Next week will see the 2nd reading of the Welfare Reform Bill in the Lords (19th July). It will be interesting to see who is speaking for, who against, how much cross party support or oppositions there is and just how likely we are to achieve amendments to the bill.
Whilst some of the bill might be helpful, I want to be very clear today about which parts sick and disabled campaigners feel are unacceptable :
1) Removing Disability Living Allowance mobility payments from adults in residential care.
An adult who needs to live in residential care will have extensive needs and are often amongst the most severely disabled. The mobility component of DLA afforded them their only freedom, allowing them to choose to fund a power wheelchair otherwise unavailable on the NHS, or to pay for taxis or transport to get out now and then. Taking this away would leave the most vulnerable disabled people effectively housebound. There is no support for this change anywhere - charities, independent benefit reports and even the government's own advisers have called for this to be removed from the bill
2) Scrapping DLA entirely and replacing it with Personal Independent Payments (PIPs).
DLA is a very effective benefit with fraud rates of less than 1% (DWP own figures) It is already incredibly hard to claim and the qualification criteria are very narrow. The government have announced that DLA claimants will also soon face assessment and that the overall number of claimants will be reduced by at least 20%. The government's own advisory committee concluded that they could find no justification for this reform and have asked for clarification from the government.
If a benefit is already very efficient, yet a government announce a 20% cull before a single assessment has even taken place, we conclude it can only be a cost cutting measure that will ignore genuine need.
3) Time limiting Employment Support Allowance (ESA, previously Incapacity Benefit) to 1 Year
Many people who need to claim ESA have "long term variable" or chronic illnesses such as MS, Parkinson's, Bowel Disease, Leukaemia or severe Mental Illness. These conditions often do not go away after a year and sadly, often get worse over time. A high percentage of those with these conditions are being found "fit for work" under ESA but after 1 year, if they have a working partner, they will receive no state assistance whatsoever. All of their benefit will be stopped, a loss of just under £5000 a year.
4) ATOS assessments are "unfit for purpose" and a better way of assessing need must be implemented. ATOS are the private company charged with assessing over 1.5 million sick and disabled people during this parliament.
-They do not need to use trained medical experts.
-Up to 40% of rejected claims are going to appeal with up to 70% of those decisions being overturned.
-Assessments are humiliating and degrading causing great anxiety to those genuinely in need.
-Just 7% of claimants are being found unfit to work.
-Testimony from Consultants and GPs is often ignored entirely.
-People are dying before lengthy appeals can be heard.
-Even the professor who designed these assessments calls them a "complete mess"
1) Removing Disability Living Allowance mobility payments from adults in residential care.
An adult who needs to live in residential care will have extensive needs and are often amongst the most severely disabled. The mobility component of DLA afforded them their only freedom, allowing them to choose to fund a power wheelchair otherwise unavailable on the NHS, or to pay for taxis or transport to get out now and then. Taking this away would leave the most vulnerable disabled people effectively housebound. There is no support for this change anywhere - charities, independent benefit reports and even the government's own advisers have called for this to be removed from the bill
2) Scrapping DLA entirely and replacing it with Personal Independent Payments (PIPs).
DLA is a very effective benefit with fraud rates of less than 1% (DWP own figures) It is already incredibly hard to claim and the qualification criteria are very narrow. The government have announced that DLA claimants will also soon face assessment and that the overall number of claimants will be reduced by at least 20%. The government's own advisory committee concluded that they could find no justification for this reform and have asked for clarification from the government.
If a benefit is already very efficient, yet a government announce a 20% cull before a single assessment has even taken place, we conclude it can only be a cost cutting measure that will ignore genuine need.
3) Time limiting Employment Support Allowance (ESA, previously Incapacity Benefit) to 1 Year
Many people who need to claim ESA have "long term variable" or chronic illnesses such as MS, Parkinson's, Bowel Disease, Leukaemia or severe Mental Illness. These conditions often do not go away after a year and sadly, often get worse over time. A high percentage of those with these conditions are being found "fit for work" under ESA but after 1 year, if they have a working partner, they will receive no state assistance whatsoever. All of their benefit will be stopped, a loss of just under £5000 a year.
4) ATOS assessments are "unfit for purpose" and a better way of assessing need must be implemented. ATOS are the private company charged with assessing over 1.5 million sick and disabled people during this parliament.
-They do not need to use trained medical experts.
-Up to 40% of rejected claims are going to appeal with up to 70% of those decisions being overturned.
-Assessments are humiliating and degrading causing great anxiety to those genuinely in need.
-Just 7% of claimants are being found unfit to work.
