Tory heartlessness: Deaths of claimants after being declared 'fit for work'

The statistical basis of this story has provoked discussion (see below)  but the real issue is the heartlessness of government policy.

Statement from DPAC (Disabled People Against Cuts)

DWP has at last published the mortality statistics for the ESA group. It will take time to analyse them, but what they show is that the WCA is not fit for purpose.  2500 people have died after being found fit for work. Another 7,200 people died after being placed in the WRAG, the group for disabled people who can do ‘some work’, another 7540 died waiting to be assessed

But these figures do not tell the whole story. They ignore the suffering of disabled people who survived, being found fit for work but unable to claim JSA because they cannot meet the conditionality of the benefit. The suffering of 3000 disabled people sanctioned every month, and who cannot compensate for their loss of income, because they were found unfit to work, and they are.

The suffering and the humiliation of disabled people who have to prove their impairment/long term health issues over and over again to DWP staff who don’t believe them. The suffering of disabled people being portrayed as scroungers by the media. This suffering cannot be captured by statistics.
Under the last Labour government, the aim was to force 1 million disabled people out of benefits and into work. Almost 10 years later, the aim is the same, while in a meantime a Coalition minister recognised that people on disability benefits were ‘sicker’ than they thought.

And those in the middle group, who would expect before too long to be mandated to the Work Programme, have proved to be sicker and further from the workplace than we expected. So it will take far more time than we predicted for them to be ready to make a return to work

This has not changed. Some people will never get better and need long term support. To pretend that they can do ‘some work’ is disingenuous, as no employer is prepared to offer ‘some work’ to disabled people.

People died because of the welfare reforms, but others suffered and still suffer. Let’s not forget any of them

IDS's pre-paid cards aimed at creating hostility against the poor and humiliating them

•  

  

  antonynbrit.com

• The Coalition Government are balancing the budget on the backs of the poor
• The Green Party is the only party committed to transforming the economy to make it work for all not just the 1%

 

Work and Pensions Minister Iain Duncan Smith’s announcement on Government plans to introduce payments on pre-paid cards to welfare state claimants has  been denounced as “positively Orwellian” by the Green Party.

 

The party has responded to Iain Duncan Smith’s speech with anger saying that “this move is deliberately aimed at generating  disunity and creating hostility towards the most vulnerable.”

 

Green Party Welfare Spokesperson, Romayne Phoenix said:

The Conservative's  disastrous decision to introduce payments on pre-paid cards for claimants shows how out of touch they are with the realities of life for many people in Britain today. Anyone that is in debt or struggling to earn a living doesn't need reminding to spend their small benefit payments on food for their families. What most people need are better wages and better support. 87% of people claiming state aid are already in work but often in such low paid jobs that leave them  unable to pay their bills and having to look to the state for help. These families deserve support, not retribution and humiliation.

If the Conservative's really want to help people facing problems with gambling and addiction, they should stop promoting the national lottery and stop cutting funding to those vital support services that have been set up specifically to help people in tackling such issues. If the government is really that hung-up on problem gambling, a more socially beneficial approach might be to introduce pre-paid cards for their friends in banking that require them to invest sustainability and ethically rather than speculating away public finances.

The Welfare reforms have so far caused "financial hardship and distress" a committee of MPs found in April.

Brent in the spotlight on Panorama tonight 9pm

As the government's benefits changes begin to bite, Panorama gains exclusive access over six months to Brent - one of London's worst-hit boroughs - and follows the personal stories of some of the people most affected by the changes. As claimants struggle with the loss of hundreds of pounds of benefits and have to move to other parts of the UK where rents are cheaper, we follow people battling to stay in their homes and a local authority forced to ask to them to leave as their benefits are capped.

TONIGHT 9pm BBC1

The ramifications of Council Tax Support proposals

Brent Council Executive will discuss proposals for the Council Tax Support scheme which replaces Council Tax Benefit next year. It will go to full council for approval. The shift includes a 10%  Coalition Government cut in funds available for the support.

Brent's extensive consultation received only 184  residents' responses. 97 online and 87 paper. This represents 0.5% of the benefits caseload. In addition there were submissions from Citizens Advice Bureau, Mencap, Capita, GLA, Network Housing, Catalyst Housing, Brent Children and Families and Brent Partnership and Improvements.

