Just a little crowd-sourcing post.
It would be awfully helpful if any of you have the time or energy to pull out quotes from peers who have spoken during the passage of the welfare reform bill.
In particular, I need quotes mentioning democracy, the social impacts of the bill and anyone expressing concern over Financial Privilege being used.
Anything from Conservative peers would be helpful, but also Lib Dems and Cross Benchers.
If you find anything good, (not too long if possible) could you post them here in the comments thread? I don't have time to go through links, so a cut and paste job straight to the best bits would be perfect.
More cryptic plotting from Suey but we did OK with the Spartacus Report ;)
xxx
Wednesday, 8 February 2012
Tuesday, 7 February 2012
Simplified Version of Draft PIP Criteria
Here is the simplified version of the PIP criteria we've been working on.
Draft Pip Criteria - Simplified Version
We hope it will give you all the information you need to decide how you will be personally affected by the change from DLA to PIP. Soon, we will publish a guide to the consultation too, so perhaps we can use this simplified version to start to think about what submissions we might make to the consultation.
Hopefully by later in the week, we can start writing our submissions when the guide to the consultation is finalised. We hope it will mean that many, many more people will engage with this process and we can make our views heard.
If you've already done a submission or don't want to wait, we would like to invite you all to send any submissions you make to us, so that this time, we can keep a public record of as many responses as possible. We will be inviting Charities, DPOs and other campaigning groups to do the same.
Clearly, this will not suit everyone. Some may wish their submission to be private and we wholeheartedly respect this. However, to avoid any suggestion that our views may not be properly considered, we feel it would be helpful to provide a space where they can be collected.
Draft Pip Criteria - Simplified Version
Draft Pip Criteria - Simplified Version
We hope it will give you all the information you need to decide how you will be personally affected by the change from DLA to PIP. Soon, we will publish a guide to the consultation too, so perhaps we can use this simplified version to start to think about what submissions we might make to the consultation.
Hopefully by later in the week, we can start writing our submissions when the guide to the consultation is finalised. We hope it will mean that many, many more people will engage with this process and we can make our views heard.
If you've already done a submission or don't want to wait, we would like to invite you all to send any submissions you make to us, so that this time, we can keep a public record of as many responses as possible. We will be inviting Charities, DPOs and other campaigning groups to do the same.
Clearly, this will not suit everyone. Some may wish their submission to be private and we wholeheartedly respect this. However, to avoid any suggestion that our views may not be properly considered, we feel it would be helpful to provide a space where they can be collected.
Draft Pip Criteria - Simplified Version
Monday, 6 February 2012
PIP criteria - The Reality
The brilliant Sam Barnett-Cormack has been putting together a simplified version of the criteria for PIP (Personal Independence Payments, the replacement for DLA or Disability Living Allowance)
As soon as it's 100% signed off, I will of course be sharing it far and wide. It is designed to help us all respond to the Government consultation on PIP criteria, not as a guide to applying for the new benefit.
Campaigners have argued strongly that we should not be expected to pass law for a new disability benefit until we knew exactly who would qualify and under what circumstances. Despite this, the Government only released the PIP criteria the day before the vote in the Lords on PIP. The criteria are desperately complicated and there was no practical way that anyone - charities, DPOs, media or campaigners could have considered them before the crucial vote.
I just read through our simplified version.
Please remember that we are constantly assured that "No-one who is genuinely disabled has anything to fear from PIP" (Grayling, Miller, IDS)
I won't go into everything, there's no way I could here. I will however, go into how they will affect people like me with bowel disease. This will involve much discussion of pooh. You've been warned.
Under ESA, I simply would not qualify. This is because the "descriptors" ignore pain, fatigue, vomiting and diarrhoea. The only possible way someone with bowel disease could qualify is if they are incontinent. But not just a bit incontinent often. No, I must experience a "full and uncontrolled evacuation of the bowel" at least once a month.
Translation? Poohing yourself at work a bit most days is not a reason not to work. Poohing all over your boss is.
