Cameron promises News of the World readers that he'll take 200,000 people off incapacity benefit

In an article for today's News of the World David Cameron promises to end the "something-for-nothing culture" that Labour has failed to tackle during its ten years in power.

The Tory leader says that he is particularly concerned that one-in-five of the 2.6m incapacity benefit (IB) claimants are under 35:

"I don't believe that there are nearly half a million young people in Britain with a disability which prevents them from doing any work at all."

The promise to "axe" 200,000 claimants doesn't appear in David Cameron's article but in a quotation from Tory Welfare spokesman Chris Grayling.  Mr Grayling tells the NotW:

"We know there are at least 200,000 people who should be moved straightaway from incapacity benefit and into jobs.  Over time there are another million who want jobs who, with help and retraining, will be able to find permanent work."

Given that there are 2.64 million people claiming IB at an annual cost of £12.65bn, the savings to the taxpayer would be about £1bn if 200,000 people were successfully removed from the system.  For the other million who need "help and retraining" the savings are more difficult to predict as the costs of easing them back into work will be considerable.

Writing for The Sunday Telegraph, Chris Grayling promises that every person currently on incapacity benefit will be interviewed and examined under a Tory government:

"The majority of people signed on to [incapacity] benefit by filling in a form and sending in a note from their doctor. Most claimants are then simply left to their own devices. We will change that. We will contact every single one of those 2.6 million people as quickly as possible. We will carry out face-to-face interviews with all of them, to assess what they can do, and how we can help them back into work. It's a big task, and it won't be done overnight, but it has to be done, and as rapidly as possible."

These medical interviews will establish whether the claimants are (1) not deserving of IB and should be on the Jobseekers' Allowance and subject to its different regime; (2) capable of some work but only with a lot more support; or (3) genuinely unable to work and deserving of long-term support from the taxpayer.

Work and Pensions Secretary Peter Hain has accused the Tories of plagiarising Labour plans but ConservativeHome understands that Labour only plans to examine new claimants - the Tories are much more ambitious in wanting to assess all 2.6 million people receiving IB.  Voters will also remember that Gordon Brown has already scuppered previous reform attempts by Frank Field in the early Brown-Blair years and more recently by John Hutton.  Labour enjoys little credibility on welfare.

A full guide to the Tory proposal can be found in this PDF.

David Cameron and Chris Grayling will formally launch the party's welfare ideas on Tuesday.  Today the incapacity benefits reforms are being trailed.  Over the next 48 hours expect more about some of the other ideas that ConservativeHome highlighted yesterday.

Comments

[graeme archer]

the BBC coverage this mornng came straight from labour hq!

[MHDH]

Yes, but given his lack of any principles, he's probably promised the Observer that every new immigrant will be on £30,000 a year and a free Mercedes SLK.

[Paul Oakley]

Good stuff. As part of this campaign it would be worth highlighting two other factors.

Firstly, the Disability Discrimination Act. Passed by us, not Labour as is the common misconception, the statute encouragages employers to make appropriate adjustments for the disabled. The help is there.

Secondly, when unemployment reached 3 million in the early '80s, this was rightly an issue of national concern. We should stress the fact that the number of actual and "hidden" unemployed on IB surpasses this figure and is a consequence of Labour's economic incompetence.

[Paul Oakley]

Talking of those who can work but don't, where's your column today Graeme Archer?

[Aunty Claire Ickle]

"We will require all current recipients of Incapacity Benefit to go through a thorough work capability assessment as soon as is practicable."

"As soon as is practicable" is a frightening phrase. Plus, who will do these assessments? How much will it cost?

The policy talks of making former IB recipients more attractive to employers - how? Surely a hard working Polish worker is better than someone who has been skiving on benefit for 10 years is a better option to any employer.

Too vague.

[Comstock]

I don't doubt there are people on incapacity benefit who are capable of work, and finding them and getting them into work is a good thing.

Interesting that this is all about the 'cost to the taxpayer' though. This is sympomatic to me of the truly poisonous legacy of the 1980s - that the poor now blame other poor people(such as immigrants and benefit claiments) for their poverty rather than the rich .

