Here's the latest IDS benediction -
"Long-term benefit claimants could be forced to do compulsory manual labour under proposals being put forward by the government, it has emerged.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith is set to outline plans for four-week placements doing jobs like gardening and litter clearing".

I thought enforced community service was for criminals? Oh silly me, I forgot - tory government ergo benefit claimants are criminals.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11704765

Hindle - It is awful. I have a case in the Upper Tribunal on the issue of removal of the mobility component for those in residential care. It's currently connected with where their care costs are funded from, I agree with removal of the care component as payment of that would be duplicity in payment. However, the mobility component funding emanates back to the funding of invalid trikes and NHS funding. My argument is that if a claimant can take advantage of locomotion outdoors and they meet the criteria, there should be no withdrawal of payment. The funding stream argument is a complicated one but I say it goes back years to when the Trikes were introduced and the DSS said you could have the Trike or the money. That dictates the origin of the funding regardless of all the complexities created since then with PCT's etc. The case has been going on for ages and keeps getting stayed pending other judgments on the same issue.

Yes Nick that was almost too good to be true and I'd like to know who they were, I thought they were more likely to be a voluntary group than people coerced into compulsory community work, in which case they would feel differently about it as it's a personal choice not a government compulsion.

I'm assuming Nick that whilst one is on a four week forced community service one will not count on the unemployment figures too?

Criminals who don't turn up for their community service don't get their benefits or wages docked. I'm sure legally that they cannot be forced into community work or legally have their benefit stopped for failing to do the four week stints?

Also, if they are on a four week community placement, how can they be looking for work?

They say it will be aimed at people deliberately not trying to find work. You already have to fill in your employment quest details when you claim JSA, you've had to do so for years and they've become very strict on that in recent years as in checking out the information given to them to ensure the claimant isn't just making it up

How do they decide that you're deliberately avoiding looking for work, is it if some person behind a desk in the job centre thinks you're not making enough effort? Is it going to be a case of after twelve months you automatically fall into an idle layabout category so you get put on community duties?

It's also for when they think claimants might be working apparently. Surely if the DWP thought someone was working then they would be investigating it and finding the evidence to confirm or deny the thought?

The debate on tuesday is going to be very interesting. From what I can gather it's been called by Labour over Housing benefit but will cover other areas of welfare reform.

I'm sure they will have rolling blocks of 4 week claimants involved in these projects and will use them as 'engaged in work experience' statistics to hide the true number of out of work. The new legislation will, as I understand it, be able to apply sanctions for non-compliance.

Front line staff at the JCP are trained to look at Claimants who say have dirty finger nails or who turn up looking like they've been working, they also ring people at certain times of the day to see if they answer their home phones.

The investigation teams won't have the resources to track suspects. I suspect this is where credit agencies will be engaged to look for patterns of increased spending and ATM withdrawals and loyalty cards being used which are out of the claimant's area. All the technology is there and the law already permits the info to be obtained in the detection of fraud. DWP investigations often go on some nine months before the claimant is called in, I always dispute the overpayment for this period on the basis that the DWP should have stopped the payments when they had reasonable suspicion to launch the investigation.

I have been banned ,by my wife,from watching the news -in particular anything that mentions "welfare" as I start a bit of a rant when the lies,inaccuracies(unfortunately the BBC is not very good at the moment)concerning numbers etc and propaganda pour out of every newsreader-and that Bl%%dy repeated film of a typical estate to signify benefit recipients(nothing wrong with living there) -ANYBODY MAY RECEIVE WELFARE WE ARE NOT ALL THE SAME_IT CAN HAPPEN TO ANYONE_on no I have started again-must rest
regards.

This insanity goes on and the toothless labour lot join in the singsong,i resigned from the labour party tonight over this issue Miliband and band of merry men clearly see the sick and the disabled as a burden.

Well they can bugger off if they think they're getting my vote again.