Under the new PIP criteria it appears to be even worse.
If you use a stoma or catheter and manage it yourself, you are not considered incontinent and will get just 2 points. You need 8 to qualify for PIP
If you are incontinent but can clear up after yourself, it doesn't count.
They don't even consider changing the bed sheets or your clothes as "needing help"
The only thing that is classed as "help" is if you literally need someone to clean your physical person.
If you have a stoma it does not matter if you can clean your own bum or not.
The only other possibly way someone with bowel disease might qualify is under "feeding".
If you are fed by tube, as long as you can set up the feeds yourself you will get just 2 points - you need 8 to qualify for the "Daily Living" (previously "Care") component.
**Technical point but I need urgent clarification on TPN under this descriptor (Total Parenteral Nutrition) This was always an automatic qualifier as it involves being fed into a central artery and must be done under strict sterile conditions. The risk of life threatening infection is great. You can however, in theory, be trained to do it yourself at home, in which case, under the criteria it would seem not to qualify.
I would simply ask that every MP reads this article. Do we have anything to fear? I'd say we do. And this is just bowel disease. Is it humane? You decide. Is it based in any way on the actual experiences of incontinence and the costs (financial and social) of dealing with it? Clearly not. Does it mean that my life is not riddled daily with the pain, difficulties and embarrassment of bowel disease? Of course not. If I can feed myself by tube does this mean my life is no longer threatened by infection, malnutrition, possible obstruction or perforation of the bowel? No, if I am feeding myself by tube, it means I am more likely to be at risk of all of those things.
Finally, when it comes to the mobility section, you know when you were writing essays for school and you started quite well, then lost the will to live and ended up concluding it in about three sentences so you could watch Dallas? Well that's how the mobility section of the PIP criteria comes across. It doesn't even make sense and our finest Spartacus minds have not really been able to fathom exactly what the Government intend.
I imagine this means the Government don't actually have a clue themselves.
More soon.
As soon as it's 100% signed off, I will of course be sharing it far and wide. It is designed to help us all respond to the Government consultation on PIP criteria, not as a guide to applying for the new benefit.
Campaigners have argued strongly that we should not be expected to pass law for a new disability benefit until we knew exactly who would qualify and under what circumstances. Despite this, the Government only released the PIP criteria the day before the vote in the Lords on PIP. The criteria are desperately complicated and there was no practical way that anyone - charities, DPOs, media or campaigners could have considered them before the crucial vote.
I just read through our simplified version.
Please remember that we are constantly assured that "No-one who is genuinely disabled has anything to fear from PIP" (Grayling, Miller, IDS)
I won't go into everything, there's no way I could here. I will however, go into how they will affect people like me with bowel disease. This will involve much discussion of pooh. You've been warned.
Under ESA, I simply would not qualify. This is because the "descriptors" ignore pain, fatigue, vomiting and diarrhoea. The only possible way someone with bowel disease could qualify is if they are incontinent. But not just a bit incontinent often. No, I must experience a "full and uncontrolled evacuation of the bowel" at least once a month.
Translation? Poohing yourself at work a bit most days is not a reason not to work. Poohing all over your boss is.
Under the new PIP criteria it appears to be even worse.
If you use a stoma or catheter and manage it yourself, you are not considered incontinent and will get just 2 points. You need 8 to qualify for PIP
If you are incontinent but can clear up after yourself, it doesn't count.
They don't even consider changing the bed sheets or your clothes as "needing help"
The only thing that is classed as "help" is if you literally need someone to clean your physical person.
If you have a stoma it does not matter if you can clean your own bum or not.
The only other possibly way someone with bowel disease might qualify is under "feeding".
If you are fed by tube, as long as you can set up the feeds yourself you will get just 2 points - you need 8 to qualify for the "Daily Living" (previously "Care") component.
**Technical point but I need urgent clarification on TPN under this descriptor (Total Parenteral Nutrition) This was always an automatic qualifier as it involves being fed into a central artery and must be done under strict sterile conditions. The risk of life threatening infection is great. You can however, in theory, be trained to do it yourself at home, in which case, under the criteria it would seem not to qualify.