If we can raise 1 billion from getting 200,000 people off incapacity benefits, how much can we raise by upping income tax on the 200,000 wealthiest??

[Raj]

"If we can raise 1 billion from getting 200,000 people off incapacity benefits, how much can we raise by upping income tax on the 200,000 wealthiest??"

Good question. The problem is that it may not be as much as you think if they move their money elsewhere. The rich have always been best able to protect their assets/income - punishing them through higher taxes rarely gets the income one hopes for.

[John F Aberdeen]

I agree Graeme Archer, I thought the coverage in the BBC radio 4 news bulletins, from 5am to 9am were an utter disgrace.
It was the first news item in all bulletins basically regurgitating propaganda from Hain the work and pensions secretary, added to by the BMA and then some spokesperson for a mental charity.
The biased handling of this item shows that, not only are the Labour and Liberals our eneymies, but also the BBC.
I hope when we get back to power one item on the agenda is to privatise the BBC and open public serivce broadcasting to all channels.

[Mark Fulford]

This is sympomatic to me of the truly poisonous legacy of the 1980s - that the poor now blame other poor people for their poverty rather than the rich.

Comstock, your comment is a vivid example of left wing thinking -- you assume that somebody else is to blame, somebody else is responsible...

[Josh]

Oh dear Comstock. Okay then, how are the rich to blame for poverty?

[John Ionides]

Cormstock,

Tax, particularly the top band, is not a zero sum game which is why it is possible to drop the top tax rate and yet increase the tax take from high earners (as they declare more of their income in the UK) - c.f. the effect of Lawson '88 budget. The converse is also likely to hold, i.e. by increasing the tax rate on top earners you risk reducing the tax take from these people as they move their money elsewhere.

[Buckinghamshire Tory]

I am sure that Comstock did not mean it like that, that the wealthy are somehow responsible for the poverty of others.

[anon]

About time! Well done David Cameron

[Jim Tague]

I personally think this is problem that is long overdue reform.

However, I live in a district of County Durham with serious statistics regarding worklessness, benefit claimant levels and in reality a clear lack and spread of jobs available.

Despite this, I remain convinced that when afforded decent opportunities, the majority, often low achievers and not overly well educated, respond in a very positive manner (they don't ask for the world - just a chance).

Whilst I recognise this think tank might not be up my street, and leans to the left, might I ask anyone that takes this subject serious actually read the following report from 2005:

IPPR North - A full Employment Region

If the North East were to attain full employment, which I believe to be 80% of the working age population actually in work, then the North East would require at least 100,000 new jobs.

I am fiercely proud to be from a mining family, yet I am Conservative to the core (as is my father). To keep heads above water my brother and I sent money home whilst serving in the Armed Forces during the 84/85 strike, not only did my father work for the Coal Board, but my mother worked in the canteen - income virtually down to zero overnight. After ten months out (he wanted to work) and the very distinct threat of having your house and possesions taken away, he and many more went back in a barricaded bus and a snooker ball in a sock in his pocket. It took years of all round family effort to get back to normal income.

Unless those attempting to overcome this massive problem actually really know what the problems are like at ground level, and can feel the issues until the hairs on their neck stand up, then I fear you might not get out of the starting blocks.

As with this whole area, they were let down by the unions and the Labour Party, they were used as pawns in an attempt to bring down Maggie.

For the last few months I was an employee representative on a redundancy consultation committee and had to brief the full shift after each meeting. The fear on the faces of the people etches deep into your mind. These are people as I have stated, not all brilliant achievers, but they get up early, work long shifts, come in on overtime etc. etc. This area is full of people like this - honest, decent people.

In the North East people are beginning to travel further to stay in work, which in turn adds to your overheads. How long before many more simply think themselves to be better off on benefits than to slog all week 20 miles away from home.

To compliment a reduction in those claiming benefits, then equally serious consideration must be afforded to massive inward investment (as happened under Maggie) in the North East.

You can't reduce these levels without providing jobs!

