The coalition's big choice on Incapacity Benefit

Dennis Churchill

You do wonder about the amount of Joined-up thinking going into these reforms.
Would it not make sense to focus on non-emotive illnesses such as “Stress” rather than cancer, MS etc?
I see it is expected that Landlords will cut rents in line with housing benefit cuts. Of course they may just evict HB tenants and let to people paying full rent. And if a lot of HB tenants are evicted do Local Authorities have Bed and Breakfast accommodation waiting?

Verity

I don't like that Orwellian term "social justice". The Conservatives should not be using it. Although it's certainly a good marker of how far left Dave is.

Taking money from people who go out to work and giving it to people who don't go out to work, to buy cigarettes, beer, petrol and lottery tickets is not social justice. It is vote-buying on someone else's pound.

Every phrase with the word "social" in it should be abolished from the Conservative vocabulary.

London Calling

This is a Horror story. I cannot begin to image the added effect of ill health this process is having on the genuine vulnerable claimants on Incapacity Benefits and Employment support allowance. The push and shuffle to reduce the figures by medical assessors (Atos), who are rewarded by bonuses for each case they reduce the maximum amount of points for the claimant to qualify is not only controversial it must open the debate as to how much this Horror story is costing the tax payer and what it hopes to achieve in the long run under the current economic climate. Sadly claimants will end up sandwiched between a rock and a hard place, the Appeals Committee and Atmos. No one is in any doubt that Welfare reforms are necessary, but this first leap forward has got it so wrong if the ultimate result is unnecessary suffering whilst others financially benefit from this ill thought through and overconfident plan to reduce welfare costs by stigmatising those less fortunate within our society to get at the few who do exploit welfare benefits.

The following comment by Paul Goodman sums up the situation in real time…

Thousands of vulnerable people with terminal cancer, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis and clinical depression have had their applications rejected and been told to look for work. The paper also notes "There is evidence...that many employers are not interested in taking on people who have been claiming for years."

SUSAN HILL

Look, it isn`t difficult. No one who genuinely has terminal cancer and with medical evidence provided, is going to be refused IB.( But what do you mean by 'terminal' - life is terminal. ) I know someone who works and has MS, and I have employed someone with MS because MS can have long periods of remission. While in remission sufferers can work and mainly they wish to.
It is the bad backs and the stress people who need to be investigated thoroughly. A serious 'bad back' may stop someone from hauling bales but there are other jobs. Stress is pretty vague and usually temporary. 'Clinical depression' is eminently treatable and once treated sufferers are far better working than sitting miserably at home.. getting out and into the company of others is in itself therapeutic.
Long term disability which genuinely does prevent someone from working in any capacity whatsoever is not common. Genuinely and permanently disabled people usually want to work. Look at the motivated limbless ex-servicemen or those confined to wheelchairs who take part in sports - they long to be useful members of the community.
But I know a young woman who has had ME for 20- years and claims to be incapable of any form of work whatsoever. It was suggested that she work from home via computer as she is very techno-literate and there is quite a lot of data processing that can be done in flexi-time so that she could work to suit her fluctuating symptoms. She said she could not as ME affected her brain. Yet she seems perfectly able to spend hours in touch with people over the internet and to play quite complex computer games. She has had IB for half her life and has absolutely no intention of trying to find work. That is the kind of person who needs to be obliged to do a job suited to their capabilities and limitations. The work is there for her. She prefers a life of dependency. I cannot believe that an assessor could not tell the difference between her and a person with terminal cancer. Of course they could. I could. You could.

libertarian

The solutions to these things are so frigging obvious. No system centrally implemented in a beaurocratic fashion will ever work properly.

These decisions should be made locally with local assesments and individual judgement and appeals all handled locally

Andrew Brown

I would like to make my points numerically

1. The medical examination process is a disgrace. Doctors are taught (you can get the training modules under freedom of information) to notice things like whether the claimant got to the medical by bus, whether they come to the medical alone, etc etc If they can cope withg getting there at all, and especially alone, then irrespective of their medical history they are regarded as likely functioning well socially and hence a good candidate for the workplace. So many astonishing simplifications are usded against benefit claimant. This is the sort of cynicism the unwell are up against. Watching television is enquired into. This is used as evidencve of abilities to concentrate and yet most mental hospitals have a TV room on the ward. Again, a gross simplification.