I would simply ask that every MP reads this article. Do we have anything to fear? I'd say we do. And this is just bowel disease. Is it humane? You decide. Is it based in any way on the actual experiences of incontinence and the costs (financial and social) of dealing with it? Clearly not. Does it mean that my life is not riddled daily with the pain, difficulties and embarrassment of bowel disease? Of course not. If I can feed myself by tube does this mean my life is no longer threatened by infection, malnutrition, possible obstruction or perforation of the bowel? No, if I am feeding myself by tube, it means I am more likely to be at risk of all of those things.
Finally, when it comes to the mobility section, you know when you were writing essays for school and you started quite well, then lost the will to live and ended up concluding it in about three sentences so you could watch Dallas? Well that's how the mobility section of the PIP criteria comes across. It doesn't even make sense and our finest Spartacus minds have not really been able to fathom exactly what the Government intend.
I imagine this means the Government don't actually have a clue themselves.
More soon.
Saturday, 4 February 2012
Geek Post
Two elements of sheer geekery caused much welfare delight on Twitter last night.
Now we need a caveat : Neither probably mean anything at all.
However, the first rule of our campaign has been : If you know what they're up to, you can write about it and frankly, what they're up to is often so dodgy, the stories just write themselves.
So, first, if you haven't read the article by Jeff King, senior lecturer at the Faculty of Laws, University College London, it's a cracker. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/news/welfare-reform-and-the-financial-privilege.pdf It's long and very academic, but the crucial part is this :
"What recourse does the House of Lords have?
It is for the Commons tojudge the scope of the privilege in any given dispute, but the Lords
need not accept its judgment without protest. They have two recourses. First, they can
assert by way of resolution that they make no admission regarding the reasons offered by
the Commons, and do not consent to such reasons constituting a precedent. (See 125 Lords
Journals 425; 138 Lords Journals 337; 140 Lords Journals 345). Presumably, they may go
further and positively assert their disagreement while acquiescing nonetheless, just as they
may do with a legal decision they disagree with but grudgingly accept. The second recourse
is that, contrary to the tenor of the Clerk of Parliament’s report on the Lords’ options in such
a case, the Lords do in fact have the right to reject a bill in its entirety. The rule is stated
succinctly in Halsbury’s: ‘The House of Lords may reject a bill in its entirety without
infringing the financial privileges of the Commons. Its power to reject even a bill of aids and
supplies has been acknowledged in former times by the House of Commons.’ (Halsbury’s
Laws of England, Vol.78 (2010) 5thEdn, s.826; also noted inErskine May, 23rd
edn., p.927).
Both these recourses would be strong measures, but can be reasonably viewed as
appropriate responses to the Commons’ attempt to overextend its privilege."
So, basically, the Lords can stamp their feet a bit and delay the bill for a month, or they can throw it out entirely and it will be a year before the Government can pass it. More later on how where when and why - cleverer people than I are looking at the options, what it all means and what is actually likely to happen.
The second piece of sheer geekery came from the reasons given by the Government for rejecting the Lords amendments.
Quick flick through, Financial privilege, financial privilege, financial privilege, nothing to see here.... Oh wait?? What 's that? 19A agreed to? Except not agreed to at all! Reversed to read just as it did originally, but agreed to??? No financial privilege??
Now we need a caveat : Neither probably mean anything at all.
However, the first rule of our campaign has been : If you know what they're up to, you can write about it and frankly, what they're up to is often so dodgy, the stories just write themselves.
So, first, if you haven't read the article by Jeff King, senior lecturer at the Faculty of Laws, University College London, it's a cracker. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/news/welfare-reform-and-the-financial-privilege.pdf It's long and very academic, but the crucial part is this :
"What recourse does the House of Lords have?
