>From: "Sheffield Welfare A.N." <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: [danmail] from swan (urgent), very bad news!
>Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 12:55:05 +0100 (BST)
>
> hello
>We have just received the following from B/W which is a reputable source
>and i don't think it is alarmist. Imo, it is very worrying and already
>people i have spoken to are very concerned
>
>regards
>
>'john rogers'
>
>SWAN
>
>All claimants to be forced off incapacity benefit
> 27.06.06
> The DWP has surreptitiously gone back on its word by
>ruling that all current incapacity benefits claimants will be forced onto
>the new Employment and Support Allowance. This means that many people
>currently regarded as having conditions so severe that they are exempt from
>even having to have a medical assessment will, in the future, have to
>undertake work related activities or have their benefits cut. In addition,
>the DWP has now ruled that whilst waiting to be transferred, all existing
>claimants will be obliged to draw up a return to work action plan and take
>part in compulsory work focused interviews.
> U-turn
> News of the changes was tucked away in two bullet points in the Green
>Paper Consultation Report, published without fanfare last week. The
>Consultation Report presented excerpts from responses to January's Green
>Paper 'A new deal for welfare: Empowering people to work' which
>set out the proposals to abolish incapacity benefits.
> Under the plans, incapacity benefit and income support for people
>incapable of work are to be abolished and replaced with a single benefit
>called the Employment and Support Allowance (ESA). The vast majority of
>people who receive this new allowance will be obliged to draw up a personal
>action plan and take part in work related activities such as work trials,
>permitted work or cognitive behavioural therapy. A small number of
>claimants, judged to have conditions so severe that work will never be an
>option for them, will not be obliged to undertake any activities and will
>receive more money. (For more on the Green Paper's proposals, see
>Incapacity benefit reform: bribery, bullying, compulsion & spot
>checks 25.01.06)
> The Green Paper itself stated that: "The benefits structure and
>conditionality requirements outlined above [i.e. the Employment and Support
>Allowance] will only apply to new claimants." However, the
>Consultation Report quietly announces that:
> "We have listened to views about existing incapacity benefits
>claimants and have decided that they will be migrated across to the
>Employment and Support Allowance in time. This is to bring all claimants
>under the same system, helping to smooth the administration of the new
>benefit and reduce dual system complexity. . . However, we will ensure that
>existing claimants' benefits levels will be protected"
> Weasel words
> In fact, none of the views published appeared to be in favour of forcing
>existing claimants onto the new benefit. The truth is that the DWP have
>belatedly realised the enormous expense and complexity of trying to run two
>entirely different benefits systems for several decades. Thus claimants are
>being forced off incapacity benefits solely for the administrative
>convenience of the DWP.
> Even the undertaking that "existing claimants' benefits
> levels will be protected" is a cause for concern. If, as the DWP have
>claimed all along, the new ESA is going to be more generous than incapacity
>benefit, then what need would there be to 'protect' benefit levels? When
>details of the new ESA rates are finally announced Benefits and Work
>predicts that some new claimants will, in fact, turn out to be worse off
>under the new system than they would have been under the old.
> Sham process
> However, we do have to admit that not all Benefits and Work predictions
>turn out to be correct. Back in January we claimed that the consultation
>about the new system was likely to be a sham process, with the DWP having
>already decided what it was going to do. In so far as all objections by
>disability groups to the new two tier system and compulsory work related
>activities have been entirely disregarded we were right. But what we hadn't
>foreseen was that as soon as employers objected to improvements to the
>Statutory Sick Pay system, including paying employees from the first day of
>sickness rather than the fourth, the whole idea would immediately be
>dropped.
> To be fair, one area of uncertainty in the Green Paper has been
>cleared up as a result of objections from disability organisations. It had
>been proposed that the new benefit would have a basic element paid at the
>same rate as Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA). This would have lead to young
>people being paid less, in the same way that they currently receive less
>JSA. However, the DWP have now made it clear that 'everyone in the main
>phase of the Employment and Support Allowance will get the same basic
>allowance - regardless of age'.
> Even this may not be as fair as it sounds, however, because there
>is a waiting period of three months before claimants are assessed for ESA
>during which they are paid at JSA rates. It seems likely that this
>statement means that for their first three months of incapacity young
>people will indeed be paid less, on an entirely age discriminatory basis.
> Backbench rebellion?
> Many people hope and believe that these proposals will be the source of a
>massive rebellion by backbench Labour MPs and members of the House of
>Lords. The initial signs are not good, however. Of the 600 responses to the
>Green Paper only eight were from MPs and not a single one was from a peer.