2. The notion that our economic recovery would be helped at all by encouraging up to a million people with fragile health and long periods of wortklessness into the workplace is utterly ludicrous,. in fact its laughable.

3. All those removed from sickness benefits and forced onto Jobseekers Allowance will need to put details of their (usually extensive) health histories on the numerous job applications that the Jobcentre will require them to make. This mneans that they will need to over and over dfisclose personal medical information to numerous employers where the chance of employment is virtually zero. This is humiliating and degrading and questionable under human rights legislation... not a point anyone except me has yet thought of .. but ifg you live in a community should you have to repeatedly disclose your medical history to numerous employers...of course not...

I remember the 1980s when I worked as an advisor in Wales and the Midlands. This feels just the same now, its like the 80s come back only worse. Back then the welfare system, even under Mrs Thatcher was far more responsive,, for example if you had a very difficult to heat home you got a small extra amount per week, and the same if you had a special diet or a medical need for extra laundry.
Now we are heading in the direction of the USA

And finally,m if I were an employer would I want someone prone to depression or paranoid delusions or falling down with fits in my workplace., of course not, just like \I wouldnt buy a car that I knew frequenty broke down.
I wish the Government would reform welfare by paying a bit more and exp[ecting more. More conditionality, more reward instead of attacking those on welfare , fueling the resentment of the majority who do not rely on it, albeit than many of them het working tax credits and child benefit, those being the morally endorsed payments

The Clouds

The simple solution is to scrap Incapacity Benefit in its entirety.

If someone is out of work, for whatever reason, then that person should be entitled to a flat rate welfare payment. Prescriptions will continue to be free, community care grants can provide additional assistance as necessary (and on application) and benefits such as disability living allowance will continue to give extra help to those most in need. Housing benefit and CT benefit would remain unaffected.

To me, Incapacity Benefit serves little purpose other than to disincentivise (you're more likely to die than start work once the benefit is claimed) and I may be missing something, but it seems ludicrous that someone with stress or depression should need a handout of up to £5000 per year more than someone actively searching for work, when tangible needs remain the same. Incapacity benefit rewards a lack of ambition, and traps people in the welfare state.

Get rid of it, and increase the rate of DLA for those with real needs. Use some of the billions saved to increase care provision, and ensure those that ARE "incapacitated" will be well looked after.

Whilst I appreciate sky's profits could suffer and bookmakers may struggle, a system based on genuine need may also discourage asylum shoppers and economic migrants (& their extended families) from making the arduous journey if it takes more than a form to guarantee riches previously only dreamt of.

Ruby Duck

Seems to me that simply cutting disability benefit to the same level as means tested jobseekers allowance would solve most of the problems. Do they need more food than the rest of us ?

DavidNcl

I'm sure there are many tragic cases – a veritable parade of tragedy in fact, for such is life.

The truth is though, that however sick or tragic these cases are there is still no moral case to compel others to give the fruits of their labours to help the sick or tragically fallen. Using force to extort monies – whatever noble cause is used to justify the extortion – remains theft.

Fergus Pickering

Depression can be a condition so deep that the sufferer cannot do anything at all except contemplate suicide. What is the statistical incidence of such depression? Is it known? What about depression as in 'the world cup made him very depressed'. Are all people receiving incapacity benefit because of depression of the first kind? Or are quite a lot of them of the second kind? Or does the one shade into the other? Isn't 'depression', like 'having a bad back' one of those things it is very difficult to test for, partcularly if you are just an ordinary GP? You say you are depressed or that you have a bad back. Who is to say you nay? People suffering from real illness which does indeed prevent them from working are often angry at having to prove the illness and perhaps having to prove it again. But should they be? They are, after all, in receipt of public money, and they know that many people in receipt of the SAME money are indeed shirkers, scroungers. idle good-for-nothings. Really we do have to distinguish the one from the other and the methods we use will indeed be intrusive. I don't see what can be done about that. The Ravenue and Customs are also intrusive, blast them. If only they would accept what people say about their earnings without going on and on about it. Don't I always tell them the truth?

Beer Moth

As in other walks of life, the assessors need to stop ticking boxes and start reading people and situations in a responsible way.

The act of weeding out the loafers has perhaps not had a good start, but it's a job long overdue and has to be done. Some of these people will of course try all manner of tricks and subterfuge to fool their way into continued claims.

The obvious line which will be taken by the sulking leftist media, will be to focus on genuinely ill people losing benefits, so it is vital that we have good people in charge of the decisions here.

