[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 585: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 641: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
Disabled people being forced back into work. - Carers UK Forum

Disabled people being forced back into work.

Discuss news stories and political issues that affect carers.
Rumours have been flying around the net for many months about plans for benefit reform specifically relating to disabled people or those on long-term sickness benefits.

I’ll be fair and say there probably are plenty of people out there who simply have a “bad back” or claim sickness or disability simply because it’s easier than finding work and then working harder to maintain a job. We hear plenty of stories about people being caught out, trouble is their often so skilled at faking it gets harder and harder to find the liars, which means that innocent people who are genuinely ill and unable to work are caught in the cross fire.

With all the current changes in the Department of Work and pensions “definition of disabled” people who genuinely struggle with everyday life are being ordered to “get over it” and get on with it.

But are the current changes suggested this week stooping to a whole new level? If these changes become a reality people with terminal illnesses with more than 6 months to live, accident and stroke victims and also those with mental health issues will be forced back into work, even if it be unpaid.

For the full story go to; http://bit.ly/zrYjgG

How can they be so uncaring and cruel!! surely people who are terminally ill want to spend every opportunity they can with family and friends making lasting memories, instead they could be forced into work!
if i was disabled and could work i would,it's bad enough being a carer and stuck in home watching the tv and rotting,i wish i could go back to the good old days and work full time and tell dwp to shove the benefits,but i can't,surely just because you are in a wheelchair doesn't mean your life is over,the only problem i can see is convincing employers to take on disabled people
Cases differ.Each person is in a different place.In my view,depending on the person,their story,the sort of work etc...etc,maybe some might be capable of some work.Maybe not.But I really think when the hype,scare stories are removed,then,maybe we can see what the system proposed amounts to.
The initial post is somewhat misleading, for example the "rumours" are in fact proposals contained in the Welfare Reform Bill which was placed before Parliament on 17 February 2011 and is currently entering its final stages before becoming law with the government stating that it will use the Finance Act to prevent ammendments passed in the Lords delaying the passing of the Bill.

The Clauses within the Bill which relate to mandatory work placements for those in the Work Related Activity Group of ESA are Clauses 53 & 54 which state that:
Claimant responsibilities for interim period

53 Claimant commitment for employment and support allowance

(1) The Welfare Reform Act 2007 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 1(3) (employment and support allowance: basic conditions) after paragraph (a) there is inserted—
“(aa) has accepted a claimant commitment,”.

(3) After section 1A (as inserted by section 51 above) there is inserted—

“1B Claimant commitment

(1) For the purposes of this Part a “claimant commitment” is a record of the
claimant’s responsibilities in relation to an award of an employment
and support allowance.

(2) A claimant commitment is to be prepared by the Secretary of State and
may be reviewed and updated as the Secretary of State thinks fit.

(3) A claimant commitment is to be in such form as the Secretary of State
thinks fit.

(4) A claimant commitment is to include—
(a) any prescribed information, and
(b) any other information the Secretary of State considers it
appropriate to include.

(5) For the purposes of this Part a claimant accepts a claimant commitment
if, and only if, the claimant accepts the most up-to-date version of it in
such manner as may be prescribed.

(6) Regulations may provide that, in prescribed circumstances, a claimant
is to be treated as having satisfied the condition mentioned in section
1(3)(aa).”

(4) In section 15(2)(b) (directions about work-related activity) for the words from
“by” to “14” there is substituted “in such manner as the Secretary of State thinks
fit”.

(5) In section 16(1) (contracting out) before paragraph (a) there is inserted—
“(za) any function under section 1B in relation to a claimant
commitment;”.

(6) In Schedule 2 (supplementary provisions) after paragraph 4 there is inserted—
Regulations may prescribe circumstances in which a person may be
entitled to employment and support allowance without having
accepted a claimant commitment.”

(7) In section 31(2) of the Welfare Reform Act 2009 (action plans: well-being of
children), in subsection (5) inserted into section 14 of the Welfare Reform Act
2007, after “preparing any” there is inserted “claimant commitment or”.

54 Work experience etc

In section 13 of the Welfare Reform Act 2007 (work-related activity), after
subsection (7) there is inserted—

“(8) The reference to activity in subsection (7) includes work experience or
a work placement.”
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... /12075.pdf

The following statement is also somewhat misleading]I’ll be fair and say there probably are plenty of people out there who simply have a “bad back” or claim sickness or disability simply because it’s easier than finding work and then working harder to maintain a job. We hear plenty of stories about people being caught out, trouble is their often so skilled at faking it gets harder and harder to find the liars, which means that innocent people who are genuinely ill and unable to work are caught in the cross fire.[/quote]

The levels of fraud and error in disability benefits are extremely low, contrary to public perception IB, ESA and DLA are not easy to claim, the level of scrutiny and evidence required is high and the majority of claimants have to undergo a medical assessment. Likewise the idea that 'there probably are plenty of people out there who simply have a "bad back"' ignores the fact that there are a number of seriously disabling conditions which the DWP codes under Back Pain for DLA statistical purposes, some conditions which effect the spine also have individual codes, and perpetuates the commonly held myth that a bit of back pain is a passport a life of leisure and large sums of money from the taxpayers' purse. In reality we have one of the harshest and least generous sickness and disability benefits systems in the EU.
I blame the Tories and - yes - (you guessed it!) Maggie Thatcher.
Under a lot of pressure by the brilliant maverick leader of the then Greater London Council Ken Livingstone, who used to post the daily numbers of unemployed on a huge banner on the Greater London HQ right across the river from Westminster. This was at at a time when the Elephant and Castle was a cardboard box city of homeless squatters. Maggie thought it was a clever dodge to persuade the unemployed to register as sick, in fact she bribed them to do it and left their local GPs to sign them off, it made the unemployment figures look much better. And many of the folk she was writing off were coal miners in remote villages, it was administratively convenient to write them off, because most of them would die young anyway of a combination of hard work, drink and despair. How do I know? Well, I've lived the last two decades of my life in Scottish (former) pit towns and villages. And these are decent, hard working folk: the folk who actually generated the wealth that made Britain great in the first place. They arent scroungers and layabouts, but if there is no work to be had, some of their children and grandchildren are canny enough to duck and dive a bit. That said, I dont know any who walked away with £1M bonuses for trashing the banks, there is a scale of difference out there, isnt there?