I was dismayed, but not surprised, to read that 37% of those on Incapacity Benefit have been assessed as 'fit for work'. Obviously the whole point of the exercise was to be much tougher on claimants, so its no surprise such a high number have failed the test. For some reason the government claims this confirms their belief in the idea - its a bit like bringing in a policy to halve the prison population to save costs, then shoot half of all prisoners and claim their actions have been proved justified because it saves a fortune and the crime-rate drops!. The government needs to come up with a more intelligent analysis of its policy outcome than that - what was the breakdown per condition? how long on average have these people claimed, and how much? how many have appealed, and won? how many are now claiming JSA? How many have found employment? How many have been, or will be, taken to court for benefit fraud? Some/all of these figures may be available somewhere (you would like to think), but if so, why weren't they published to the media at the same time - surely the figures should back-up their claim of success, that 37% of claimants were actually work-shy? 52000 people may not sound many, but if that was 52000 cancer suffers society would be up in arms - if it was 52000 anxiety suffers, or Aspies, would society care? No. This is jus the first batch of IB claimants though, so the numbers will become less easy for the government to dismiss.
I'm all for weeding out those who claim fraudulently, or those who could work if given assistance - it really annoys me that people try and scam the system, leading to things being much tougher to claim for genuine people (or the value of payments is reduced). My problem is I can't believe 37% of those claimants are suddenly 'fit for work', since people on IB will have been regularly tested before anyway - I used to be on IB and the tests were quite tough then! Also, are we saying doctors and other medical professionals aren't doing their job properly and handing out sick-notes too easily? If thats the case, why aren't they being targetted? If you are trying to create a system that assess fitness to work, then surely that has to include GP's and other professionals - otherwise there's a conflict of interest. The government may be heading in that direction, rightly or wrongly, but it doesn't happen right now. However, if it does happens then its too easy to fail genuinely work-incapable people simply because their conditions are mild/borderline, yet cause real and sustained problems at work (reduced productivity, increased sick leave, bullying, etc.).
What does 'fit for work' actually mean? Its very easy to say someone is fit to work, if you bias the test so that the questions identify reasons for working, rather than taking into account facts that prevent working. Take Aspergers for example, I assume most would fail the test because they could do a job of some description - but that doesn't mean an employer would accommodate them, and most may not make it past interview anyway. Being deemed 'fit to work' does not mean anyone will suddenly become employed - there obviously needs to be suitable vacancies, and employers that will actively consider people with recent/current problems. The government does not care about those that fall into the gap between welfare and employment - which has been true for several previous governments also. People are just numbers to governments, and what happens to people kicked off benefits is probably not even measured - if some commit suicide or become homeless then they just cross-over into a different set of statistics, which the government will gloss-over or ignore.
The whole point of Incapacity Benefit was to be a safety net to those who were not fit to work, especially those with long-term problems. Now, we have ESA which is only short-term and only there for those that are either classified as 'unable to do any job', or 'could work if kicked up the arse'. The danger is some people on IB who really aren't suited to work will be robbed of supported or independent living, leading to homelessness, suicide, or being forced to live with abusive or unsupportive parents/relatives.
Clearly this in exercise in saving money, it has nothing to do with helping people back to work. Do the government think that employers are going to snap-up people who have been out-of-work for some time? When looking through dozens of fit and healthy applicants will they really consider someone disabled or who has not worked recently due to ill health - since most jobs require a CV these days its very hard to hide periods of illness. However, a large number of those 37% of IB claimants will now probably be trying to claim JSA instead, and most may not even be able to pursuade employers they are fit to work - so has the government actually achieved anything? Of course, some of those won't be able to claim JSA due to lack of national insurance credits, or because their partner works more than 25hrs.
If the government really wanted to help sick and disabled people back to work, they need to start tackling unsupportive/descriminative employers who don't make it easy for employees with problems, or dismiss applicants that have (or have had) problems in favour of those who are 'fully fit'. Can we really expect employers to take on someone thats not really fit, in favour of someone who is? Whilst Access To Work may help some employers take on disabled people (and we are talking very low numbers at best), its not going to help everyone who's not been able to work. Shutting down Remploy factories proves the government doesn't care about, or understand, the problems that disabled people face - it just assumes these people will slot back into society and be accepted. The government is actively descriminating against the sick/disabled in terms of benefits and support, whilst at the same time trying to encourage businesses to be less descriminating!
I'm afraid the government has been listening too those in society (including itself) who look down on the ill/disabled as if they are a burden to the state, and a waste of their taxes. These very same people will of course suddenly have a very different opinion if they, or a child/relative, suddenly become ill/disabled. All the government is doing is pretending to look like they are solving a problem, when in fact they are just shifting the problem elsewhere. Also, we have a legal system that is based around 'innocent until proven guilty' - yet the benefit system is becoming the exact opposite, where the government assumes you can work unless you can prove you can't! Surely this means kicking sick/disabled people of welfare is illegal! Its certainly immoral, in any society.
Don't get me wrong, I would love all sick and disabled people to be helped back into work and live happily every after - but at a time of high unemployment, where even perfectly fit people can't get a job easily, and where descrimination is still a problem, its just totally unrealistic. Will we find out what happens to the 37%? No! Not via the government anyway. But we should!
At a time when rich people and large companies are avoiding tax, and living comfortably as a result, its absolutely outrageous that the sick and disabled are seen as a problem in society - this just further increases descrimination against sickness and disability.
Ok, ok, rant over!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17379564
No comments:
Post a Comment