Andrew Brown

proper welfare reform would in my view provide real work opportunities to the long term unemployed, whether they have been in receipt of Incapacity Benefit or Jobseekers Allowance. In the 1980s (sorry to go about the 80s AGAIN ) there was the Community Programme which provided opportunity fir 12 months of employment with an employer such as alocal authority. This w3as invaluable experience to many and was indeed attractive. It was obtainable employment aimed at those who employers would likely otherwise be unlikerly to employ.
Such a scheme is not planned this time though.
I do think activity based conditionality should be attached to benefits, there should not be owt for nowt (except for those so ill they cannot do anything)

There is a case as some have suggested for scrapoping sickness benefit altogether and having one allowance for all. I think this is not a bad idea but the £66 per week jobseekers allowance is really out of pacwe withg reality and I would think a £100 flat rate for all tied to conditions would provide many advantages (less debt and better health for the unemployed, condition enforced work experience which can lead to employment/reference, and also get people out of the house and engaging with otherts (itself saving household resources)
But I do not beleive anything other than lowering the bill is the motive for thesde reforms. I am sorry to say it but those with several homes and saleries of over £100.000 a year are briefing the media to whip up resentment of the masses, in order to further strip away the finances and dignity from the most vulnerable.

And another thing, a fair few of those reading this or posting may well be on working tax credits/child benefits. Those too are welfare benefits, albeit socially 'endorsed' That too is a huge bill but you chose to hsve children. The argument goes why should the state pay for your lifestyle choices ?

And whilst I am at it, in the vain hope that a journalist might read this, there is one whopper of a lie emanating from Government. The Chancellor has said that people will be 'moved over' to jobseekers allowance from sickness benefits. They hope to get a million movced over the next few years. Well Jobseekers Allowance is a national insurance contribution based benefit. \Once a long term sickness benefit claim is ended because of a failed medical the person needs to make a fresh claim for Jobseekers Allowance, for which a more recent contribution record is required. It means that tens if not hundreds of thousands will not be able tio qaulify for contribution based Jobseekers Allowance and will have to seek the means tested route to it . If their partner works 16 hours a week they wont get it irrespective iof the amount earned. The Governmenrt know that many people will not get back onto ANY benefit once removed from sickness benefits. Its all (as I said) about sdaving money

And my final points.... each and every one of those people removed from Incapacity Benefit/Employment Support Allowance (so long as they still have their original ailment) will be able to claim Disabled Working Tax Credits if they get somer work . In many cases this will pay them, on top of their wages, at least as much as sickess benefits anyway, if that bill goes up they will seek to cut that too.... its all about cuts
and as for the unemployed with children... if they get a job the benefits bill goes up AGAIN when they claim Working Family Tax Credit....

The welfare reforms will, I can assure, fail so dont get too excited

Andrew Brown

and being as 40 per cent of appellants unrepresented and 70 per cent when represented, are winning their appeasls against losing their sickness benefits after medicals, I would have thought society ought to up in arms about the fact that so many people are being wrongly thrown off sickness benefit every single month....in fact up to 70 per cent of them... I'm surprised the Govenment havent yet moved to end the right of appeal because with rates that high its hard to see how the targets can be reached.
The comnpany ATOS who conduct medicals like to argue these cases succeed because of facts whicvh come to light after the medical examination... again in most cases rubbish. The client loses benefit usually because ATOS doctors misrepresent the customers descriptions or deny points to the customer on the basis of daft things like they managed tio travel on their own to the asssessment on a bus. The sort of things that can lose a person sickness benefits (such as watching TV/reading) are engaged in even by people under section in mental hospital.
It is a desperately cynical system which has little to do with medical facts

Beer Moth

Andrew Brown.

"...but you chose to hsve children. The argument goes why should the state pay for your lifestyle choices ?"

Because the state needs children. It needs them because they grow up to be working adults when those making today's 'lifestyle choices' are no longer available. Seems a responsible way to manage things to me.

Tim

Even if the system was working perfectly and people who are disabled (but could do some work) were going into the 'work elated activity' group to be helped, it still would ignore the fact that three quarters of employers do not want to hire disabled people.

So they will not stand a chance in the current market. They are being punished once by being disabled and punished again by the system. These are the people least able to withstand this stress and hassle.

