Half a million tenants face benefit changes

Readers' comments (4)

• michael barratt | 27/10/2008 10:01 am

  My concerns are that New Labour’s in its eagerness to get claimants off incapacity benefits is only a cost cutting exercise and many applicants for benefits will not get the financial help they need or those presently on inacapacity benefit will be pushed into unsuitable work, financially disadvantaged and their lives thrown into turmoil on the basis of inaccurate medical assessments.
  
  My daughter suffers from severe congenital visual impairment and other medical conditions. In relation to seeking medical treatment she sought the assistance of her member of parliament. The member of parliament subsequently received a letter from a local NHS Trust that contained a series of inaccuracies in relation to my daughter’s medical condition.
  
  Following her complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office the NHS Trust was instructed along with other requirements to amend my daughter’s Ophthalimic Consultant’s letter to a consultant in another Trust in March 2004, inrespect to the following:
  
  The statement that my daughter wears spectacles to be crossed out and the words inserted ‘she does not wear spectacles.’
  
  After the statement ‘she went to boading school where she had assistance with various magnifiying aids’ to add ‘but these were of no benefit.’
  
  A line put through ‘I am sure she has a capacity for independence and to live life to the full without much in the way of reading aids.’ and the following added: ‘At university over 40 hours of assistance a week was needed and walking around hurt Natalie’s eyes so taxis had to be taken.
  
  The author of the letter required to be amended by the Information Commissioner's Office had been my daughter's Opthalmic consultant for over ten years.
  
  How does this New Labour government intend to protect the vulnerable from errors like the one referred to above when it is committed to take five times more claimants off inacapacity benefit than the the British Medical Association estimate is a realistic target.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Joe Halewood | 27/10/2008 10:10 am

  Interesting logitic dynamic
  
  1 million people each with a personal advisor in 6 years. Thats 170,000 people a year assuming everyone stays in employment for 6 years. If we say a 3-month period of a personal advisor (just to get them into job and no ongoing support) and assuming a caseload per advisor of say 20 people then thats 80 people per year per advisor. So thats more then 2000 advisors need recruiting ignoring back office staff.
  2000 minimum new staff at cost of say £35k each - all costs found is about £70m per annum or £420m over the next 6 years to save how much??
  
  Significant cost to public purse to meet such incredibly ambitious target

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Chris Bennett | 29/10/2008 6:55 am

  As someone who has suffered disability in my time, I think it I important to take a closer look at the issues here. While governements have a long history of trying to cut public expenditure at the cost of benefit claimants, there is another side to this policy, which I believe needs consideration. Also, I have no personal interest in seeing people with disabilities put into work against their will or better judgement. I personally have been fortunate to work all of my life, and I have always been keen to do so. However, I have also spent all of my working life working with vulnerable adults, including those with mental health problems. One of the problems I see in the current system is that many people want to work, but feel unable to do so. If someone has been claiming benefit for a long period,they often lose confidence in their ability to work. Many people with disabilities compare themselves with more able-bodied people, and want to be able to contribute. The issues will be whether people with disabilities are suitably assessed for work, and whether their skills and abilities are properly considered. If disabled people are able to work, then this should be encouraged. I do not agree that their benefits shoulod be cut, and I expect this part of the Government policy will run into problems. However, one of the positives I see coming from this legislation provided people with disabilities are not put into low and menial paid work, is that it might contribute towards the diminution of disability discrimination. Also, it might help employers and employees to gain a greater understanding of disability, and what it means for disabled people. I think this provides a good opportunity for disabled people to gain the confidence to develop their lives in a way which many may have thought was not posible. In my experience people with disabilities do live in poverty. Those claiming disability benefit often end up no better off than those claiming other benefits, because their extra incapacity benefit counts for nought, when housing beneit and council tax are calculated. As such, people on long-term disability benefit are no better off than those on JSA. I think any help which disabled people can have in gaining confidence, gaining skills and utilising the skills which they undoubtedly possess should be welcomed. In the long-term, provided disabled people, who are brought into this plan in a constructive way, should benefit personally and financially. I think the government have recognised thate problems faced by disabled people, and they are making an atempt o rectify this. Whether this legislation works to the advantage of disabled people remains to be seen, but it is a first step. Broadly I welcome this help, but remain to be convinced whether it will work in a constructive way. There is always going to be resistance to such legislation. However in my view a lot of the resistance will be from people who do not understand the need that many disabled people have to play a fuller part in tthe way Society works. The other resistance is likely to come from disabled people, who fear losing their benefits, and who feel they are not ready for work. For some people this will be a reality, and I have sympathy for anyone wrongly assessed as being ready for work, when they are not. However, there will also be those, who have lost skills, and who feel that they are unable to work, when there may be ways in which they can. Yes, there are other ways in which disabled people coan live more fulfilled lives. However, I think it is iportant that disabled people are given the opportunity to work, and that the barriers to misunderstanding and discriminating against disabled people in the workplace are dismantled. Also, it is important that disabled people have the chance to better themselves economically, and to feel that they are contributing to Society in their own way. If people belive they are contributing, this will undoubtedly help them to build self-esteem. The legislation will need to be reviewed. If it is found not tpo be working, it should be scrapped. However, if it does work, then it should be supported.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• michael barratt | 30/10/2008 5:18 pm

  Most people on disabilities want access to work and of course for some there are issues relating to a lack of workplace skills and confidence. The problem with the Government’s scrapping of Incapacity Benefit and the introduction ESA is the fear and insecurity those changes have produced in the precarious lives of many disabled people.
  
  On the basis of personal experience, many disabled persons with a limited capacity for work do not necessarily look so and as a consequence have suffered inappropriate treatment at the hands of teacher, officials and medical person who should know better. Many disabled persons should rightly for their health sake, themselves determine whether they should work, what doing, for how long and when – I fear that many disabled persons rightly entitled to self determination of access to work will not with grievous results in respect to their health and wellbeing.
  
  Although my daughter has a limited capacity to work she recently enquired as to the possibility of obtaining training and access to other schemes from the Job Centre disability officer, she was informed that such opportunities were only open to those prepared to be available for work more than 16 hours a week.
  
  I fear the Government’s ESA programme is not driven by altruistic intentions rather is a cost cutting exercise in the long haul.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment