Mrs D had a go at a Job Centre today. She claims ESA for Miss D. They stopped it. So, Mrs D 'phoned and apparently it was stopped due to "a change in 'your' circumstances." When Mrs D asked what the change in circumstances was it was apparently because Miss D's medical certificate had lapsed. Mrs D pointed out she'd sent them a 52 week sick note in April. Apparently they only accept 3 month ones but didn't tell Mrs D. She gave them what for. After which the idit asked "do you want to claim tbhe benefit then?". As Mrs D said does the silly woman work for fun or to get paid to live? How does she think those unable to work can live? (Fortunately, for Miss D there was no hardship as we support her but for those who need to get benefit to eat things are bad.

What a waste of resources - a 3 monthly waste of GPs time, our time and the beaurocrats time for someone with a long-term conditiuon. This is where so much waste happens in the public sector - an unthinking approach, duplication, triplication and more of effort by different "agencies", people who care about there job but not about the people they are supposedly employed to help.

He did? Have a read:

[url=http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm071129/debtext/71129-0006.htmHansard 29 November 2007[/url
[i
Remploy

12.15 pm

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Peter Hain): I wish to make a statement on the modernisation of Remploy. Since Remploy was founded in 1945, it has played a central role in the lives of thousands of disabled men and women by providing supported employment for those who need it and, increasingly, by placing others in mainstream employment.

Both as a local MP and as a Minister, I have for the past 17 years worked closely with and supported Remploy and, as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Remploy workers will continue to have my full support. May I record the grateful thanks of the House for the diligence and commitment of my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People.

Of course, the world has developed dramatically since the end of the second world war, not least in how the aspirations and expectations of disabled people have changed, and changed for the better. The vast majority want jobs in mainstream employment, and that is the Government’s priority. That is why we extended the scope of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. That is why we have been transforming the support that we give to disabled people, moving away from a system that abandons people to the margins to one that helps them to realise their potential.

That is why we spent £66 million last year on the Workstep programme to support 17,000 disabled people. That is why we spent £62 million on access to work, to help 24,000 people. These programmes are already helping disabled people to take their place in an inclusive society. That is why we are introducing the employment and support allowance, which will replace incapacity benefit next autumn. That is why we are extending pathways to work across the country by April next year, offering tailored support to help people on incapacity benefit back into work. And that is why last year, Remploy’s employment services division placed 5,000 disabled people in mainstream employment, for the first time outstripping the number employed by the factory network.

We have helped more disabled people into jobs than ever before. For example, since 2001 the new deal for disabled people has helped over 150,000 into work. None the less, there remains a vital role for supported employment, providing a chance to work for thousands of disabled people who might not otherwise be immediately ready for mainstream work. That has been a central part of Remploy’s work since it was founded, but increasingly, Remploy has struggled to fulfil this role effectively.

Low-wage, low-skill competition from countries like China and the EU accession states has put Remploy factories under enormous pressure. In turn, Remploy has failed to move adequately into higher-value, higher-skill work. Losses have spiralled, and Remploy’s ability to support disabled people has been put at risk. Change is therefore essential for Remploy’s 83 factories across the country, and the 5,000 people whom they employ.

Following the National Audit Office’s report in 2005 and the independent report by PricewaterhouseCoopers and Dr. Stephen Duckworth of Disability Matters last
29 Nov 2007 : Column 448
summer, Ministers asked Remploy to develop a new five-year restructuring plan. This was to modernise the business, avoid compulsory redundancy for Remploy’s disabled workers, support substantially larger numbers of disabled people into mainstream work, and stay within a funding envelope of a £555 million taxpayer subsidy over five years, to ensure that escalating costs do not put at risk funding for other Department for Work and Pensions programmes for disabled people.

The reality is that without modernisation Remploy deficits would obliterate our other programmes to help disabled people into mainstream work. With no change, in five years’ time Remploy would require £171 million a year on current trends. That would be £60 million over the £111 million funding envelope, which represents nearly the entire current annual Workstep budget.

In May 2007, Remploy made a proposal, for consultation with the trade unions, to close or merge 43 of the 83 Remploy factories. When I took over as Secretary of State a month later, however, it was clear that national and local management had not exhausted procurement opportunities to maintain the maximum number of Remploy sites. There was also a huge gulf between Remploy management and the trade unions, and the likelihood of destructive confrontation.