Andrew Brown

touched a nerve there I think. But lets be fair.... should the state be subsidising children to the extent it does. Remember too that in this expanding world economy where we will not be the big player we need/used to be. When people choose to have more children or any children at all, I think the future for those children, or who pays for it should be a factor. If shall we say 20 per cent of those born today ( or even 10 percent) will not find work when they grow up, what are we creating ? I dont think the people having the children are thinking 'lets have chiuldren society need them' They are usually having children to enjoy the natural pleasure of having a family. However, each child costs child benefit, in many casdes tax credits, school places and more.
And as for EMPLOYMENT how convenient we have the open door to the EU.
Bet youyr bottom dollar as the euro collapses many central european citizens will come here looking for work just at the time when we are seeking to accommodate ever larger numbers of UK citizens in the contest for jobs

Rhoda Klapp

To Andrew Brown, a failed medical is one that shows you are well. Hmmmm.

Beer Moth

Andrew Brown

Yes, I can't tell you what a state you've put me in. Beside myself and no mistake.

You questioned the wisdom of the state helping with the costs of having and rearing children. I offered a valid reason why it is in the state's best interest.

The confused snarl-up of issues you come back with, along with the inordinate and unrewarding length of your former post; would together seem to suggest that we are blessed by your arrival, with another windbag.

Andrew Brown

For Rhoda Klapp
Yes Rhoda around 8000 people a month appeal their 'failed medicals' and 70 oper cent of those with representation actually win ! So a failed medical is as often as not unfair or inept, and thus not a true 'fail' The claimant is denied benefit and the doctor gets paid.. go figure oh clever one

Andrew Brown

for Beer Moth Yes you have offered a reason why the state helps with the cost of raising childen, but the bill is huge and many people clearly do not need it. Tell me Beermoth, why should millionnaires get child benefit,m and yes you can learn it here first... tax credits for working families are not means tested.. so far as savinbgs are concered . millionnaires can get them is that OK to support child costs for the very many people (sub millionnaire level in moist cases) who clearly have more than sufficient means

jaybs

IDS I always looked at as a "caring" Conservative, but since coming to power he has become ice cold and like so many politicians he simply does not understand invalidity benefit? as far as Chris Grayling goes, nice guy, but a walking disaster everything he turns his hand to. Why is it so many politicians are so out of touch.

Yes I agree there are far too many on benefits who are using the system, but the real question is why have they been allowed to cheat the system for so long and how do they get away with it?

But at the same time genuine claimants are made to jump through the eye of a needle to obtain benefits they are rightly due to, they are called back time and time again for medicals when it is totally clear they will not improve health wise, this causes them even more stress and anxiety than the disability they suffer. With the new private company doing the Benefits medicals figures have shown that under the new system of testing 50% of them when they appeal are found to clearly not fit for work, what is going wrong?

Professional footballers in the UK have been allowed to drive the game close to bankruptcy at many premiership clubs, they get weekly salaries which are pure disgusting but they don;t get hit by taxes that are just, but sick and disabled people who get a year what the footballers earn in week are being punished by this government I have always supported.

It does not help the briefing going on to the media of examples of those who cheat the benefits system as this creates a theory that everyone must be the same. How sad for years of running a system which does not work that the genuine are now being made to suffer - disgraceful!

JohnAnt

"40 per cent of appellants unrepresented and 70 per cent when represented, are winning their appeals against losing their sickness benefits after medicals". The answer is for a government working group to study very closely the reasoning of the Tribunals, re-assess the criteria, tweak the ATOS assessment procedures and (if necessary) re-appoint any unfeasibly lenient Tribunal panels - who were set up during the Labour government - so that only genuine, permanent and round-the-clock disability is excluded from the workplace, and the successful appeals are reduced to zero. Lawyers should be excluded from the appeal. Claimants should represent themselves and be forced to appear at the appeal.
I lived in an IB/HB-addicted area for years, and saw the ruses people get up to. Ex. A - Scampering along the street with their crutches in one hand.
Ex. B - building extensions and fitting new kitchens single-handedly while claiming physical incapacity.
Ex. C - claiming severely reduced eyesight and partial blindness, but able to demolish (illegally) a garden full of trees and
(Ex. D) drive a car.
But when any of them were roped in for light work for half an afternoon in a charity shop, they would try to be as unhelpful, sullen and aggressive as possible, to intimidate the manager into never employing them again.
Sorry, this must change, radically. Entire neighbourhoods are blighted with worklessness as a result of the benefits culture.