The response on how the Key Principles outlined in the proposals should be prioritised were:

These are the proposals::

5. The Council’s Proposed Council Tax Support  scheme

5.1 The Council undertook consultation concerning its proposed draft scheme which comprised the key principles and features set out below for working age claimants:

Principle 1: “Everyone should pay something”

All working age claimants (unless defined as protected) shall be required to pay a minimum contribution towards their Council Tax – set in the draft scheme at 20%.

Principle 2: “The most vulnerable claimants should be protected”(from the minimum contribution)

Claimants shall be protected from the 20% minimum contribution if they or a dependant in their household are entitled to a disability premium, enhanced disability premium, disabled earnings disregard, Disability Living Allowance or Personal Independence Payment, Disabled Persons Reduction for Council Tax purposes, War Disablement Pension and War Widow’s Pension.

Principle 3: “The scheme should incentivise work”

Incentives to work are achieved by letting claimants who are working keep more of what they earn (before means-testing) – the recommended scheme proposes an increase of £10 per week in the earnings disregards for Single Person, Couple and Lone Parent earnings (currently set at £5, £10 and £25 respectively). In this context, a disregard means the amount of weekly earnings that may be ignored when calculating entitlement to Benefit.

Principle 4: “Everyone in the household should contribute”

Other adults in the claimant’s household (“non-dependants”) should contribute more proportionately to their income – the recommended scheme proposes doubling the existing rates of non-dependant deductions from those in place in 2012/13 and replacing the current nil deduction for other adults in the claimant’s household receiving Job Seekers Allowance (Income Based) with a deduction of £6.60.

Principle 5: “Better off claimants should pay relatively more so that the least well off receive greater protection.”

The recommended scheme proposes that the taper used in the Benefit calculation for those above the means-test (i.e. where the claimant’s income exceeds their needs) should be increased to 30% from the current 20%. This is the rate at which Council Tax Support reduces where weekly income exceeds basic living needs and will be 30 pence in the pound rather than the 20 pence currently applied for CTB.

Principle 6: “Benefit should not be paid to those with relatively large capital or savings”

The recommended scheme proposes reducing the current savings cut off limit applied for CTS claims from £16,000 at present for the purposes of CTB to £6,000.

Commenting on feedback from consultees the report states:

In summary, (the responses) appears to indicate a clear distinction as to whether principle 1 is fair based upon whether the respondent is in receipt of Council Tax Benefit or not, principle 2 was agreed as being fair by the majority of both sets of respondents, principle 3 was agreed as being fair by the greater majority of both sets of respondents, principle 4 was agreed as being fair by the greater majority of non Benefit respondents than in the case of Benefit respondents, principle 5 was not agreed as fair by Benefit respondents but had an equal split of non Benefit respondents considering it unfair and principle 6 was considered unfair by a greater majority of Benefit respondents than non Benefit respondents

The scheme recommendations are:

Appendix C to the report sets out the implications for the budget ion the future and the impact of various Council Tax rises: LINK

Any increased revenue from a higher Council Tax will be reduced by 25% as more become eligible for Council Tax Support.


The report anticipates difficulties in Council Tax collection:

Additional challenges are anticipated in collection arising from the implementation of Council Tax Support and difficulties in achieving full collection on the accounts affected may result in an overall collection rate that is less than the 97.5% currently built into the Council Tax Base. The assumed collection rate used in the Council Tax Base setting for 2013/14 will need to be given careful consideration as any anticipated reduction in future Council Tax collection rates would have the effect of increasing the Band D Council Tax unless a corresponding reduction in Council expenditure were to be provided. An overly optimistic collection assumption could lead to a need to declare a deficit on the Collection Fund in later years. Consideration will also need to be given to the other potential financial effects of the proposed scheme on the Collection Fund to prevent a deficit position from occurring (i.e. the scheme would need to raise sufficient additional Council Tax revenue).

The report recognises that Asian families will  be disproportionately  hit by a reduction in entitlement because they are more likely to be of working age, have more dependants (22% have 3-4 children compared with 10% in the 'white group), live in larger houses and have more adults living in the household. The 18-24 age group  are most likely to be affected by an entitlement loss of £3-£5 a week. The report states that claimants aged 55 to 60 are proportionately more likely to have a difference in their entitlement of £8.00 to £30.00 per week than the younger age groups. For example, in the £8 - £15 category they are represented by 11% rather than the 6% average. One factor for this variance is because claimants aged 55 to 60 are more likely to live in larger properties. For example, 15% live in Band E properties compared to 3% aged 18 - 24 and 6%aged 25 - 34 than the younger age groups. They are also in proportionate terms more likely to have more non-dependants living in their home.