It is for the Commons tojudge the scope of the privilege in any given dispute, but the Lords
need not accept its judgment without protest. They have two recourses. First, they can
assert by way of resolution that they make no admission regarding the reasons offered by
the Commons, and do not consent to such reasons constituting a precedent. (See 125 Lords
Journals 425; 138 Lords Journals 337; 140 Lords Journals 345). Presumably, they may go
further and positively assert their disagreement while acquiescing nonetheless, just as they
may do with a legal decision they disagree with but grudgingly accept. The second recourse
is that, contrary to the tenor of the Clerk of Parliament’s report on the Lords’ options in such
a case, the Lords do in fact have the right to reject a bill in its entirety. The rule is stated
succinctly in Halsbury’s: ‘The House of Lords may reject a bill in its entirety without
infringing the financial privileges of the Commons. Its power to reject even a bill of aids and
supplies has been acknowledged in former times by the House of Commons.’ (Halsbury’s
Laws of England, Vol.78 (2010) 5thEdn, s.826; also noted inErskine May, 23rd
edn., p.927).
Both these recourses would be strong measures, but can be reasonably viewed as
appropriate responses to the Commons’ attempt to overextend its privilege."
So, basically, the Lords can stamp their feet a bit and delay the bill for a month, or they can throw it out entirely and it will be a year before the Government can pass it. More later on how where when and why - cleverer people than I are looking at the options, what it all means and what is actually likely to happen.
The second piece of sheer geekery came from the reasons given by the Government for rejecting the Lords amendments.
http://www.publications. |
Quick flick through, Financial privilege, financial privilege, financial privilege, nothing to see here.... Oh wait?? What 's that? 19A agreed to? Except not agreed to at all! Reversed to read just as it did originally, but agreed to??? No financial privilege??
In fact, the time limit and the "youth condition" amendment (NI credits for disabled children, clause 52) were both agreed to. I had heard that youth condition might be accepted, but that makes it all the more surprising to see time limiting ESA in there too. Now geeks way geekier than me started bombarding me with clauses and caveats - "It won't change anything because..... "ahhh well they've only agreed because..... So again, more later when we've (well they've really) unravelled the deep, impenetrable mysteries of welfare, but I thought other geeks might like to join in the puzzling.
It seems to me, that they've accepted a "not less than" addition to time limiting under 19A - this would mean a year would be the least amount of time you could claim cESA, but possibly it could be more. Again, we'll just have to see what the experts say.
So. Much more later, when we know more, but it seems a glimmer or two just rose from the ashes. Or maybe not.
** For anyone who is reading my blog for the first time today, ignore today's post entirely. It is pretty much undecipherable unless you've been following clauses and amendments and points of order for the last 18 months. It may, even then be total gobbledegook and there are only about 12 people who will care about it all anyway, lol
Friday, 3 February 2012
Withhold Royal Assent from the Welfare Reform Bill
We have always said that we will do everything in our power to stop the welfare reform bill.
-We lobbied MPs.
-We lobbied grassroots members of political parties and persuade the Lib Dems to oppose an arbitrary one year time limit to cESA.
-When the bill passed to the House of Lords, we lobbied them - I'm not sure to be honest, whether peers have ever been lobbied by ordinary people in the way that we lobbied over the welfare reform bill.
-We highlighted evidence the Government didn't want people to know.
-We built relationships with journalists, persuading them to break the silence over Disability Denial
-We made our own media - social media and used it in a way no-one had seen before.
- We held vigils outside parliament
- We blocked Oxford Street
- We produced our own report - Responsible Reform or the Spartacus Report - so that this government can never say they didn't know the horror of what they were doing and just how little support this bill has.
- We set up a network of "constituency representatives" to lobby MPs and write to local papers.
- We launched "Pam's Petition"
- We protested outside Atos offices
Now, the bill is all but law. Despite misleading parliament and the public at every stage, despite riding roughshod over democracy, flouting the conventions of both Houses and breaching parliamentary protocol, our ministers are about to get their way and democracy is all but dead.