Very funny hindle-a. I know what you mean about rants, mine are oft directed at the tv or radio but they pale into insignificance to the rants that I can go on whenever I see the political partners in crime masquerading as Heaven sent saviours.

I disagree on the Beeb as I find Sky more biased than the beeb but that's just my personal take on it.

I'm just listening to their news review and this latest moment of insanity of compulsory community work being described as a reason for people to get up. It gets more and more ridiculous - do they honestly believe all claimants can't get out of bed in the morning, that they have duvet days seven days a week? Are all claimants idle as well as dole dossers now with no motivation or inclination for anything other than on giro day when they presumably leap out of bed, run down to the post office in great excitement and anticipation of the huge windfall about to befall them and how they can fritter it away?

Hadn't seen it, thanks hindle-a.

@Nick, you know exactly what I meant. What do you think should be done about welfare dependency? I was brought up in a pretty crappy town near glasgow, and from the early eighties onwards I've known a lot of people who are happy to take money from the government if it means that they can be idle and feckless. In your world, is everyone you know who's dependent on the state straining at the bit to find work? Bullshit.

Luddite is on the ball above. There are plenty of people who know how to play the system. I still know a few, and I'm still friends with a couple of them: they're quite open about the fact that they won't come off the dole under any circumstances. So I repeat: what's your solution?

Absolutely hindle-a, this is one size fits all policy and deals in generalisations rather than the individual claimant.

Thee's a big debate on welfare in the H of C tuesday, I mentioned it earlier I think on the comment boards. I was thinking, you'd best practice silent rants from now til then or perhaps buy your wife some earplugs! I think she might need them.

Regards and thanks for that link, I'd never come across that site before.

Nick, it will be on the Parliament channel if you have it but I don't know what time yet, I'll check it out on the website for parliament and get back to you. I would imagine some of it will appear on the news channels but I plan on watching the full debate.

Just checked the time, 2.30 onwards and it's under an Opposition day debate, it's scheduled under the heading 'impact of proposed changes to housing benefit' but I would imagine the wider issues will also come into play.

Crikey, I had even given your last point a thought. You may as well just move in to work Nick, you'll never get a moment!

One thing I love about the Bible is that it takes a hard stand on people who try to just "get by" and feed off others labour's without doing a any work themselves. Here's my favorite verse on this topic because after all it's the lords day.

For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." 2 Thessalonians 3:10

Yep, don't work, don't eat. I think that says it all, didn't Marx say something very similar.

Notice that it doesn't say that those who CAN NOT work should not eat. No, we should have compassion on and help out those people. But if someone can work, yet WILL NOT work, then he's left to the consequences of his actions (or inaction's in this case).

Here are a couple other verses on this same line of thinking:

Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth. Proverbs 10:4

Anyhow who draw up these statistics the lazy bastard's society.

Those that can work should work and let's be clear who we are talking about here, people who have not worked in the last 10 years. I know a few.. and i also know people that do work, but really shouldn't be working, because they are 'genuinely' ill and suffering from a long term illness. So lets start helping the genuine more and help the disillusioned back into the world of LABOUR... and lets not forget you are the Labour party.

Lox-these people will be idle and feckless-the State hasn't made them so -they will duck and dive and find a way-these people exist in all classes whether in work or not and as to "welfare dependency" it is a social construct to mean particular groups of people-all people receive benefits-the biggest scroungers are the Government look at what they claim from the taxpayer and scrounge from the State-are they dependent -like worklessness (do you think the idle rich is meant to be signified when the term is uttered)-the Government daily uses such terms and does not need to define it because it is the effect and symbolism which they intend to convey that matters-any reasonable person with reasonable intelligence can see for example-"workless families" includes people that work a few hours,Carers,the sick and disabled,students ,early retirees -the people who play the system will still play thye system they will survive meanwhile the genuine will suffer AND ARE SUFFERING that is the intention to disuade people from claiming,deem the sick and disabled as fit and severely reduce the income of the people who they claim to protect as being "vulnerable"

I would like to hear more about the damage work causes. It seems to me many jobs seem to be pointless, and are just about attacking other people, making more stress for all concerned. As to health, that seems to be suffer enormously, as a result of work. And to those who are working - they often make little contribution to society, working all the hours, and having no time for anyone else. And as to working to consume - that is hardly good news for the planet. It would be much better for people to work less, care for each other, and live modestly.

