DUNCAN BARKES Testing time as disabled people are assessed on ability to work

In the past month recipients of incapacity benefit have been asked to attend a work capability assessment in order to continue receiving benefits.

This has sparked much debate among disability groups; some saying their lives will not be worth living if their benefits are cut.

Are the disabled being unfairly targeted?

There are some startling figures around this whole debate.

In the past ten years incapacity benefit has cost the UK taxpayer £135bn, Iain Duncan Smith is looking to slash £2bn from his budget, and there are currently around 2.2 million people in the UK claiming incapacity benefit.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Prior to the reassessment initiative a pilot scheme was tried out in Aberdeen and Burnley.

The results revealed only one third of those assessed were found in need of unconditional state support, whilst the other two-thirds were deemed fit for work.

But what does ‘fit for work’ actually mean? The assessments are mired in controversy.

Even Professor Paul Gregg, a man who helped design the tests, has described the new process as ‘a complete mess’.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The questionnaire asks whether or not the claimant can hold a pen or get out of bed unaided.

If the responses are ‘yes,’ then it points to the conclusion that the person is indeed fit for work.

Such questions are black and white.

A disabled person may well be able to hold a pen, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they can use it effectively throughout the day.

Others criticisms of the assessment include that the tests take no account of pain or its limiting effects, and that there’s no allowance for how a condition can vary over a matter of days.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

There are also documented cases of terminally-ill people being cleared as fit to work in the final months of their lives.

A company called Atos carries out the tests. These chaps seem very reluctant to talk to any journalists – I know because I’ve tried.

It is a tough one to call.

Given the huge scale of claimants it is likely that not everyone truly deserves the benefit.

There is also an argument to say that if someone believes they are unable to work, then that conviction will manifest itself in their outlook and behaviour.

But ultimately it is about saving money.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The UK is broke and every area of government funding is, rightly, being examined in detail.

It comes down to priorities.

If there’s money for foreign aid to a country like India, with its own space and nuclear programmes, and if we can find the cash for bombing runs over Libya, then surely we do not have to treat the disabled harshly?

Or is simply a case of targeting those who are less likely to fight back?