[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
James Purnell - Add your comments to article - Page 2 - Carers UK Forum

James Purnell - Add your comments to article

Discuss news stories and political issues that affect carers.
Check out the reply from prof GREGG he has said that carers ahould be on seperate benefits
There are many working age Carers who will simply find it impossible to be able to go out to work, even with retraining.

I am a qualified nurse. My chosen career and my Caring life did not fit together at all, and one had to be sacrificed for the other. Why then, should I be forced into retraining for something different, which is NOT my chosen career?

I have given up a job I enjoyed, to look after family members with varying disabilities. I am not asking to be rich, but I am asking to be helped to get by from day-to-day,and to be warm, have enough of the right food, and to be able to exercise, and have some time off.

My post caring days are only likely to be in the event of a bereavement, so any training I was forced to do, would have to be kept up-to-date.And I hope that I do not have to cope with a situation like that for a long time.

I have also had an answer from Paul Gregg, who says much the same as to George, only he has used different wording, so is not just sending a standard e-mail in reply.
I posted this on another thread - hadn;t seen this one.
His report is very interesting and actually quite good on carers.

He basically says there should be 3 groups
- a 'Work-Ready' group
- a 'Progression to Work' group
- a 'No conditionality' group

These don't necessarily correspond to existing benefits as he wants a much more personalised system, but broadly ]http://www.dwp.gov.uk/welfarereform/rea ... ential.asp[/url]

P65 and P100 have relevent bits on carers
He said he didn't really think carers should be part of this system at all since they have a full time job already
Well I hope Purnell and co listen to him Image

Moving some carers to JSA is a bit like divide and conqueur.Some will be on it,some wont.However we already know their long term aim is for a single working age benefit.
If as we are now, was classed as A and a SWAB classed as Z ,what are the many changes needed in between to get the government from A to Z.

These proposals for me, have carers at the top of a very steep hill and once these changes brought in, its going to be a very steep downward slide till carers and their identity will be gone.

The government always have long term visions but with this they seem to be proposing short term fixes ( theirs not ours ) but which will have long term repurcussions for carers.
They are also proposing these changes ahead of the paper on social care.A person in receipt of DLA high rate does not necessarily qualify for a care package with the current eligibility criteria so even carers who want to work may still not get the necessary support.

Its a minefield that will explode when just one step taken in the wrong direction.

What do you all think?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 282853.ece

However, while these Bills are largely non-contentious, welfare groups in Scotland were outraged at the plans outlined in the Welfare Reform Bill to make the long-term unemployed throughout the UK start training courses or face benefit cuts.

John Dickie, the head of the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland, said that any reform needed to treat people with dignity, lift them out of poverty, be adequately resourced and fit with devolved policy on skills and childcare. Mr Dickie said: “The current proposals fail on all four counts and treat people in a punitive and undignified manner.â€Â
These proposals for me, have carers at the top of a very steep hill and once these changes brought in, its going to be a very steep downward slide till carers and their identity will be gone.

Its a minefield that will explode when just one step taken in the wrong direction.

What do you all think?
I agree. We are all doomed...doomed, do ya hear?
Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

Right.I'm off to Ghana where you can buy a nice flat for £20,000 and hire in carers,cooks and gardeners for £0.50p an hour...hey, and the sun always shines... byeeeeee!
Thats a very early but welcome Christmas pressie for me Image Image Image Image

Howay Rob,be serious for a minute.You have been round the block and back a few times.
As much as welfare reform is needed,where do you see carers in next 12/24/36 months etc,still with a name ??
Its a minefield that will explode when just one step taken in the wrong direction.

What do you all think?
I think going by this governments record they will make a complete cock up, cause us carers who are under a great deal of mental stress loads more, and then have to botch any lesiglation (sp)they have passed to repair some of the damage they have done. I'd expect the end product to have cost the tax payer the same mount of money as if they gave us carers about £20 -30 a week raise. Am I synical? Well I don't think so.
I think going by this governments record they will make a complete cock up,
I think any government is going to make a complete cock-up to be fair Jim - we are faced with a very uncertain economic future, the recession is heading into a serious depression and any governments hands are tied when there are so many competing demands for what little cash is left in the coffers.

