Flexible New Deal | New Deal Scandal: Leading Welfare Reform Concerns

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

I was reading a great article on Welfare Reform (the Welfare Reform Bill 2009) however I greatly disagreed with the points made in the article so I decided to quote sections of it and comment!

The Welfare Reform Bill is to be a tough piece of legislation that will compel people in meeting with their obligations. It comes as no surprise and is long overdue. One of the first targets will be in removing 1 million people off Incapacity Benefit and into work. The entire benefits system is to be streamlined with Income Support being replaced with a leaner ‘out of work benefits’ system. The time has come by which those who “fiddle” the system should take account of what their obligations and duties are.

Removing one million people off “Incapacity Benefit”? Incapacity Benefit doesn’t exist. To the best of my knowledge the Welfare Reform Act 2007 replaced Incapacity Benefit and Income Support with an Employment and Support Allowance in 2008.

I don’t personally agree with classifying everyone who is claiming benefits to which they are legally entitled to as people who are “[fiddling] the system”. Those claiming benefits who are already executing their obligations deserve the benefits under law and are not receiving such money by deception or acting fraudulently.

It is to be realised that no one should be unfairly categorised as a criminal solely because they are receiving benefits and that a small percentage also receiving benefits are fiddling the system. This is slanderous and libellous. That person shall remain innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The Government has stuck a lot of resources in to catching benefit thieves and the majority of long term claimants who were illegally in receipt of benefits have been caught and prosecuted.  I find it fair to say that the reason why any long term claimant is still receiving benefits is due to being fully legit and fulfilling their obligations.

I presume this is an attack on the “jobless” receiving benefits by someone in employment – being naive and not realising that Tax Credits are also a benefit.

The toughness of the Bill is in dispute at the moment – it is in parts far from being “tough” even though having caused great concern.  The big concerns are in particular the Regulation elements which will or will not decide this.  The Bill allows the Secretary of State the power to approve any Statutory Instrument regulations (subject to annulment by either Houses) to go with it tweaking the law with a vast scope.

Personally, one of the largest elements I am interested in is the increased sanctions. I have read the Bill and can’t see anywhere it mentions about how much it will be increased by, thus will be left to regulations to determine this. It appears the Government wants to cut claimants down by handing out possibly unlawful sanctions.

At current sanctions can be imposed for fraud – I am all in favour for this.

Sanctions work automatically once dismissed from a New Deal course (simply reading this site you will find out about how New Deal providers such as YMCA Training like exiting people for trivial and false reasons) and sanctions can also be applied for lateness and non-attendance.

These sanctions could seem good in theory but depends how they are implemented.

1. Should someone be kicked off benefits for 6-12 months because the bus came late?
2. Should someone even be sanctioned 6-12 months for waking up late?
3. Should someone lose their only source of income for 6-12 months because they were turned away for not having the correct ID with them while signing on?
4. Even if someone fails to do enough to look for work a week (say by one action too less than agreed) should they be plummeted in to poverty by losing all legal right and entitlement for 6-12 months?

Some of the above examples are by pure fate and one is bordering on a slight temporary disobeying of the rules – I think such a long sanction isn’t required for any of them examples. The sole purpose of benefits is to bring people out of poverty. If someone doesn’t do enough to look for work one week then they should be sanctioned for that week or maybe a few on repeat offending however should not be banned long term for it.

The Government is now committed in getting people off benefits and into work. Where people refuse to co-operate will result in claimants having their benefits reduced and this includes, amongst a package of measures to be announced, that people are made to do community or voluntary work in exchange for benefits if no full-time work or training course is found.

Refuse to co-operate with what? You mean if someone “refuses to get a job” because they remain unemployed after 6 months? The “community service scheme” is designed non-discriminatively for all jobseekers who have not found sustained employment. Refusing to co-operate will likely end in claim being terminated with sanctions applied and not reduction in benefits in most cases. Likewise those breaking the rules (you referred to it as “fiddling”) will have their claims terminated and possibly be prosecuted for it – not stuck in voluntary and community service work schemes.

This seems, at least, more fairer on the taxpayer who have, up until now, funded some very lavish lifestyles whilst thousands of hard working people are left with very little to show for their efforts, in some cases having worked all their lives.

I believe in reduction in benefit fraud so the taxpayers’ money can go further. It is to be noted that phrases such as “taxpayers’ money” and “public purse” are far from the truth. You don’t make a contribution due to generosity, you cough up being taxed to avoid going to jail. You have no ownership in the money. You only get limit chances to vote: nationally, locally and Europe – that is just to elect people not direct public expenditure in what you actually want to see.

No one alive in the UK has worked all their lives – absolute nonsense!

I am not sure what you mean by “very lavish lifestyles” – I noticed you used “some” – but I don’t see how unemployment benefit alone can give anyone an “very lavish lifestyle” – anyone?

It is pleasing to note, however, that the Government has listened and acted upon the advice of the Care Commission which will exclude those people looking after others in a caring capacity, in not being required to seek work. I would hope the government would now look and reappraise additional help given to carers as the service carers provide is essential in taking the strain off doctors and the NHS. I would thank the government, too, in taking stock of this issue as part of its welfare reform bill.

I agree with you on this one however let’s not get too excited until it is made law. Carers deserve this support; however, they shouldn’t be seeking unemployment benefit with no intention to seek work. Not very logical – I presume there is a caring allowance as an alternative?

All benefit claimants, though, will have to “prepare themselves for work”.

I think every jobseeker does that anyway – will be interesting what the Jobcentre sees as adequate though.

In recent years the government has invested heavily within the “Third Sector” which now has numerous and various opportunities available, offering positions that range from office to the outdoors. The benefits of work are important for mental and healthy wellbeing and, as the government has shown through its tax-credit system no-one can now be any worse-off in work than out of it.

Hilarious! The Third Sector basically is a backbone of non-profit organisations and charities aiming to fulfil a need which the Government fails to invest in or recognise where such objectives are not profitable or not intended to be executed to benefit owners financially.

This includes YMCA Training. Oh dear. Tax Credits last year reported a 1.2 million non-claimed awards totally around £¾ billion. Child Poverty has increased. They are making it difficult for people to claim the Tax Credits back and advising people to falsify forms for intention of getting it manually looked at to claim.

Being confined to benefits isn’t acceptable. Individuals have rights, agreed, but they also have obligations and duties which, equally, require discharging.

You make it seem that all jobseekers are dormant. Around 4.5% of the country’s workforce are temporary workers (“agency” workers) most of these are those who are jobseekers because this work isn’t sustainable they need to claim unemployment benefit to survive where temporary work can’t be found again.

Rather than looking at things fearfully rise to the challenge of new opportunities that will open new doors for many people. The government has invested heavily both within the “Third Sector” and by launching programmes that seek to encourage people to either learn new skills or by retraining for new jobs.

Name me one? New Deal? £75 Billion expenditure in total and no work placement or training?