completely.
Immoral, rushed, unworkable?
Sadly, the govt can exploit a general lack of knowledge most people have about benefits, welfare etc. It is certainly no ‘soft touch, Even Freud notes: "the UK has a more demanding benefits regime than many other countries for people with disabilities” It is already extremely difficult to claim benefits such as IB: the process involving stringent eligibility criteria, massive application forms, regular interviews and 'tough' and invasive medical tests, amongst the most stringent in Europe. In terms of fraud among people claiming IB, it has described by the DWP as 'negligible'. There is also no guarantee such brutal policies work. A Canadian Govt report has shown their Welfare To Work programmes just didn't achieve their aims. The report clearly showed that there had been no increase in the numbers of employable welfare clients declaring employment income after leaving welfare. In fact, many actually have died on the streets.(4) Further, a new report commissioned for the DWP has found that the use of benefits sanctions can ‘worsen existing health problems’ and ‘provoke new mental health problems’ It’s conclusions suggest that benefit sanctions should play a more limited role.(5) While, in Australia, major charities like the Salvation Army refused to work with similar programmes.
The legislation on which much of this policy is based (see above), has also been criticized as ‘rushed, prejudiced and ‘short on detail’, with the government also ignoring the many submissions to its consultation’s which were critical of the reforms, including SWAN’s. Finally there are good reasons why IB is paid at at a higher rate: they are ill and disabled people who have extra needs. IB replaced single payments, which were for needs like extra laundry after wetting the bed or extra heating as many cannot go out during the day.
Unsavoury Friends?
One can note that much of this welfare reform has been driven by advisers such as the massive US Insurance multinational Unum Provident, described in the US as a ''an outlaw company that for years has operated in an illegal fashion." and been accused of racketeering and cheating tens of thousands of insured Americans out of their claims.
Clearly it would be in their interest for the UK to adopt a US style basic welfare system with private unemployment insurance for those who can afford it.(6)
Media Misinformation/Prejudice
SWAN has also identified that although these are the most significant welfare reforms since 1945, the media debate (including in the ‘quality newspapers’) has been limited or even misinformed. A clear example of this was the verbatim reporting of Freud’s claim that G.P’s decide who get benefits, they don’t, a private company Atos Origin contracts private doctors to carry out medicals. The majority of the media approach to claimants is to demonise and label them as scroungers, fiddlers, etc - the narrative being ‘its their own fault’. This has an impact on all claimants, many feeling harassed and targeted even if they have never done anything wrong. Indeed recent research has shown how Govt and media attitudes and policies to claimants etc, has skewed public perception of this group, often alluding to a ‘benefit culture’ Further, claimants themselves are very rarely consulted and coverage of their own views is limited if non-existent.
Punishing the vulnerable and the ‘invasive state’/ The Best Way Forward?
As Kevin Maguire noted in the Daily Mirror, all parties seem to be presenting ever harsher reforms with a seemingly endless 'race to the bottom'. The new ambitious Works and Pensions Secretary, James Purnell will certainly push through with zeal even the harshest of reforms. All these proposals seem rushed and ill thought out, never mind the sheer nastiness and invasiveness of the US style 'blame the poor' nature of them. Indeed, a whole new ‘welfare industry’ is being created on the strength of 13 weeks research! Of course, it won’t end there: there is also talk of tagging of certain disabled groups which would clearly have an effect on their benefits and plans for ending specialist disability employment services. Much of the ideology behind these reforms is based on the neo-liberal notion of the 'active citizen' which is sweeping the world. Only by working or training or studying can a person be 'good' but what about those who just cannot work?
Other Govt departments are staking their claim with Housing Minister Caroline Flint floating the idea of linking social housing to looking for work, anyone requesting council housing would have to sign contract agreeing to look for work, etc. The Health Secretary Alan Johnson is to announce the introduction of what is being called the ‘Well Note’ Instead of Doctors signing a sickness note to allow people time off work, the new note will focus on what the Patient can do , rather that what they can’t. One could argue these are not policies for 2008, but are more suited to 1888: the politics of the workhouse.
SWAN believes it is disabled people themselves who are the best-placed people to decide on suitable programmes and work-related activities, to be undertaken at their own pace and at the right time. This can of course be aided by sympathetic, trained and competent advisers, counsellors, etc. These programmes certainly do not fulfil this principle. With these latest proposals many hundreds of thousands of disabled people and others are now fearful of the future and feel personally under assault. Welfare reform should be based on the experiences and needs of claimants, rather than on Neo-Victorian prejudices and rushed research.
Sadly, with these all these changes, Britain is about to become a much harsher place.
SWAN 2008
(1)
http://www.swansheffield.org.uk/wra.php (2) For a detailed analysis of the controversial genesis of the reforms
http://www.lwbooks.co.uk/journals/articles/rutherford07.html (3) tp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/02/nbenefit202.xml
(4)
http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/11/12/NoWelfare (5)
http://www.cpag.org.uk/press/280108.htm (6)
http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=2940 SWAN hopes to have a national Conference and possibly a national protest on the issues in the Spring, contact us for details/offers of help, etc.
e-mail:
Homepage:
Comments
Display the following 2 comments