[Yet Another Anon]

I don't doubt there are people on incapacity benefit who are capable of work, and finding them and getting them into work is a good thing.
The phrase incapable of work was always a misnomer, the fact is that the terms would be better to be changed to refer to the Severely Disabled - Steven Hawking works as a Theoretical Physicist therefore he is capable of work, but if he was out of work few people would have suggested that he should have been forced to look for work.

The definitions of Severe Disability need to be narrowed, people need to be disqualified from claiming if they fail to accept prescribed treatment or have caused their own disability. However it is also innappropriate to label anyone as being incapable of work - referring to them as having a certain degree of disability leaves it open to them to not see themselves as being incapable of work however disabled they are.

[One marcus]

Labour have had ten years and about 10 years ago appointed Frank Field to look at this very issue. He actually proposed changes which Brown and Blair were afraid to implement and got the sack for doing what he was asked to do.

Good to see Cameron proposing changes ten years later shows again only the Conservatives are setting the agenda and how woeful this government has been. In some towns 20% of the working population are at home on their bums on incapicity benefits and we are importing millions of immigrants to do the jobs they are too lazy to do. And why are they too lazy to do these jobs because they are better off because of incapiity benefit to sit at home on their bums.

[Aunty Claire Ickle]

"However it is also innappropriate to label anyone as being incapable of work"

True, but there is a difference between being capable of work and being employable. Emplyers will not want people who have not worked for so long. Also, many people who have been on long-term benefits will probably not have the means to move to other areas because they are probably already partly depenedent on familiy for support.

[brian kelly]

Isn't anybody commenting on the Brown interview with Andrew Marr? The question was raised about a borrowing requirement of, perhaps, in excess of £40bn - as opposed to planned £38bn. The question wasn't pursued by Marr and it all got lost in the fantasties of Brown's answers - of course, how many of you had forgotted that we are at the start of new golden rule cycle? I certainly had. You couldn't make this up, could you? Worse, though were his ridiculous answers [actually barefaced lies] in regard to his selling half of our gold reserves. How can he be allowed to get away with his answers on what is supposed to be a serious interview? Doesn't Marr know his brief. It appears not.

[Yet Another Anon]

Labour have had ten years and about 10 years ago appointed Frank Field to look at this very issue. He actually proposed changes which Brown and Blair were afraid to implement and got the sack for doing what he was asked to do.
There has been very selective reporting of what Frank Field has been saying. If you listen to what he says, not only is he advocating time limiting benefits, he also had been advocating dramatic increases in the rates of JSA up to the levels of Income Support for the Disabled, and he was advocating huge increases in the State Pension and not just for those who had been paying NI Contributions.

There were questions about how much especially his pension proposals would cost.

If anything the state should be looking towards restricting contributory benefits to those who had been paying contributions, scrapping National Insurance Credits associated with particular benefits. This would both save the state money, avoid incurring future costs and add another incentive to people to go out to work to pay contributions towards some kind of pension.

[Sally Roberts]

Comstock's reaction proves how right we are to be taking this step! Sorry that is absolutely not meant to be a personal "swipe" at you Comstock, but simply my view that you represent the opinion of many if not most left-wingers. Yes, we will get a great deal of "flak" from the media and elsewhere but, by and large the people that will not support what we are doing are those who would probably rather stick pins in their eyes than ever vote Conservative!

[Comstock]

Sally said "Sorry that is absolutely not meant to be a personal "swipe" at you Comstock, but simply my view that you represent the opinion of many if not most left-wingers."

No need to apologise, Sally, feel free to 'swipe' away- this is a debating site and I'm used to it!

In fact I only wish I were typical of 'most left-wingers'- in a New Years resolution to be more politically active I went to a meeting just the other night. Up for debate was 'Is anarchism or Trotskyism a better ideology for fighting climate change' (I just about managed to remember what Trotskyism was but didn't dare admit I'd just come by car!) 'Animal rights and the fight against capitalism' was up next then we went on to talking about why 9/11 was an inside job.

Anyway I digress from the topic of the thread but as you can imagine your humble narrator came away not a little depressed.