The final stage, for any bill is "Royal Assent"
Someone, somewhere (when I find out who I'll give them full credit) has set up this petition, requesting that the Queen refuses this Royal Assent. Not because "we don't like it" (though we don't) Not because "it's mean" (though it is) but because it is dishonest. Parliament has been misled, the public have been misled and democracy has been trampled.
If we are to do everything we can, we must ask the Queen not to pass this bill.
Please sign it. Whether you are ill, disabled, poor or simply disgusted by the total disregard for the law shown by our government, please sign. We only have a day or two and no matter how anachronistic our political process, it is what it is.
-We lobbied MPs.
-We lobbied grassroots members of political parties and persuade the Lib Dems to oppose an arbitrary one year time limit to cESA.
-When the bill passed to the House of Lords, we lobbied them - I'm not sure to be honest, whether peers have ever been lobbied by ordinary people in the way that we lobbied over the welfare reform bill.
-We highlighted evidence the Government didn't want people to know.
-We built relationships with journalists, persuading them to break the silence over Disability Denial
-We made our own media - social media and used it in a way no-one had seen before.
- We held vigils outside parliament
- We blocked Oxford Street
- We produced our own report - Responsible Reform or the Spartacus Report - so that this government can never say they didn't know the horror of what they were doing and just how little support this bill has.
- We set up a network of "constituency representatives" to lobby MPs and write to local papers.
- We launched "Pam's Petition"
- We protested outside Atos offices
Now, the bill is all but law. Despite misleading parliament and the public at every stage, despite riding roughshod over democracy, flouting the conventions of both Houses and breaching parliamentary protocol, our ministers are about to get their way and democracy is all but dead.
The final stage, for any bill is "Royal Assent"
Someone, somewhere (when I find out who I'll give them full credit) has set up this petition, requesting that the Queen refuses this Royal Assent. Not because "we don't like it" (though we don't) Not because "it's mean" (though it is) but because it is dishonest. Parliament has been misled, the public have been misled and democracy has been trampled.
If we are to do everything we can, we must ask the Queen not to pass this bill.
Please sign it. Whether you are ill, disabled, poor or simply disgusted by the total disregard for the law shown by our government, please sign. We only have a day or two and no matter how anachronistic our political process, it is what it is.
Thursday, 2 February 2012
WARNING - TOXIC GOVERNMENT
What to say today? We knew that our government had reached levels of arrogant prickery previously unseen in the UK. Yes, even Blair backed down from sending cancer patients to the jobcentre and screwing over profoundly disabled children.
We knew the government had cheated at every stage of the welfare reform bill. First, they utterly whitewashed their own consultation on Disability Living Allowance and lied** about the results to parliament and to the public.
They used made up statistics** to make a case for DLA that simply wasn't accurate.
They tried - in a way never seen before - to rush the welfare reform bill through the Lords before the summer recess last year, despite this meaning peers would have just a few ludicrous days to scrutinise it - they didn't get away with that one.
Then, when peers did return from recess, they took the unprecedented step of holding the committee stage debates in a back room - in Grand Committee rather than the main chamber. For a few nail biting days we weren't even sure if we'd still be able to watch proceedings live or even if the disabled peers would be able to access the rooms!! This is highly unusual for such a large and controversial bill.
When it became clear that the government were going to be utterly slapped down by the Lords, Lord Freud, the Government sponsor of the bill tried to cheat again and sneak through a few amendments to overturn the defeats when everyone had gone home. Again, totally unprecedented.
After 7 - count them - 7 amendments passed (and two measures were accepted by the government in advance AND they made significant concessions over DLA reform) the government simply whipped their members to overturn every one of them and then used financial privilege to make sure the bill didn't go back to the Lords for further consideration!! Guess what? Totally unprecedented For this to happen normally it must be decided before a government are totally humiliated over unsound policies, not after!!
How many times can I use the words "Highly Controversial" or "Unprecedented"? And over one bill? To translate, this Government have ridden roughshod over any thread of democracy we might have thought we still had in the UK. They have treated Parliament and the House of Lords with complete contempt. They've cheated** and steamrollered and sneered their arrogant way through the whole process, believing they were above the law, that no-one would hold them to account, that no-one would notice.
