To renege on promise would be breach of trust

From Geoff Southern.

THE comment column (JEP, 22 February) ‘Balancing cost and fair play’ struck a chord with me.

My first response was one of sympathy for our current Social Security Minister. He has chosen to commit himself to savings of £2.2 million from his departmental expenditure as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review. 95% of this expenditure is direct support for the most vulnerable in our society. How can he choose which vulnerable group to target for savings? Should it be pensioners, the disabled or children?

There are those who, like me, would say he should have nothing to do with such measures. He should, I would argue, be fighting to protect these vulnerable groups from the worst impact of the recession.

His predecessor quietly saved a significant sum by freezing the basic components of Income Support as inflation spiralled. Senator Le Gresley’s eye appears to have fallen on those with a disability. He is suggesting that there may be some savings to be made from payments to those on Incapacity Benefit.

To describe these benefits as ‘unacceptable drains on hard-earned tax payments’ as you do, is quite frankly offensive and ill-informed. The £10m total paid out to 1,132 claimants works out at £186 per week, a rate well below the minimum wage and requiring a further top-up from income support to enable people to pay their rent, and to eat in many cases.

This benefit is contributory. Claimants must have paid sufficient social security contributions and have been unable to work through sickness and claiming short-term incapacity for a year. Both of these benefits require regular medical certification. These payments are made ‘for incapacity for work’ and specifically forbid claimants to work.

When a new ‘in work benefit’ (LTIA, a ‘long term incapacity allowance’, for persons who suffer a permanent loss of physical or mental faculty as a result of disease or accident) was introduced in 2001, it was clearly stated that ‘The new provisions for incapacity benefit will not apply to existing beneficiaries, whose entitlements will continue to be governed in accordance with the present law.’

Back in 2004 there were in fact over 2,000 recipients of the old Incapacity Benefit. At the time some transferred to the new LTIA scheme, which is awarded on a percentage basis, and permits work, if work can be found; some very few may have recovered completely from their illness or injury; many have simply died.

The reality is that the 1,132 remaining claimants have been on this benefit for over ten years and are genuinely unfit for work. To renege on the promise that ‘entitlements will continue’ would be a breach of trust. Money might well be saved by transferring claimants to LTIA and reducing their payments to 50% or 80% of the maximum. This might be a saving for the fund but will result in an increase in income support which is tax-funded. The belief that anyone, no matter how ‘hard-nosed’, can make significant savings from the disabled is sadly mistaken.