And I never got to use my carefully prepared line about 'the truly poisonous legacy of the 80s' (10.43 above) so I thought I'd use it on you lot. Hope you don't feel second best or owt.

[oxymoron]

Not strictly about incapacity benefit but I've just found this new blog by a computer programmer who has been struggling to find work for years.

[Jim Tague]

Comstock - Might it be possible for you to expand on 'the truly poisonous legacy of the 80s'.

I have clearly stated my concept from a truly working class background (12.55) and I'm afraid, in my opinion, it is the left, and in particular the so-called intelligent hard left that for generations betrayed the working man.

I will go to my grave believing the people of the North East deserved much better than that which they have been served by Labour Councillors, MP's and a Prime Minister.

It is they that controlled and dominated the North East for generations, the blame lies with their complete inability from council level upwards to provide a level playing field when they had (overall) a magnificent set of people waiting to prove they can produce good things.

I am truly ashamed at the attitude of many politically motivated lefties, they are the most vindictive and nasty people you could meet, spouting their usual rubbish.

Simply scratch the surface of any working class family and they all have aspirations and a willingess to want to do better, they and generations before them were failed by clowns that wish to talk about anarchism or Trotskyism linked to any subject matter, when all the people want is a decent job and a chance, however small, to advance.

In the past we produced the best ships in the world, miners and their families were good solid people with excellent attitudes to life, our local Regiments won praise in every line of combat and of late we produce better cars than the Japanese and the same with microchips.

The Labour Party never looked beyond the demise of traditional industries - it happened and there was no plan for the future. It was under Maggie and company that Nissan and its offshoots arrived, the same with the likes of Siemens and Fujitsu.

The left simply has no answers for the aspirational working class.

[Comstock]

"Simply scratch the surface of any working class family and they all have aspirations and a willingess to want to do better, they and generations before them were failed by clowns that wish to talk about anarchism or Trotskyism linked to any subject matter"

Jim Tague, I couldn't agree more. 'Clowns' about summed it up. Sorry to off-topic whinge on here but you can perhaps understand the frustrations of a man who wants to do more that just post anti-Tory blog rants but finds it's a case of 'Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right'

Here I am, stuck in the middle with.........who?

[Jim Tague]

Comstock - I see a couple of political issues that the Labour Party would tear my own party to bits with.

1. If you remove people from Incapacity Benefit (IB) to a more transparent Jobseekers list (and we then can't sustain employment opportunities), then expect, if we do get elected, the Labour Party to hit us with a big stick pointing out the "massive" increase in unemployment levels.

2. Having supposedly won over large sections of the NHS and Doctors are we now going to undo this by "suggesting" all these people were signed off work illegally? By having independent assessments could suggest that you don't trust family GP's to carry out vigourous checks on IB claimants.

The answer, in my opinion, to the problems of the North East is private inward investment and the creation of advanced jobs, and not the tired tag of being propped-up by permanent government assistance. Only then will our more educated children stop leaving for the honey pot of the south east.

The problem is you have a vicious circle, if 30% of your available workforce are not in employment how on earth do you persuade such inward investment. Would you invest millions, perhaps billions, if you thought the area had a worklessness problem? This is clearly a much bigger issue than just getting people off IB and stopping our best kids from leaving the area, but they are all linked in some way.

[Alan]

A number of posts have highlighted the problems faced by the North East.

1. Unemployment is a problem and the Conservatives should announce an enterprise zone in the North East of very low tax and low regulation, in fact i'd like to see no corporation tax for businesses in the North East.

2. Lower the amount of unemployment benefits in the NE to bring it into line with purchasing power.

3. Something needs to be done about the councils in the North East. Either pilot propotional represetation on on NE councils to get more tories so Labour's mistakes can be highlighted more or restrict their powers.

4. Transport. Get faster trains to the NE.

5. Schools - allow parents to set up schools and dismantle the LEA's.

[Comstock]

Alan, some good ideas but 3 is silly- unless you also support PR in Tory dominated areas.

OK I've said plenty for this thread.