Well we noticed, and we made a fuss and we will hold them to account for every single person hurt by their policies. Every day, week in, week out, every death, every person who loses their home, every family left with too little to buy food, every over-run soup kitchen, every paraplegic declared "fit for work" every cancer patient that dies expected to look for work - we will expose them all.
We tried everything to warn them before it was too late. The great irony is that we played fair. However much they cheated and lied, we kept to the truth, we stuck with evidence. We played the ball not the man. We showed them for what they are.
And just in case anyone thinks "Ach well, it's only welfare, we ALL support using any means possible to give the scroungers a good kicking remember this :
THE NHS BILL AND THE LEGAL AID BILL AND NUMEROUS OTHER PIECES OF LEGISLATION THAT WILL TOTALLY TRANSFORM THE FABRIC OF OUR SOCIETY ARE GOING THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS AS WE SPEAK.
However much this coalition would like us to forget, they have no mandate for these changes. They were NOT in either manifesto, the Conservatives did NOT win a majority and the Lib Dems opposed many of the measures they are now allowing to pass through parliament. None of these changes to Disability Living Allowance were in either manifesto and as everyone knows, nor were the NHS reforms.
Are we going to let this happen? Are we going to give up on democracy altogether? Are we so cynical, so fatigued by corruption that we're just going to sit back with a sigh and give up?
I'm not.
They can carry on living in their little Westminster bubble if they like (and clearly, they will use any means to do so) but times have changed. The world has changed. Now, we can expose their lies in seconds. And we will. And the public will only hate them so very much more in the long run for this arrogance.
**Today, I can use the words "lied" and "cheated" and "made-up" because that's what they did. They lied. And they cheated. And they made things up. To get what they want. All those weeks drafting the Responsible Reform report using words like "misled" and "mendacious" and "inaccurate" made me want to scream when what I knew I was saying and they knew what I was saying was : "You're lying cheats"
So sue me.
Wednesday, 1 February 2012
Vote with your Hearts
Today, at 12.30pm the welfare reform bill will return to the House of Commons.
Let's be very clear - it is a dangerous, incomplete bill based on flawed evidence and unpleasant ideals. It is vast and impenetrable - most of the ministers arguing for it have very little understanding of the detail within it. Yes, that's right, they don't understand the details or effects of their own policies.
The welfare reform bill will affect every one of us, not just the "feckless scroungers" the government have led you to believe. Child benefit will be cut, tax credits for "hard working families" will be cut, tax credits for disabled children, NI credits for disabled children, we will all eventually be transferred onto Universal Credit where both parents will be expected to be in full time work when their children reach the age of 12. Everyone will face sanctions.
Make no mistake - this bill fatally erodes the already inadequate social security provision we have in the UK. For all the big numbers the government like to toss around, we have the lowest levels of benefits and the toughest sanctions of any developed nation. This bill is the tipping point. People are going to die and we've done everything - and more - that we possible could to highlight the most dangerous areas.
The House of Lords is described as:
"A forum of expertise, making laws and providing scrutiny of Government"
And so we've found them to be. The Lords is packed full of ex-CEOs of charities, disabled members and those who have enjoyed full and varied careers before becoming peers. They analysed every line of this bill carefully and thoughtfully. They were concerned by the same areas that concerned campaigners and charities alike - the dangerous parts. In fact, they were concerned by many, many more aspects of this bill and only the most disgusting, pointless, cruel clauses have been overturned. Many amendments were argued for passionately yet withdrawn after reassurances from the minister.
And we are still left with a dangerous bill. It may just be slightly less dangerous than it was.
-What has been amended? Well, if you fall desperately ill, you will now have at least 2 years to recover instead of 1. Frankly, that's pathetic, you are just as likely to be ill with Parkinson's or MS after two years as you are after 1, but it's something. (Time Limiting contributory ESA)
-The most disabled children, who will never work will keep an entitlement to NI credits if the Lords amendments stand. This makes the difference between a degree of independence in adulthood or total dependency for the rest of their lives.