-Testimony from Consultants and GPs is often ignored entirely.
-People are dying before lengthy appeals can be heard.
-Even the professor who designed these assessments calls them a "complete mess"
-The descriptors exclude many serious, long term conditions or disabilities.
There are other problems with the bill - capping housing benefit; re-classifying "mobility" so that those who use their wheelchairs too efficiently can be classed as "fully mobile"; removing an age related payment fromESA; scrapping the Independent Living Fund; cutting community care provision; cutting the Access to Work programme and many more - all of which will hurt sick and disabled people disproportionately, but the four points above MUST be addressed before the Welfare Reform Bill is passed.
They are causing or will cause real hardship.
They will not achieve savings as pressures will only be shifted to the NHS or social care provision.
They will increase homelessness, mental illness and poverty amongst this most vulnerable group of all
They will leave many in genuine need without support
They reduce the independence, standard of life and dignity of those we have a basic duty to protect.
Again, please share this by using the Facebook and Twitter buttons on this site. If you know any members of the Lords, then please send it to them too - we must tell as many people as we can before the bill becomes law.
Thank You.
There are other problems with the bill - capping housing benefit; re-classifying "mobility" so that those who use their wheelchairs too efficiently can be classed as "fully mobile"; removing an age related payment fromESA; scrapping the Independent Living Fund; cutting community care provision; cutting the Access to Work programme and many more - all of which will hurt sick and disabled people disproportionately, but the four points above MUST be addressed before the Welfare Reform Bill is passed.
They are causing or will cause real hardship.
They will not achieve savings as pressures will only be shifted to the NHS or social care provision.
They will increase homelessness, mental illness and poverty amongst this most vulnerable group of all
They will leave many in genuine need without support
They reduce the independence, standard of life and dignity of those we have a basic duty to protect.
Again, please share this by using the Facebook and Twitter buttons on this site. If you know any members of the Lords, then please send it to them too - we must tell as many people as we can before the bill becomes law.
Thank You.
Please don't leave help just out of reach for those who need it most.
Well done Sue,
ReplyDeleteAlready done and the best of luck to us all.
Another thing I wasn't previously aware of as we all assumed that the current Middle Rate care was the one which would be removed, thereby giving us low rate and high rate care. This apparently is not the case; I cannot remember where I saw the source -possibly the original paper itself - but it turns out that it is low rate care they intend upon removing. I find this rather alarming as it was a difficult fight to get low rate even with my new diagnosis, middle rate is just out of reach - so does this mean I'd not only lose my DLA, but also my disability tax credits, my care package and all the other benefits which that measly £20 a week gives me?
ReplyDeleteBlimey.
Just 7% found unfit for work? Where does that come from? Was that the number who were found fit for work, but when the total included those who withdrew their claim? I didn't think even that one was that low.
ReplyDeleteLets be totally honest here, it should never have got to this stage in the first place. The bill itself should have been thrown out a long time ago. I believe all the parties want reform but dont know the best way to go about it without upsetting different groups of people so therefore class everyone the same and see what happens. Its disgusting that people see this as a way of modernising welfare without looking further, but then again perhaps they do know the full implications but are prepared for people to die in order to fulfill their own political ambitions. My own Mp bless him, sent me a reply saying that he had voted against the bill but did not say it was unfair he wants change to happen in other words. What kind of people say how much you can live on P/W how do they come to these figures. They and have never survived on the paltry amount given for a week let alone for a year. I fear the bill will pass the reading this time as well you see they do not live in the real world or a disabled world.
ReplyDeleteThe whole point of this so-called welfare reform, as I keep pointing out, has never been the reform of welfare. It's the redistribution of public money to private companies. That's it, that's what's behind all of this. It's theft from the public purse.
ReplyDeleteBB
I couldn't agree more (Bill Kruse) this has nothing to do with reforming benefits just an excuse to strip the most vulnerable in our society of their benefits and give them to Private companies to make a fast buck..
ReplyDeleteAnd even the 7% found unfit for work are within weeks told the have to be reassessed...
Retitle your piece and capitalise the word NOT. As it is, quickly read it seems that you are advocating the bill.
ReplyDeleteI will share this with as many people as possible, and I hope it will be okay ...
ReplyDeleteLets hope with those being generally older in the house of Lords that they have a more realistic view of the impacts on people. Saying that they are hardly likely to be housebound for lack of money, but I think older age does bring the frality and dependence of one existence upon others more closely to the front.
