Media Release
MINISTER MISTAKEN OVER GROWTH IN INCAPACITY BENEFITS
Friday, April 13, 2007
In defence of growing incapacity benefit numbers, Minister of Social Development, David Benson-Pope, is claiming the growth has slowed.
Welfare commentator, Lindsay Mitchell, says this is not so and either the Minister is badly advised or he has a very poor memory.
"Just over a year ago, in February 2006, the Minister said, '(T)he number of Sickness Benefit recipients increased by just 1,214, and the number of Invalid’s Benefit recipients increased by only 1,957 – a three percent rise for each respectively. We have seen a steep decline in the growth rate of Sickness and Invalid's Benefits.' "
"On April 11, 2007, he said, 'Despite an aging population, we are doing well in reducing the growth of numbers needing a Sickness or Invalids Benefit. In the past year Sickness and Invalids Benefit numbers have risen by just 4,000.' "
"So despite greater growth in the past year compared to the previous, David Benson-Pope is still making the same claim. It is bad enough that 'slowing growth' is the best the Minister can offer. It is worse still when that claim isn't even valid."
General Debate 23 November 2024
31 minutes ago
5 comments:
Lindsay, are those people on the artists or migrants assistance benefits included in the overall unemployed ? And, do you know per chance, what the number of artists beneficiaries are ?
Linsay, Any reader can see that 'shout above the noise' is hurting badly..
The regrettable comment is just a defensive gesture and readers will use their own judgment.
The DB-P statements of Feb06, 11Apr07 and today are just stop gap fillers for the moment and are expected to be believed by convinced Labour voters only..
The problem for Labour is that the pool of confirmed Labour voters is quickly corroding away.
What is the cure for this cancerous process?
PACE (Pathways to Arts and Culture) is the name of the programme. A year ago around 760 were on it. It has trended down over the past 3-4 years. Judith Collins lodged a question asking for an update in March 07 but is hasn't been replied yet. I'm pretty sure they would be included in the main unemployment as the payment is the same. Migrants who don't qualify for the usual statutory entitlements are probably on emergency benefits which are separate from the unemployment benefit. But don't quote me:-)
David Baigent - WTF ?
I did ask a legitimate question.
Lindsay - you are onto something with that rising cost, reducing numbers and the in work. I did not understand how the declaring earnings comparative for 2001 was much lower that the 2003 figure in your earlier post. It would seem that they restated that comparative based on a change in classification.
Interestingly the number of 18-24 has also dropped substantially. Those in "education" or training on interest free loans not being included?
What is also curious is how the gender mix has moved enormously. far fewer men getting benefits that 8 years ago.
Well spotted that they have reclassified people working a few hours out of the unemployment figures.
Post a Comment