-Tax credits for disabled children would not be halved if the Lords amendments stand.
-Cancer patients would not have to look for work while suffering through chemotherapy and radiotherapy.
-Single parents would not be fined £100 to gain access to the Child Support Agency.
-Child benefit would be excluded from the Universal Credit benefit cap so that children are not penalised for the decisions of their parents.
Do you see how pathetically modest these changes are??? Can you believe we're even arguing about whether to send cancer patients to the jobcentre or not? Does that not tell you everything you need to know about this bill?
If even that doesn't convince you, then remember, the entire disabled community are united against this bill. Not just a few campaigners, but every national charity, every campaign group every church group, every poverty group, everyone who actually knows the details of it. They represent an electorate of millions and every MP going in to vote today will have received thousands of pleas not to overturn these amendments. The Government claim to be working with disabled people. They are not. They are meeting with disabled people, their groups and charities, and then ignoring them. Scope, Mind, Mencap, Macmillan, Sense, Papworth Trust, RNIB, The Disability Alliance, the Disability Benefits Consortium... the list goes on and on and on. No-one with any real knowledge supports this bill.
The crossbenchers in the Lords are not political. They heard the "evidence" presented by the government and they heard our evidence and overwhelmingly, on every issue that was overturned, they voted with us.
So what sickening arrogance is it that says "We don't care and we will do exactly what we like"? What kind of people believe that in a bill of over 175 pages there is no room for improvement at all? Most disgustingly, what kind of people look at the very modest changes above and believe that "We can't afford it" is a valid argument? Seriously? What kind of people? What kind of brains are so weak, so unimaginative, so mis-guided and dull that they cannot think of anywhere but cancer patients and profoundly disabled children to save a few pounds??? Should we not have looked everywhere else first? Should ministers not be refusing their bloody salaries before they take money from disabled children??
Yet today, the DWP expects Conservative and LibDem ministers to saunter into the house of commons, without having heard any of these arguments and vote as they are told to. To vote with a few misguided DWP ministers against the will of the entire sick and disabled community. Against sense, against reason, against safety. The painstaking work of 18 months of reasoned argument all undone in an afternoon - if they're lucky they might even get away for a quick 9 holes before supper!!!
It disgusts me.
This is not democracy, this is utter cowardice. This is not sane it is utter madness. This is not safe.
And so, as you might expect, I implore MPs to vote with their consciences. Not to follow the party whip but to think of loved ones who have suffered terrible illness and ask themselves if that loved one could certainly have returned to work within a year? To ask themselves whether or not they could look for work if they had a child so profoundly disabled that they needed 24 hour care? Do not inflict on us what you would not accept for yourselves or your families, please.
I promise you, now, today, that this bill will be an utter disaster. It is like watching a slow car crash. By the next election, hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable people are going to be affected by it and the headlines will be unremitting. At the very least, those of you who vote to keep the Lord's amendments today will have gone some very small way to making it less of a disaster.
And those that don't? Well shame on you.
Let's be very clear - it is a dangerous, incomplete bill based on flawed evidence and unpleasant ideals. It is vast and impenetrable - most of the ministers arguing for it have very little understanding of the detail within it. Yes, that's right, they don't understand the details or effects of their own policies.
The welfare reform bill will affect every one of us, not just the "feckless scroungers" the government have led you to believe. Child benefit will be cut, tax credits for "hard working families" will be cut, tax credits for disabled children, NI credits for disabled children, we will all eventually be transferred onto Universal Credit where both parents will be expected to be in full time work when their children reach the age of 12. Everyone will face sanctions.
Make no mistake - this bill fatally erodes the already inadequate social security provision we have in the UK. For all the big numbers the government like to toss around, we have the lowest levels of benefits and the toughest sanctions of any developed nation. This bill is the tipping point. People are going to die and we've done everything - and more - that we possible could to highlight the most dangerous areas.