[Anthony Temby]

has any person read this story about Inditex concerning disability people

[Yet Another Anon]

Something needs to be done about the councils in the North East. Either pilot propotional represetation on on NE councils to get more tories so Labour's mistakes can be highlighted more or restrict their powers.
Although the Liberal Democrats in Scotland hoped for increased representation through STV and when they got the change their representation didn't change much and their vote has actually gone down.

Also given that the current government is Labour, it is unlikely to pilot a scheme in the North East for the purposes of increasing the numbers of Conservative councillors, if they were going to pilot such a thing there it would be likely to be for some other reason, possibly because the North East was the area that John Prescott's Regional Government scheme faltered.

Get faster trains to the NE
The East Coast has the fast rail link, the big mainline rail problems in England are still on the West Coast mainline. Probably as with most of the country there could do with being more light railways, more branch lines providing more rail links - Maglev links could help the UK but this isn't an area specific thing, as nowhere in the UK yet has Maglev.

[David]

"Something needs to be done about the councils in the North East. Either pilot propotional represetation on on NE councils to get more tories so Labour's mistakes can be highlighted more or restrict their power"

That's er, more than a little undemocratic.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

A local journalist contacted me recently to get a quote on the very high number of people claiming disability benefits in my constituency (Tottenham). I think he wanted to start a "Tory Calls Benefit Claimants Scroungers" row. I said the majority of claimants are genuine (the process is quite hard - requiring two doctors to sign people off of work). I also told him that some people OUGHT to be ON benefits. I know people who are truly incapable of working, but have been turned down. One includes a cancer-suffer who had his stomach cut out and was given months to live (he's now on new drugs which keep the cancer at bay - just!). Still he is working two days a week to make ends-meet for him and his father.

Clearly there are some people who have slipped through the net ARE capable of working. Not sure about the 200,000 figure, though.

All the available evidence suggests that people with disabilities are better off IN work in the long term - both financially and health-wise.

But we need to use moderate language on this issue - and not go pandering to the red tops.

Needless to say, the journalist binned the story!

[One marcus]

Some rightly mentioned the North East Labours solution is to build more houses where mostly in the South East, how will this help the North East, Midlands, South West etc it won't it will make things worse.

Labour has done nothing to help its Northern Heartlands time for David Cameron and the Conservatives to get people in these areas on side and to convince them you will help them.

[Bob R]

"...But we need to use moderate language on this issue - and not go pandering to the red tops ..."

But I'm afraid that's what Cameron seems to be aiming for. I hope there's more to him than this but week after week and he seems to be obsessed with only the headline.

[Joe James Broughton]

Hilariously, I only found out what Red Top meant on Friday.

The News of the W is obviously a disgusting rag, I wonder whether it's read or written by many people with an IQ over 100.

But, basically, I agree with kicking these layabouts off sickness benefit.

[Tony Makara]

There was a political party
It became hated across the land
Losing three elections back-to-back
Its head was in the sand
What this dear old party needed
Was a serious re-brand

So in came the modernisers
They said "compassion is the key"
The public saw this change of heart
And welcomed it with glee

Soon the world was changing
The party led the polls
All was hunky dory
Poor Labour were broken souls

Then something happened
What started it I'm not quite sure
But the party started picking on
Young mothers and the poor
Compassion it seemed was short lived
And had made for the exit door

So the dog had returned to its vomit
And hungrily lapped it up
A bemused nation shook its head wondering
Oh why oh why oh why?

The lefties had always said
The re-branding was all hype
Now they are rubbing their hands
Because the Tories returned to type

[Andy Mercer]

The root of the problem is that some people are better off not working. Until that is fixed, the problem will remain. Everything else is tinkering around the edges of the problem.

When someone is actively seeking work, they have extra expenses (new cloths, travel, etc) Yet they get lower benefits than someone sitting at home on invalidity benefits. This may be justifiable, but it's not self-evident.

Allied to it is the ridiculous marginal rates of tax paid by some people coming off benefits. It's not much of an incentive to work if you pay 90% tax.

[Bexie]

Given how companies have been forced to bend over to accomodate every whim of the disabled lobby, it should be difficult to find a genuine excuse to do no work.

