DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE CONSULTATION24.01.2011
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=42351&SESSION=905
Early Day Motion
Williams, Hywel
That this House expresses concern at the presentation of the case for reform of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) in the public consultation published on 6 December 2010; believes that the consultation incorrectly confuses correlation with causation between DLA claimants and employment levels or motivation to work; notes that DLA claimants tend to be older, less well-qualified, on benefits for longer and in poorer health than other disabled people; is of the opinion that many of the claims made in support of changing DLA are unsubstantiated in the consultation text or the supporting evidence; does not accept the argument that the identified problems with the present format of DLA are insoluble without the introduction of a costly new benefit; further believes that the presentation of the case for these reforms is highly flawed; and further expresses concern that the language used in the consultation may mislead readers when drawing conclusions from the evidence presented, and may therefore influence their response to the consultation.
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=42351&SESSION=905
Early Day Motion
Williams, Hywel
That this House expresses concern at the presentation of the case for reform of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) in the public consultation published on 6 December 2010; believes that the consultation incorrectly confuses correlation with causation between DLA claimants and employment levels or motivation to work; notes that DLA claimants tend to be older, less well-qualified, on benefits for longer and in poorer health than other disabled people; is of the opinion that many of the claims made in support of changing DLA are unsubstantiated in the consultation text or the supporting evidence; does not accept the argument that the identified problems with the present format of DLA are insoluble without the introduction of a costly new benefit; further believes that the presentation of the case for these reforms is highly flawed; and further expresses concern that the language used in the consultation may mislead readers when drawing conclusions from the evidence presented, and may therefore influence their response to the consultation.
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.