The House of Lords is described as:
"A forum of expertise, making laws and providing scrutiny of Government"
And so we've found them to be. The Lords is packed full of ex-CEOs of charities, disabled members and those who have enjoyed full and varied careers before becoming peers. They analysed every line of this bill carefully and thoughtfully. They were concerned by the same areas that concerned campaigners and charities alike - the dangerous parts. In fact, they were concerned by many, many more aspects of this bill and only the most disgusting, pointless, cruel clauses have been overturned. Many amendments were argued for passionately yet withdrawn after reassurances from the minister.
And we are still left with a dangerous bill. It may just be slightly less dangerous than it was.
-What has been amended? Well, if you fall desperately ill, you will now have at least 2 years to recover instead of 1. Frankly, that's pathetic, you are just as likely to be ill with Parkinson's or MS after two years as you are after 1, but it's something. (Time Limiting contributory ESA)
-The most disabled children, who will never work will keep an entitlement to NI credits if the Lords amendments stand. This makes the difference between a degree of independence in adulthood or total dependency for the rest of their lives.
-Tax credits for disabled children would not be halved if the Lords amendments stand.
-Cancer patients would not have to look for work while suffering through chemotherapy and radiotherapy.
-Single parents would not be fined £100 to gain access to the Child Support Agency.
-Child benefit would be excluded from the Universal Credit benefit cap so that children are not penalised for the decisions of their parents.
Do you see how pathetically modest these changes are??? Can you believe we're even arguing about whether to send cancer patients to the jobcentre or not? Does that not tell you everything you need to know about this bill?
If even that doesn't convince you, then remember, the entire disabled community are united against this bill. Not just a few campaigners, but every national charity, every campaign group every church group, every poverty group, everyone who actually knows the details of it. They represent an electorate of millions and every MP going in to vote today will have received thousands of pleas not to overturn these amendments. The Government claim to be working with disabled people. They are not. They are meeting with disabled people, their groups and charities, and then ignoring them. Scope, Mind, Mencap, Macmillan, Sense, Papworth Trust, RNIB, The Disability Alliance, the Disability Benefits Consortium... the list goes on and on and on. No-one with any real knowledge supports this bill.
The crossbenchers in the Lords are not political. They heard the "evidence" presented by the government and they heard our evidence and overwhelmingly, on every issue that was overturned, they voted with us.
So what sickening arrogance is it that says "We don't care and we will do exactly what we like"? What kind of people believe that in a bill of over 175 pages there is no room for improvement at all? Most disgustingly, what kind of people look at the very modest changes above and believe that "We can't afford it" is a valid argument? Seriously? What kind of people? What kind of brains are so weak, so unimaginative, so mis-guided and dull that they cannot think of anywhere but cancer patients and profoundly disabled children to save a few pounds??? Should we not have looked everywhere else first? Should ministers not be refusing their bloody salaries before they take money from disabled children??
Yet today, the DWP expects Conservative and LibDem ministers to saunter into the house of commons, without having heard any of these arguments and vote as they are told to. To vote with a few misguided DWP ministers against the will of the entire sick and disabled community. Against sense, against reason, against safety. The painstaking work of 18 months of reasoned argument all undone in an afternoon - if they're lucky they might even get away for a quick 9 holes before supper!!!
It disgusts me.
This is not democracy, this is utter cowardice. This is not sane it is utter madness. This is not safe.
And so, as you might expect, I implore MPs to vote with their consciences. Not to follow the party whip but to think of loved ones who have suffered terrible illness and ask themselves if that loved one could certainly have returned to work within a year? To ask themselves whether or not they could look for work if they had a child so profoundly disabled that they needed 24 hour care? Do not inflict on us what you would not accept for yourselves or your families, please.
I promise you, now, today, that this bill will be an utter disaster. It is like watching a slow car crash. By the next election, hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable people are going to be affected by it and the headlines will be unremitting. At the very least, those of you who vote to keep the Lord's amendments today will have gone some very small way to making it less of a disaster.
And those that don't? Well shame on you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)