DeusExMacintosh

I notice ministers are being VERY careful to talk a lot about fraud and as little about disability as possible. Just some figures to think about.

Of the 2.65 million people who claim Incapacity Benefit, 1.25 million also receive Disability Living Allowance. That is 1.25 million people who by definition are a) disabled and b) disabled enough for it to prevent them working.

For the purposes of establishing a Disabled Person's Trust HMRC recognises as "disabled" anyone who receives the higher or middle rate of the DLA care component.

How is submitting this group to medical tests TWICE supposed to SAVE money? And will we now face a mandatory trip to Lourdes as well?

Rhoda Klapp

Andrew, I hate and despise the 'benefit' system. Of course it is full of unfairness. But in my world if you fail a medical, that's when they say you can't do your work because you are not fit to, which is considered bad news. Now I see it has reversed. And all due to stupid bureaucracy, box-ticking and resentment and and stupidity on both sides. It's better for all if everybody works who can. And there is a large overlap between those who could work and don't, and those who could just take the benefit, but work anyway. If it costs more for us all for them to work and get different benefits, we'll just have to pay, because a society where people work is better. Of course it is all moot when there are no jobs anyway, and that is the problem with welfare reform at the moment. That and the ready supply of immigrant labour who although virtuous in themselves, honestly seeking work and working hard, mess up the finances for the rest of us who have to pay for those who cannot or do not work.

Personally I don't think the problem is soluble in terms of the limits we self-impose. It's a Gordian knot. It requires some latter-day Alexander to solve it by bolder means. None in sight at this time, or ever likely to be.

( A close acquaintance was on the dole, jobseekers or whatever it is called now. She could get no help or training from the jobcentre, becuase they are (were?) measured by the list of six-month unemployed. If you hadn't been signed on that long, you didn't matter. When she began to approach the magic figure, they began to suggest training. It doesn't get you a job, but it does reset the six-month clock. They also suggested that it might be possible to get a doctor to declare her depressed. That would have shifted the problem to IB, where there is no time target. That's how some people get on IB. The system is broken at every stage. It can't be fixed by tinkering.)

Simon too

Part of the problem lies with politicians massaging the categories of non-working to try to make themselves look better. Simply unemployed or incapacitated ? Redundant or a pensioner ?

Looking at the figures for reviews and subsequent appeals, the problem seems to be aggravated by Labour's utter inability to produce any system that actually works efficiently.

We then reach the matter of helping those who are not working but would like to work to get work - and perhaps those who would like to work a bit top work a bit. One part of that is to sort out disincentives in the welfare system that make it disadvatageous to try to work.

Izzywizzy let's get busy! Loud bang, coloured smoke and a falsh of light! There we are - all solved. Now there is a surge of people eager to work and not to claim welfare payments any more.

So, who will now employ them ? Do you want to employ someone who has spent a long time ill ? Do you want to employ someone who has not worked for a couple of years ? Do you want to employ anyone who does not have up to the moment exerience, who is transferring to you from existing employment, who is not arousing suspicion by being prepared to work for less than top rate, who does not speak the very latest management-speak, who is over 30 years old ... ?

And when that has been sorted out, let's tackle the unemployed who have no wish to work.

Am I negative ? Actaully no, but let us not pretend there is anything simple about the answer. It is complicated, though, and one of the issues that needs to be examined carefully is the question of what employment nowadays is. Where do zero-hour contracts come in to the mix, self-employed independent consultants, part time workers, temporary workers, short-term contract workers, seasonal workers, students, apprentices and trainees ? Single mothers, widowed mothers, single fathers ... ? Heaven help us! These are things that MPs need to consider, and what experience of gainful employment do they have to bring to the party ?

Come what may, some people cannot work, or at least work productively. In any event, economically it is not possible to sustain full employment without suffering other untoward consequences. What do we do about the inevitable or necessarily unemployed ?

To conclude. It is desirable that people should be self supporting, for their own, the taxpayer's and the country's good. To achieve that result needs an understanding of both employment and of unemployment, and of the economically convenient level of employment. Let's do it, but let's not pretend it is easy to find a solution, to implement it and to manage the transition.

