Written evidence submitted by Mind
We had previously commented on the consultation paper
"21st Century Welfare" and a copy of this response is
attached. We have considerable doubts about the general direction
of the changes proposed and our comments seem equally relevant
to the White Paper.
We would like to expand on our response to Question
six, dealing with the role of the contributory principle. We are
deeply concerned by the proposal to time-limit contributory ESA.
In our view non-means-tested benefits for people with long-term
mental health problems are an essential part of the system. Many
such people rely on personal and emotional support from partners
to be able to live in the community. Making partners wholly responsible
for their financial support as well seems both unjust and self-defeating.
It seems highly likely that the change would result in family
breakdown in many cases and increased rates of hospitalisation
and institutionalisation. Where this did not happen work incentives
for the partners of people with long-tern illnesses or disabilities
would be dramatically worsened. All this seems directly contrary
to the declared policy objective.
There is however a more fundamental objection. The
proposal is that the Government should simply repudiate its obligations
to a very large group of people, all of whom will have been paying
National Insurance contributions for years and in many cases decades
on the basis of what seemed like absolutely firm assurances of
support if they were no longer able to work.
It is hard to imagine a Government reneging on its
debts in this way in any other context. Financially no doubt there
are equally good reasons for withholding pay or pensions from
current and former Government employees or refusing to honour
Government bonds. No such proposals have however been made and
it would be very surprising if they were.
What is happening in fact is that a specific group
of people has been targeted to have their rights withdrawn and
that this group is defined specifically by the fact that all its
members suffer from a long-term illness or disability. We find
the implications of this very disturbing.
December 2010
| 
