Oct 2009 15

Tougher assessments for incapacity claimants9

In October, after relentless pressure to toughen up Incapacity Benefit, the Government introduced a new ‘Employment and Support Allowance’. Over the last year applicants have been undergoing the new medical assessments, and the DWP yesterday released the results.

Nearly two thirds of applicants have so far failed in their claim, and only one in 20 have been found to be totally unable to work. The new assessment of ‘capability to work’ is tougher than that for IB (not that that, many will say, takes much), and it has concluded so far that 36 per cent of applicants are completely capable of work. Include those that are capable of at least some work, and as the Guardian reported yesterday, the implications for Britain’s 2.6 million IB claimants could be considerable; up to £11 billion is potentially being paid to 1.9 million people who should have been looking for work.

This will of course come as no surprise to the many people who thought IB was just an invitation to the lazy to game the system.  Much more seriously though, it suggests that IB has been a gross waste of taxpayers’ money. Billions have been spent on those who did not merit the support. Its particularly galling considering how the very few in real need often encounter a  brick wall; if the undeserving were not monopolising the budget, more could have gone to those the benefit was meant for.

One might wonder why it took so long for them to replace the IB and with the Employment and Support Allowance system. Cynics might suggest Government has known that IB’s assessment criteria were too weak for years – someone on IB is after all, someone not being counted in unemployment figures – but its just as likely that  individuals were just allowed to receive incapacity benefits without undergoing sufficient tests. But the situation has changed now. Government is desperately trying to re-find the fiscal prudence it threw away a decade ago. With record levels of debt, the Government needs to find savings, and benefits seems to be the target.

Ministers have been stoic about the new statistics, stating that the new ESA prevents thousands of people from getting trapped on sickness benefits (Daily Telegraph). This is certainly beneficial. Allowing people who are capable of working, however little, to get trapped on benefits is clearly not the best use of taxpayers’ money. But not only should the Government ensure that the current system remains rigorous in its assessment of those who receive benefits, but it should embrace its new found hawkishness, and work hard to prevent individuals from finding ways to take advantage of the new system.

Related Posts

  • Tim

    The point that this post appears to be missing is that just because somebody is capable of some work does not mean it is their fault if they are not working.
    Employers still do not want to take on disabled people. It does not matter how much the TPA says somebody should be working, or even how much a disabled person wants to work – they cannot get into work unless an employer takes them on.
    Even disability organisations have a poor record on employing disabled people. For example, the RNID (Royal National Institute for Deaf people)employs no deaf people at all on its senior management team and only 10% of its staff are deaf. And this is an organisation that lectures other organisations on how they should be ‘exemplar’ employers if deaf people!
    It’s not fair to blame disabled people for their unemployment if nobody will employ them

  • Marc Watson

    Yet another article were the writer knows very little about the subject. Just to put the record straight Incapacity benefit did have a rigorous independent medical assessment called the Personal Capability Assessment. It also had exempt categories to protect the most vunerable and society in general e.g. The severe mental health exemption which ESA DOES NOT HAVE.
    Let’s see what you have to say after the first suicide happens, or a member of the public is killed because a paranoid schizophrenic is let loose in a kitchen.
    Do yourself a favour and get a working knowledge of a subject before spouting off about it.
    The site will be a good start for your education
    http://carerwatchdotcom.myfineforum.org/ftopic711-390.php

  • Tony Leslie Hacker

    I suspect that the two previous posts have been submitted by recipients of state largesse via the Disability payments pantomime.
    Tim has based his reply on the false premise and invalid point that all 2.7 million individuals are “disabled”. They are not. Nearly one third have so far failed in their claim” or are capable of employment.
    We all know individuals in every community who claim IB yet still lead a full, vigorous and happy existence.
    It is worth making the point yet again that ‘governments do not have any money to support their profligacy or philanthropy, except for what they take from those who choose to produce the wealth. I for one am looking forward to the day when I will no longer be a milch cow producing for the lazy ,the idle and yes the stupid members of our society.
    Have a nice day Tim and Marc.

  • MM

    You talk rubbish basically, my experience showed clearly the issue is with employers and the state, and not deaf people. Training schemes are not accepted by employers, not done by the state, and and even charity has abandoned training options for the deaf recently. Basically nobody wants to employ deaf.
    With no training, no support, no skills, not even access to an education properly, and very poor communication options, it is totally unrealistic the deaf can work as equals or have the same opportunities as hearing have. Employers just said what use are you to us ?
    THEY have declared deaf unemployable and useless, they have offered no support to them, so the taxpayer pays for that. Even so a number of deaf still will not be able to work. Because deaf make the most of their poor access and situation does not mean they are lazy scroungers, statistically deaf make more effort than any hearing person to find work, that is in DWP statistics too.
    There are some deaf for whom communication is so difficult they cannot work, it’s a fact of their life, why punish them for it ? Because they can walk ? Unless you live on planet Zog THAT is what disability allowances are FOR, those people.
    Perhaps if the taxpayer addressed the wholesale discriminations THEY offer to the deaf and address too employers and the state refusing these deaf the help and access they need to work, then none of them would be ‘scroungers’.
    Most scroungers are HEARING people, not the deaf, not the disabled, who can put YOU to shame via tolerance and acceptance. Pick on someone your own size, bully. Or get a job yourself !

  • MM

    A basic knowledge of training support to deaf people would show you, it is NOT coming from taxpayers money, charity begs for it. While some minimal funding does come from taxpayers, the fact remains the UK’s leading charity the RNID has refused it, becaue it didn’t cover basic expenses to set any support or training system up.
    The state tried to buy charities off with peanuts and were told where to go, you of course would work for nothing at all, not even a minimum wage ! That deaf are then forced to take benefits, get attacked for it, is below the belt. You have no idea what you are talking about.

  • Dr M J Tinsley

    Long term inactivity on the sick is seriously bad for your health!
    Contrast the severely disabled service casualties who strive to return to their units with the bulk of IB claimants who would rather not re engage with the workplace.
    It is probably a medical fact that many not in work are delayed in recovery and lose their self respect to the point where their physical and mental well being is seriously undermined. The medical profession are selling many short if not encouraging rehabilitation and social re-engagement. The NHS bears the brunt of the palliative efforts to provide the long term support due to dehabilitation and depression rather than to medical treatment perceived as part of conditions to justify bIB in the first place.

  • http://benefitfraud.blogspot.com John Page

    That probably takes the annual benefit fraud bill to around £3.5bn.

  • Tony

    To Tony Leslie Hacker,
    You are working on the false premise that all IB claimants who have failed the test are “scroungers”. This is not the case. Due to the way these tests are carried out by doctors other than the person’s GP or by agency staff and following “alleged” guidelines to remove as many as possible from IB, many failed IB claimants are actually those who can’t work due to their illness. This does not mean that there are “scroungers”, they do exist, but their numbers are not as high as people think they are.
    I myself have ME/CFS, which means that I can do small amounts of work but no employer would want to hire someone who is unreliable and takes longer than anyone else to do a task.

  • Christopher

    Come on. I believe that many of you are very naive if you believe that there isn’t a huge proportion of scroungers out there. What is wrong with a rigorous assessment if someone is to claim benefits, i for one believe this to be perfectly acceptable. When there are many out there working extremely hard for what they earn, then those who receive my taxes in benefits i would like to think genuinely deserve them. Those who disagree must themselves be on benefits as i do not believe than any hard working person could possibly disagree. I am totally sick of people wanting something for nothing, it is a terrible mentality. Pull yourself together!