Lox: You asked me to clarify how I would deal with Welfare Dependency, I will attempt to provide you with a cogent response.

Firstly, I would suggest we sort out (A) The genuine (B) Those who the State have allowed to become dependant, and (C) Those who blatantly abuse.

How?

We should abandon the costly contract the DWP has with ATOS and go back to relying on the word of the claimant's GP for the first 6 months of incapacity. Doctor's have been trained in the new 'Fit Note' suitability, but given its recent introduction, we have not yet allowed them an opportunity to give valid medical opinion with the exception of the initial 13 week ESA assessment phase. IMHO the doctor is the best person to comment on their patient, but there ought to be a proviso that they have examined them.

After 6 months, a consultant's report should be obtained. This should be from the NHS and would ensure (a) the claimant is being seen with a view to treatment (b) specialist opinion has been obtained
which is separate from the doctor who may not always be wholly impartial. Doctors and consultants are far more trained and expert than the cynical HP's Atos use. Money could be paid to the NHS rather than the unweildy ATOS machine; this would enable claimants to be seen and diagnosed within the timescale.

A proper report should be provided by the Consultant saying whether in his or her opinion the claimant is (A or B or C). The claimant would see the report and be given a right of appeal if he or she disagrees with its findings.

Those who are (A) should be reviewed by their consultants in a further 3 to 6 months; thus ensuring their continued treatment and ultimately a hopeful prospect to good health.

Anyone terminally ill or suffering from grave illness should naturally be exempt.

Those (B) should be given the options of having to take up meaningful placements or training including basic skills like maths, English, IT, confidence building and even assertiveness training, they should be able to take up voluntary placements or work placements with an allowance, including expenses. They should be 'job matched' to pair up their skills. Claimants should be allowed to try different areas of work to see where they fit in and where they feel most able to contribute.

Employers should be given money to adapt the work place and ensure a safe environment, they should be independently audited to ensure they are not exploiting those they work with. Allowances and tax breaks should be given to employers who take people on after 12 months continuous employment, further payments could be paid after 2 years. Work should be paid at a proper wage and the claimants progress should be reviewed by the doctor to ensure the work is conjusive to good health.

Those that are (c) should be sanctioned and would have a right to appeal by an independant panel which would include a legally qualified person, an employer, a doctor and an ex claimant/employee. This would ensure an informed opinion and decision is made.

If found capable, the claimant can be told they are suitable for workfare. The claimant should be reviewed and when it is determined they are 'compliant' they can then receive the support I've already outlined for those at (B)

Welfare reform must involve investment in systems which reduces official error by data matching between departments so that a claimant's WTC/CTC is automatically linked to the Local Council and DWP to adjust their other benefits. The money saved pays for the investment and better training.

The message is all wrong that this Government is giving out, welfare dependancy has been allowed to become a culture amongst some, by no means all.

I have conducted approximately 4,800 cases Lox and would estimate of those I have seen 50% are (A) 40% are (B) and the remaining 10% (C). That's a guess but it is based on many years of experience.

The ESA/ICB/DLA decisions made achieve success rates of an average of 55% ESA 95% ICB and 80% DLA (in my section) which tells me there is something inherently wrong about the adjudication process.

I also think that advice agencies and support workers who work closely with these claimant's should be given an opportunity to comment on the problems which the claimant faces (this often involves many other factors such as their housing, levels of debt, family relations, disabled children and trauma associated with being victims of crime and abuse - often not reported to the authorities)

Well you did ask!