My only hope is that we can bounce out of this crash as fast as we went into it. But sadly I dont suppose carers are going to be high on anyones real agendas.... we need to raise our voices, but even then we would be silly to expect too much, too soon.

I think the part of this site that will flourish is the "tips and hints" section - we are all going to have to tighten our belts and be creative. Grow your own veg! I would advise any carer who can to look at the possibility of a part time local job, maybe ask another carer to provide a bit of mutual flexible respite or sitting for a few hours a day in each others homes? That's better company for the disabled person too. We will survive - but only if we work together at local level to get out of this jam - and think out of the box a bit.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wms/?id=2 ... rs#g18WS.2

My comment added,go add yours if you have time.

James Purnell (Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions; Stalybridge & Hyde, Labour) | Hansard source

On Tuesday 2 December, I received Professor Paul Gregg's report on the effectiveness of the conditionality requirements that are currently applied to working age benefit claimants. This report "Realising Potential: A Vision for Personalised Conditionality and Support", was commissioned by my Department earlier this year.

The report is wide-ranging and ambitious and looks at the effectiveness of welfare reform and how more unemployed people, lone parents and people with a health condition or disability can access personalised help and be supported back to work. While the economic backdrop to the review is challenging it remains crucial to consider, debate and put in place further reforms to the welfare state to ensure we help as many disadvantaged people as possible to find work.

The report assesses the effectiveness of the current requirements that apply to the unemployed and to other groups. Evidence suggests that the requirements that apply to the unemployed on jobseeker's allowance have been highly effective over the past decade. The work-focused interview regime that applies to other claimants has also had some success, but primarily for those closest to the labour market.

However, the report recognises that the numbers of people getting support are still low compared to the numbers who do actually want to get back to work. This means that many of the most vulnerable people are not accessing help that evidence tells us is effective. This denies the wider financial, health and well-being gains that comes from working.

The report makes a number of important recommendations around how to address the weaknesses that remain within the current benefit system to ensure more people can access support and get back to work. The report suggests that almost everyone claiming benefit and not in work should:

be required to engage in activity that will help them to move towards, and then into employment;

have an empowered personal adviser with whom they will be able to agree a route back to work;

be obliged to agree an action plan on the steps they agree with their adviser will help them;

have a clear understanding of the expectations placed upon them (and why) and what the consequences for failing to meet these are; and

be able to access a wide range of personal support on the basis of need not benefit label.

The report makes clear that the Department should not seek to realise this vision by expecting lone parents with younger children and people with a health condition or disability to be treated as though they were unemployed and be made to look for suitable jobs. This would be counter-productive, unreasonable and punitive. Rather the report recommends the creation of an entirely new sort of conditionality regime for people who have a good opportunity to secure employment with time, encouragement and support. People in this "Progression to Work" group should face requirements which:

reflect the claimants co-ownership of the return to work process;

are tailored to their capability and built around their circumstances;

are based on activity that supports their own route back to work; and

are linked up with effective support.

The report also identifies some groups of people who should face no conditionality requirements whatsoever. These groups are lone parents and partners with very young children, carers with the most significant caring responsibilities and people with the most severe health conditions.

To realise this vision the report suggests that the right support needs to be made available, based on need rather than what benefit people are on. We also need to make sure those who deliver employment support, whether in Jobcentre Plus or the private and voluntary sector, have the right incentives to deliver the right support at the right time.

The Department warmly welcomes the report and will consider Professor Gregg's findings very carefully and will respond shortly.

This in Chapter 5 of the Gregg Review re : carers..

"ii. There is no effective welfare to work programme in place for this client group. This is important in considering the justification for conditionality, as there is no evidence that the Review is aware of that conditionality is likely to make work a more realistic outcome."

Does this give some official support to the notion that Carers are ALREADY working.