The government's announcement on new tests for eligibility for incapacity benefits appear to be be going in the right direction. Unfortunately this government has a long record of talking the talk on benefits but not walking the walk (search 'incapacity benefit' on this website for more details). The first thing one notices about this announcement is that the new tests will initially only apply to new applicants. That leaves in the region of two million people who will not face these tests. Still, I should not complain. I have been arguing for years now that Britain should move towards the system adopted in New York quite a few years ago now: the system whereby a claimant is assessed for what he or she can do rather than what he or she cannot do. It is better to make slow progress towards this than none at all.
This is from the BBC Online coverage of the news:
The new work capability assessment is being introduced alongside the employment support allowance - which will replace incapacity benefits for new claimants from next autumn.Mr Hain said the true cost of people claiming incapacity benefit in 2006-07 is £12.5 billion.
At the moment more than 60% of the people who apply for incapacity benefits are successful, but only 50% of people who take the new test are likely to pass it.
Those who fail will be expected to seek work.
Mr Hain says the new system will place greater emphasis on what sick and disabled people can do, rather than what they cannot.
Tests such as being able to walk more than 400 metres (437 yards) would be abolished.
"There are lots of jobs that people can do now which don't involve that kind of physical test, so we will be looking at what people could do," Mr Hain said.
"Could they operate a computer properly, use a mouse, operate a keyboard rather than have they got the physical stamina to do the old type of jobs that involve a great deal of physical hard work?"
Mr Hain told BBC News: "We want to help people, not punish people. This is about giving people opportunities because you are better off in work - the evidence shows that."
He said people who remained on benefits for long periods of time were more likely to become ill, as were their children.
"If we can provide the support, the training, the skills, the professional help, we can transform people's lives," he said.
Of course the last part is political spin. What he means is that the welfare state can reduce the extent to which it seduces people into welfare dependency and thus damages their lives.
Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in Welfare benefits
Comments (2)
TrackBack (5)
Comments
The issue lies squarely on the shoulders of most employers who see the disabled as undeserving parasites who should be either put down or locked in a dungeon out of public site, regardless of the laws on such issues this is the case. Disabled people are given by potential employers, time after time that they are not what they are looking for with some nebulous excuse as to why or why not. Disabled people, and Im not just talking about people in wheel chairs (as is the image conjured in most imaginations) are often seen as having a low IQ, for instance, my brother is deaf but can hear slightly and has been unemployed now for 5 years, is often told he is unemployable on account of being unemployed for longer than 6 months, however he had worked succesfully for 25 years before loosing his manufacturing job due to an injury, he can make no claim whatsoever (not in the UK) and will soon be living in the street. My other sibling has multiple sclerosis and is a qualified teacher, by law she has to inform potential employers that she has this condition, however after 300 applications for part time work over the last 7 years or so has been totaly unsuccessful. Little wonder many people go running for the shelter of benefits if they can. Neither of my siblings, when they were working had a bad attitude to work or employers but both are now suffering under what can best be described as a Nazi employer attitude, ie they only want the perfect specimen in every respect imaginable. Both of my siblings live in Australia where a right wing government (until recently) has destroyed any goodwill left amongst the workforce and in particular the unemployed, and has lead to a culture where the victim is blamed, it seems that the Daily mail attitude on this column and in general in the UK is where we are now headed. Why cant employers get together with the government and abolish all so called 'Equal opportunity' laws, at least that would be honest.
Posted by: Steve at April 18, 2008 02:04 PM
Warning: file(http://63.247.138.2/~bartholo/randomquotes.dump) [function.file]: failed to open stream: No route to host in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2007/11/greater_emphasi.php on line 303
Warning: implode() [function.implode]: Bad arguments. in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2007/11/greater_emphasi.php on line 303
It's one thing to say Incapacity Benefit (IB) should adopt the American style of welfare - focusing on ability rather than inability. But if one looks at the current rules and structure of the IB assessment, it is completly based on what one cannot do, one's limitations whithin socety. This has been a delibaret stratagy by the government to focus on disability and incapacity. I would in past years have loved to of told at the medical interview of my success at college and University, but this in it's self would have lost me my benefit. In trying to define 'incapacity' whithin its own beaurocratic definitions, the government. . . not the disabled and mentally ill has created a system of failure.
Posted by: David Appleman at January 22, 2008 10:51 AM