Andrew Brown

Rhoda,

I recognise that point about your close acquasintance being encouraged by the Jobcentre to claim Incapacity Benefits. I know it happens and has to many people.
The system makes no sense on so many levels. Welfare reform is neccesary but there times and places and this is not the right time, at least not for a full scale restructuring. There should be major investment in finding something for people to do, in education and more, tied into conditions for receiving benefits. Every period a person spends on benefit should become an interesting and challenging opportunity and not a period wasted. I think long termn benefit dependency is corrosive and unfair. The claimants need to be reintregrated into the community even if it is an artificially contrived programme. TheJobseekers Allowancve is too low at 66 pounds a week and needs to ne raised and claimants should be permitted to earn a modest amount (not the prersent £5 a week) qwithout it affecting their benefit, hence keeping the work habit, engaging with employers, and getting a reference, as well as avoiding debt, and feeling part of society

Beer Moth

Andrew Brown

I didn't argue that millionaires should receive any benefit. I agree, the present situation should be changed so that benefits are means tested, so that hight earners do not qualify.

DeusExMacintosh

It's simple: those 1.25million who claim DLA and are therefore defined as disabled, were assessed by means which are now being brought into question. Re-assessment is not the massive task you portray. Those still seen to be rightly judged disabled, will carry on as they are. The others, not so.

We all save money.

Robert Taggart

As one the 'victims' of this new crackdown... one be better off to the tune of £10.00 a week !
Jobseekers Allowance - £50.00 pw in 2003.
Our frustrated 'adviser' advised us to try for Incapacity benefit ! Income support + awarded instead.
Income Support +, 2004-09, c.£75-80.00 pw. Disqualified as of summer '09. Appeal process begun. Medical, 'courtesy' of Atos Origin, autumn '09. Appeal heard (failed !) summer '10. For the duration of this appeal IS+ = £50.00 pw.
Now ? Back on JA at £60.00 pw !
So ? So if you really are serious about saving money... simplify the benefits - just one ? - Income benefit, and cut out all those 'middle men' (Atos Origin + various 'training' agencies) and relax !
Relax ! ? Well, yes !... unemployment at 'high' levels (not below 1.5 million officially since c. 1980) be simply a fact of life. Get over it... get a life ! Oneself has and be loving it !

Rodney Yates

This is clearly not fit for purpose. If anyone needs to persist with this persecution of claimants, they have at least to go back to the drawing-board and start again. Links to Your Freedom by the Deputy Prime Minister, and follow the memphasis posting to discuss further why this is anti-democratic, anti-disability and just plain mis-construed on where the disabled are themselves coming from!

Rodney Yates

http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/restoring-civil-liberties/emancipating-people-to-have-a-say-in-society

Here's that link I refer to above

DeusExMacintosh

Beer moth:

"It's simple: those 1.25million who claim DLA and are therefore defined as disabled, were assessed by means which are now being brought into question. Re-assessment is not the massive task you portray. Those still seen to be rightly judged disabled, will carry on as they are. The others, not so."

Right. Reassessment of every single 2.65 million Incapacity Benefit recipients by a medical professional? Knock that list off in a week for a tenner. Likewise the 2.9 million DLA claimants (even though it will be the second assessment for 1.25 million of them).

No, not wasteful at all...

And on the 'discredited' assessment of disability for DLA. Apart from sending in masses of medical proofs from consultants & GPs, for the past 10 years DLA has featured medical tests conducted by government (I hesitate to use the word "independent") doctors. Provided by ... oh, yes. ATOS. The people currently providing exams for ELA.

DeusExMacintosh

ps. Current government fraud figures for DLA put it at 0.5%

sheikh

they problem is that the examinations make in accurate and false reports deliberately.

daz

Its all very well getting people off benefits,But this goverment must do more to
create jobs so they can get back to work!!

dylanthermos

My 60 year old brother applied for sickness benefit because he has dislocated his shoulder, He had a medical and explained that he was awaiting an operation in 13 weeks for surgery to his right shoulder.
They asked his to raise his right arm above his head which he could not do.They then asked him to raise his left arm which he did.
On this evidence he was passed fit for work.
His occupation is a plasterer.
Would someone explain what is going on?
Me thinks it is just a way of saving money when ever and in any way that this Tory government can?........
Judas Clegg has a lot to answer for, if you voted Lib Dem shame on you..........

dustsbin

im sorry to say i disagree with a comment anout people with sore backs bieng scrounchers , that is rubbish because i have sufferd with back probs for 16 years now and on incapacity benefit i would luv to go out and work tommorow but cant .used to work with people with disability and loved it