> Moreover, the DWP claims that 'Strong support was shown
> for reforming the current incapacity benefits regime and for extending
> Pathways for Work'. As evidence of this, they offer the following
> endorsements:
> "The Disability Rights Commission welcomes the broad direction of
>travel in the Green Paper, the aim of increasing employment rates and a
>more proactive approach for employers and health professionals, together
>with the roll-out of the successful Pathways to Work pilots." Disability
>Rights Commission
> "Disability Wales has long accepted the need for radical reform
>of the welfare state. We further welcome a reform of the welfare state that
>meets the needs and aspirations of disabled people." Disability Wales
> "RADAR welcomes the Government's desire to improve employment
>prospects for disabled people. After previous false starts, RADAR commends
>the Green Paper as a positive attempt to reform incapacity benefits." Royal
>Association for Disability and Rehabilitation (RADAR)
> Unless these quotes have been taken wildly out of context it
>seems likely that they will go a long way to undermining any potential
>rebellion. After all, if such prestigious disability groups are in favour
>of the 'reforms' how can anyone else reasonably object? Moreover, the
>reforms already appear to enjoy a large degree of cross-party support, so
>that even a substantial Labour rebellion would be unlikely to win anything
>other than minor concessions.
> Benefits migrants
> The consultation paper states that the DWP intend that the group of
>claimants who will eligible for the higher rate of ESA and not obliged to
>carry out work related activities "will be much smaller than the
>current Personal Capability Assessment exempt group". As all
>existing claimants are to be 'migrated across' to ESA this means that many
>people with severe conditions will in the future have to carry out work
>related activities or lose benefits. The only way of avoiding this would be
>to passport all currently exempt claimants onto the higher rate of ESA.
>This would be an expensive option and there is no indication that it is
>currently being considered.
> Nor is it yet clear when or how current claimants are to
> be 'migrated across' to the new benefit. (It is worth noting that this
>choice of verb by the DWP means that existing incapacity claimants will now
>join another demonised group - they are about to become 'migrants' as well
>as potential fraudsters). Any mass migration, if it requires a new medical
>assessment for each claimant, would be likely to put a huge strain on DWP
>resources. A more likely scenario is that, as each existing claimant's
>incapacity for work becomes due for review, they will be assessed for ESA.
>This would mean that it would take up to five years for all current
>claimants to be transferred.
> However and whenever the forced transfer is achieved, claimants
>can be assured that they will not be left unmolested in the meantime. The
>Consultation Report explains that:
> "We intend, as resources allow, to require all existing claimants
>to complete an action plan and participate in a minimum number of
>work-focused interviews."
> No-one, not even those who are exempt from the PCA are to
> be left in peace, it would seem.
> Fit-as-a-Flea Allowance
> The fact that such basic issues as the rate young people will receive and
>whether existing claimants will be covered are still subject to change at
>this late stage - the White Paper is due out in a few weeks time - is an
>extraordinary indictment of these back of an envelope proposals.
> Even the name of one element has now been thrown into doubt. The
>DWP have belatedly realised what an eight year old could have pointed out
>to them, that calling the main benefit the Employment and Support Allowance
>and the two components the Employment Support Component and the Support
>Component is deeply confusing. The Department is now proposing to call the
>Employment Support Component the 'Work Related Activity Component'. From
>their point of view this also has the happy effect of removing any
>reference to sickness, incapacity, disability or even support from the
>name. It's now a benefit for people who are active and doing work related
>things, not for people who are disabled or who have long-term health
>problems.
> The reform to end all reforms
> The consultation paper is particularly bad news for existing claimants.
>But as yet there is no evidence that there will be the kind of damaging and
>successful protests that New Labour's attempts to 'reform' Disability
>Living Allowance provoked at the beginning of their tenure.
> Much has been learnt by New Labour in the intervening period
>about news management. This time, years of work and millions of pounds
>worth of advertising and press releases have gone into softening up the
>targets. Much of the public has been successfully persuaded that the
>majority of incapacity claimants are either fraudsters running market
>stalls and hair salons or weak willed people who, for their own good, need
>a hefty push to get them back to work. The coming White Paper will reveal a
>little more about what form that final push will take.
> Download a copy of the Green Paper Consultation Report
>in .pdf format.
>
> © 2006 Steve Donnison
>http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/benefits/unspun/47_all_IB_claimants_%20to_migrate.htm
>
>---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Photos – NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 7p a
>photo.
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN Search Toolbar now includes Desktop search!
http://join.msn.com/toolbar/overview
________________End of message______________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies). Enquiries about the list administratione should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|