I share the suspicion that the whole fiasco is a ruse to disguise unemployment, as is the ruse of persuading young adults to get into crippling debt to do a degree that is virtually unrecognised by any employer.

I heard the early coverage by Brown Biased Coverage, which underlines the need to close down this parasitic organisation.

[James Maskell]

The Disability Living Allowance comes in here. I agree with Justin Hinchcliffe about there being some people who should be on benefits but arent. I know someone who's having a nightmare trying to get the DVA for a genuine problem but keeps being rejected, despite having all the information to support his case.

[passing leftie]

Given how companies have been forced to bend over to accomodate every whim of the disabled lobby, it should be difficult to find a genuine excuse to do no work

What kind of mirror world do you live in? The idea that Big Disabled is squashing poor helpless companies is risible.

Many companies will do anything they can to avoid employing people with disabilities. For very small companies this is understandable; for large companies unforgiveable. My information suggests that attempts to claw back money from so-called benefits scrounging are very expensive compared with similar sums spent on more effective tax collection.

[Yet Another Anon]

When someone is actively seeking work, they have extra expenses (new cloths, travel, etc) Yet they get lower benefits than someone sitting at home on invalidity benefits. This may be justifiable, but it's not self-evident.
It used to be that sickness benefits were actually less than Unemployment Benefits on the grounds that claimants did not have the costs of looking for work.

The thing is though that it is unreasonable to assume that those on disability benefits are not looking for work, indeed Incapacity Benefit has some provision for claimants doing some work and the assistance benefits for the disabled always did.

If someone is missing limbs, or is weak, or suffering back or heart problems then they are not going to be able to do things the same way as someone who is able bodied - someone who is able bodied might just decide to carry home a bit of furniture rather than paying delivery costs, or walk rather than getting a bus or train or taxi, or switch the heating off in winter to save money. Doing without such things will tend to impact far more on those who are severely disabled, such people are far more reliant on others.

That said the structure of rates is illogical, you would expect that there might be reflection in the rates of benefit of the degree of disability, and that the most severely disabled should get the same rates regardless of age, but there are all kinds of bizzarre changes in rates dependent on age - people reaching Pension age can suddenly find themselves worse off because of differences in eligibility criteria between Incapacity Benefit and State Pension, and yet the non-contributory benefits can be far more generous for the elderley severely disabled than youg severely disabled - without there being any reason, an 85 year old severely disabled person may well be no more incapacitated than a 20 year old one, indeed they are likely to have been far healthier younger and someone who is 20 and genuinely severely disabled is probably unlikely to reach old age!

[London Tory]

The Tory Party has to look at itself on this one. Around 1993/94, the then Health Secretary Virginia Bottomley, in an act of supreme moral and political stupidity, began closing many NHS mental hospitals under the guise of "care in the community". She has subsequently admitted that this policy was flawed, but one of its side effects was that many of these patients ended up, confused and angry, in Jobcentres. Luckily the Jobcentres had screens at the time. I can tell you that some truly horrific cases, people suffering from all sorts of mental problems, were forced to sit in Jobcentre/DSS Offices and apply for benefits. A significant hardcore of IB claimants, particularly in London, are even to this day seriously mentally ill. Under Labour, JobCentrePlus no longer has a screened environment for day to day interviews. If either Party, as part of a "crackdown" on IB, is to call the stock IB register in for a Back To Wotk Interview, I seriously suggest that you will see very serious incidents, possibly even fatalities, in Government buildings. This is a very sensitive and difficult area, and it is incumbent on people like Chris Grayling NOT to chase a cheap headline, but to think through a coherent and sensible strategy. He has yet to do so.

[Tony Makara]

London Tory, very true. The fact that jobcentreplus now hire what in effect are bouncers just goes to show the danger that staff have to put up with on a day-by-day basis. The deadly cocktail of mentally ill claimants pressurized by a staff trying to meet government targets is a recipe for disaster. The jobcentres in my area have had stabbings and that worries me because I have family members who work there. So I get first-hand reports of the pressure and very real danger that jobcentreplus staff have to face.