In August I therefore asked Roger Poole, a former assistant general secretary of Unison, to act as the independent chairman of fresh negotiations, and I want to record my thanks for the way in which he managed to achieve real dialogue and progress. Although there was no agreement on factory closures, there was significant common ground for the first time. There was agreement on the £555 million funding subsidy, on the quadrupling to 20,000 the number of disabled people Remploy would help into mainstream work, on significant cuts in management jobs and costs, on more efficient working practices, and on the vital importance of generating more public sector contracts—and, in consequence, the need for fewer factory closures.

In September I reaffirmed Government policy on Remploy: that everyone should do their utmost to get a negotiated outcome; that there would be no factory closures without ministerial agreement; and that all public authorities should be encouraged to take advantage of European procurement rules allowing contracts to be reserved for supported businesses. I also reaffirmed, as I do again today, that there would be no compulsory redundancies for Remploy’s disabled workers and that they would retain the protection of Remploy’s terms and conditions, including—uniquely for workers facing plant closures or transfers—their salaries and final salary pensions. Both workers and management now need certainty to end the insecurity and worry for Remploy employees and their families and to allow Remploy management to begin the radical changes that we all recognise are needed.

The final proposals that I am announcing today represent the best package for Remploy’s disabled employees in those difficult circumstances. Copies of the modernisation plan are available in the Vote Office, and a letter with agreed proposals to the trade unions has been deposited in the Library. There will be 15 fewer factory closures, with 55 factories remaining open and 11 merging—down from 32 closures to 17.
29 Nov 2007 : Column 449
The sales target for public procurement will increase to £461 million over five years, up from £298 million since the company’s proposals in May. That is a huge and challenging 130 per cent. increase over the current rate of sales of £200 million. There will be a total cost saving of £59 million from around 25 per cent. fewer managers, changes in working practices and reductions in non-wage costs.

Last week I had productive discussions with the leaders of the GMB, Unite and Community, joined by Remploy chairman Ian Russell, and I pay tribute to Ian Russell for his energy and commitment to get the best for Remploy workers. As a result, we have reached further agreements to protect Remploy’s future and its workers. New skills in public procurement will be brought in to ensure that its marketing and sales effort is targeted appropriately. Appropriate employment advice will be available to all disabled employees whose factories are closing. Remploy will provide a travel-to-work package wherever necessary, where employees transfer as a result of mergers. Furthermore, Remploy has been contacted by third parties interested in keeping some form of production or training at six of the sites due for closure—Lydney, Glasgow Hillington, St. Helens, Treforest, Ystradgynlais and Brynamman. At four other sites—Mansfield, Pinxton, Plymouth and York—there is the possibility of staff transfers to nearby plants, most of which are local authority-supported.

I know there will be disappointment that we are unable to keep even more factories open, but the reality is that it is simply not viable. For those sites, including those mentioned above, this is my message: if management, trade unions, MPs and others come up with a credible option involving a takeover or transfer, we will, of course, co-operate, and Remploy will help to facilitate. However, time is very short. The new funding envelope starts in four months’ time—from 1 April 2008.

We have managed to keep open 55 sites only on the basis of very stretching procurement targets and a tough forward plan. It will be up to everyone with an interest in Remploy—Government, management, trade unions, local MPs and other political representatives— to pull together to ensure that those factories meet their ambitious targets, otherwise they, too, could be put at risk.

The proposals that I have presented today are both realistic about the challenges facing Remploy and ambitious for the future. The plan makes some difficult choices, and many hon. Members wish that the circumstances were different, but we are where we are. What is now vital is that everyone concentrates their efforts on making the new Remploy a success. There will be a top-to-bottom restructuring and reskilling of Remploy. The plan will deliver a new beginning for Remploy requiring a radically new approach across the entire operation, which must include better management and better union relations. Last week, I agreed with union leaders that the modernisation and procurement plan will be properly monitored to ensure that it remains on course, so that Remploy can look to the future with a degree of confidence not enjoyed for some years—the people that it was set up to serve deserve no less. I commend this statement to the House.

Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con): I start by thanking the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of the statement.[/i

Thanks for that, its much appreciated. It is a difficult one which the government have not given much thought to and lumped us all together. I've mentioned this before, everyones abilities and disabilities are different as are our work capabilities. This is something that needs looking at. To give you an example I have rheumatoid arthritis, my prognosis is probably wheelchair bound in time something I've come to accept, yet at I was placed in the Work related group which means I had one year to find and take a cure for my RA or my benefit would stop as this government say 1year is adequete time to get better. This is not widely known unless its happening to you.

Disability and illness is not as black or white as the government make out.

Double Post

At my workplace, we have external secretaries who type out our dictations, letters, invoices, attendance notes etc.

You seem to have no trouble typing large blocks of text and presumably can listen through headphones.

Can you do a job like this?

Yes, but not repeatitively which is recognised on your ESA50 forms as not being able to do the task at all. Thats the most frustrating thing, I have exams in typing, its been my job since leaving school yet when I do it for any length of time, my hands and fingers swell and my wrists seize up. So if I can find a job where I type for a few minutes a day, bingo!!

and?

[urlhttp://www.dpac.uk.net/tag/remploy-closures/[/url


[urlhttp://www.gmb.org.uk/default.aspx?page=1645[/url


thrown on the scrap heap by the labour party. the vicious, evil bastads (sic). what sort of morally bankrupt oaf would vote for a party that did that. throw in the abolition of the 10p tax band, is there no-one a labour voter won't screw over. still, they can always try and blame thatcher.

They have plenty of previous in taking the worse-case scenario and then applying a broad brush "solution" to "the problem", working on the principle that many will not bother appealing or get so fed up with the process, they simply accept their fate and wither & die.

They are, without doubt, an evil-minded nasty set of bastads. Always have been and always will be. As Nye Bevan said:
"No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin"

You see, you've highlighted a problem with "assessments" right there.

You've already set a bar, a line in the sand, by inferring that because a person can type something on an internet forum they are perfectly capable of working in an office doing a typing sort of job, data input or similar.

This is how the "assessment" works, its a tool with a pre-prepared agenda to describe a task which can be completed and then with a wave of a wand transpose that task into a "job" and in doing so prove that the person is not totally invalided at all and therefore fit for work.

Problem is that in the real world those sort of jobs just don't exist anywhere.

A job where you can data input at your own speed with regular pauses due to pain or fatigue or inability to concentrate for long periods of time - you can still type don't forget - a job where your managers don't mind if you have to take irregular absences for medical visits some of which might not be pre-planned, a job on a regular bus route that is not far from a bus stop where a bus with a drop-floor ramp is available.

We aren't asking for much are we, we haven't even started yet...

And we're assuming that none of the 2 million + other people in the job queue don't want that sort of job as well given that they can offer a better performance promise than that.

Just out of interest, one of our directors recently issued a decree that too much time was being wasted on medical appointments and sick days at our place of work and that we should all aim to cut back on this, what they forgot was that the company absence planner is on the intranet so its really easy for anyone to look at it, most staff have no sick days this year (me included), only three have more than four days and one of those is a director, of all sick days taken those three represent 80% and two of those are women who I know for a fact took some days off due to their childrens sickness.

If a small business like the one I work for are targeting working women with school age children and warning others for having just one or two days sick per year, then just where are we heading to ?

Who introduced the 10p tax band in the first place and who introduced the Tax Credits that largely filled the gap when the band was abolished?

Clue : Not the Tories.

ah, so it's ok for labour to screw the poorest in society because they doled out the cash in the first place?

the 10p tax was introduced in 1999, the tax credit system we now know (it's a offspring of the old family credit brought in by the tories) came about in 2003ish, the 10p tax band was got rid of 5 years after that, plus those who were hit hardest by the removal of the 10p tax band didn't even qualify for tax credits, which makes your assertion that they filled the gap, what?

clue: rhymes with pollocks.

You should have just called Dita a fool who doesn't know his ar*e from his elbow, as he/she clearly doesn't. Unless someone has experienced the effects of chronic long term sickness, not only on the sufferer but also their family and finances, it is very hard to understand just how bad things can become. If this is then compounded by low life politicians trying to suck up to middle england by pandering to their prejudices, all you can do is raise two fingers and take aim with your mobility scooter.