Thu 02-Nov-06 06:43 PM by shawn

Disabled people and work - From rhetoric to reality ...

... A half-day conference on Tuesday 14 November 2006.

About the conference -

The Welfare Reform Bill, published in July 2006, outlined Government's plans to help more disabled people into work and reduce the number of people claiming Incapacity Benefit.

It is essential that Government proposals provide both opportunities and security for disabled people, including those for whom work is not appropriate? This half-day conference will explore whether the rhetoric can become reality.

Please do come along and participate in what promises to be an informative and lively afternoon.

Guest speakers -

• Jim Murphy - Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform
  
• Kate Green – Chief Executive Child Poverty Action Group
  
• Robin Williamson – Technical Director, Low Incomes Tax Reforms Group
  
• Paul Treloar – Director Policy and Services, Disability Alliance

Just a note to say thank you to everyone who attended the Disability Alliance conference yesterday, and we hope that you enjoyed the afternoon speakers.

Jim Murphy, Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform gave a comprehensive outline of government intentions behind the Welfare Reform Bill and took questions - nothing surprising really in his answers, although he did hint that the permitted work rules are being reconsidered again.

And good to meet some of the denizens of these boards in the flesh.
Hope to see more of you at our conference next year.

a full conference report is now available on the Disability Alliance website(including Jim Murphy's speech)at http://www.disabilityalliance.org/agm5.htm

The welfare reform bill is the most radical change to the benefit system since 1988, and arguably, since 1948 – for such radical change, responses seem muted, and as Paul has pointed out, it has broad cross-party support.

The title – From Rhetoric to Reality was right on the button – at the end, having listened to Jim Murphy’s presentation, I left feeling deeply disturbed and unsettled, with the intention of writing to Paul with feedback and comments, once I had assembled my thoughts into some sort of order. It has proved difficult…

The word ‘deluded’ kept free-floating through my mind, but wouldn’t settle anywhere. Wondered wildly whether there was a case for advising sick people to claim JSA instead, and thought probably not. There was only one thing I felt certain of, and that was that the spin won’t hold in Saltley.

I see clients who prefer to claim IS while they are waiting for their PCA appeals, with a 20% reduction, than claim JSA. Uninfluenced by the agenda-controlling-language in consultations, committee meetings or political speeches, and in the harsh light of reality, I believe that overwhelmingly more claimants are likely to feel harried than helped by compulsory work focussed interviews. They are going to be very angry.

The rhetoric, the agenda, is an appeal to enlightened attitudes towards disability and against the waste of human potential in ‘writing people off’. Who would want to argue against that? Not any political party, not the trade unions, not disability activists, not any sane and rational person with an ounce of human compassion, I expect. It’s backed up with disability discrimination legislation, and the Commission, and it’s fair to say that societal attitudes towards disability are in the process of change – we have moved a long way from 1986, and from 1948. Sometimes social and cultural change needs drivers and kick-starts...

On the other hand, we do nobody any favours if we allow ourselves to be carried away by rhetoric and good intentions, if the benefits and pitfalls are not thought through and if the proposed legislation is not subjected to rigorous critical scrutiny. Legislative changes have unforeseen and unintended consequences. There is acknowledgement from the conservatives of the adverse impact of thatcherite policies on inequality and child poverty, in their recent elevation of Polly Toynbee to regimental mascot, and welfs can point to changes in board and lodging rules for example, and the handling of Care in the Community policies, which have COST LIVES.

After some consideration I have concluded that the argument for abolishing IB is irrational and probably insane.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/0,,440480,00.html

this helped...and my keep it calm and measured resolutions are now busted...

"The core purpose of welfare reform is to stop people being written off from the job market by the benefit system." - Jim Murphy

The argument for abolishing incapacity benefit is specious.

Objectively, abolition of IB amounts to a severe truncation of social insurance against sickness on contributory principles, and an major extension of means-testing. How desirable is this? How much entitlement will contributors’ lose, in financial terms?

What else is lost in terms of losing an entitlement to a social insurance benefit one has paid for, for a means-tested benefit, payment of which requires compliance with the ever-changing whims of an intrusive state?

I am conscious of the fact that located in a highly deprived inner-city area with a clientele which very largely reflects the various problems of the most socially excluded, there are groups of claimants who I don’t see. Among this group are workers or recent workers, who have become sick, and manage on their incapacity benefit only. Maybe they have a partner who is working, maybe they have a few thousand in savings –a redundancy payment from Rover or Co-op dairies, whatever. From time to time I see someone suffering one of life’s reversals in middle age, completely unfamiliar with the benefit system, expressing shock at the low benefit rates etcetera. They thought the benefit system would be there for them when they needed it.

Has this been thought through AT ALL?


"At May 2006, there were 2.69 million working age claimants of incapacity benefits (Incapacity Benefit or Severe Disablement Allowance), a fall of 54 thousand on a year earlier. 58% of claimants were men and 42% women. Both the male and female caseloads are now falling: males by 42 thousand and females by 12 thousand in the year to May 2006.
At May 2006, 64% (1.71 million) of working age claimants were beneficiaries (i.e. were paid benefit), with the remaining 979 thousand receiving National Insurance Credits only. A further 42 thousand were claimants above State Pension Age: these were almost all recipients of Severe Disablement Allowance." - DWP