ReplyDeleteOya's Daughter: I don't think it's as simple as either one being removed. Looking at how they're arranging the criteria, I doubt it will be the case that simply needing help with preparing meals will qualify, but I doubt it will need as much needs as currently lead to mid-rate (supervision throughout the day or care needs for a significant amount of time through either the day or the night). One thing that is true, looking at the drafts, is that the whole basis of eligibility is different. Whatever happens, it will be really hard to compare the two because they are based on very different concepts. Care component of DLA is based on the amount of time you need help for in a day, with the exception that just needing help with meals gets you lower rate, but so does a moderate amount of care needs. There's no magic threshold like in PIP, unless they revise it a lot. I make no comment here on whether that's good or bad, but I will say that I would support modest changes to DLA that made the thresholds for rates of care component less strange and hard-to-discern. Any threshold will always be arbitrary, whatever is changed.
ReplyDelete[QUOTE]Oya's Daughter said...
ReplyDeleteAnother thing I wasn't previously aware of as we all assumed that the current Middle Rate care was the one which would be removed, thereby giving us low rate and high rate care. This apparently is not the case; I cannot remember where I saw the source -possibly the original paper itself - but it turns out that it is low rate care they intend upon removing. I find this rather alarming as it was a difficult fight to get low rate even with my new diagnosis, middle rate is just out of reach - so does this mean I'd not only lose my DLA, but also my disability tax credits, my care package and all the other benefits which that measly £20 a week gives me?
Blimey.[/QUOTE]
My understanding is they will stay as low middle and high for the very reason the gap between the low and high is to great and would not be reasonable to just remove the low
The middle and high rate DLA carry the benefit of being able to claim the carers allowance
As for Time limiting Employment Support Allowance (ESA, previously Incapacity Benefit) to 1 Year
this is only for those placed in the work activity group only and is based on the fact that it allows you a full one year to allow for an appeal to be heard so for most people this should be OK the one year ceiling
If you think a decision about your benefits is wrong, you can ask the office that made the decision to explain it. You can also ask to get the decision reconsidered and, if you're still unhappy, you can appeal against the decision to an independent tribunal.
What happens when I appeal?
When the office receive your appeal, they will reconsider the decision. If they cannot change the decision to your advantage, they will send it to the Tribunals Service, who will arrange for an independent tribunal to consider your case.
The tribunal may agree with the original decision or decide it should be changed. If the tribunal decide that the office have awarded you too little money, they will order the office to increase your payments.
Oh, and another improvement (yes, there are some) in PIP, at least as regards those with massive care needs in the day and none in the night, is there's no bizarre wall to higher rate care requiring you to have significant needs both day and night.
ReplyDeleteFourbanks: PIP will have only two rates for each component. They've been very clear on that. They've been asked, with reasons, to shelve that part, that having three levels of each makes more sense than two, and refused every time, because two levels is 'simpler', even while claiming PIP will be more flexible and better fit to individual needs...
ReplyDeleteSam
ReplyDeleteeveryone is different within the bands of DLA of low middle and high
I myself have middle care DLA and low for mobility
I should really have middle for mobility as i cant walk far and am in severe pain but there is no middle so therefore have to make do with low
A neighbour of mine gets high mobility and is in no pain whatsoever but has to spend 1 hour getting ready to go out as she has a medical condition which makes things difficult for her in going out
so you can see that in just this small example things are not what they seam
i look well but am near death and am looking forward to the fight with the government and if i can stay alive long enough i will be more then happy
it's very difficult for the DWP to kill me off yes they have tried there hardest to do so but I'm still here and although just down to one meal a day i still think a few of us can win the battle with the government
i probably wont make it but if you can fight like i have over the past 30 years i think overall you will stand a chance
when the DWP keep phoning you up every day you just have to treat it like a game and press on the same with the letters they send you get your health worker to deal with them
keep phoning then up put the pressure the other way round if the police come round don't worry their on your side not the DWP
It is very difficult i know but like in any battle their is only one winner but the loser always remember can inflict very serious damage to the other
may the best man win at the end of the day it will be after the lords have had their vote the survival of the fittest only .
It's as simple as that at the end of the Day
Sam: re 7%, it comes from the DWP's own figures and assumes only people in the Support Group are unfit for work. It's an interpretation that has been used by the BBC and other media. I have a piece on WTB taking apart a BBC report that actually claimed only 6%, see http://wheresthebenefit.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-sloppy-bbc-journalism.html
ReplyDeleteAh, so it's including withdrawn, support group only, and pre-appeal (which most figures given are).
ReplyDeleteHowever, even though media sources use it, we generally moan at them when they do (as you did). Seems hypocritical to use such figures ourselves, rather than being clear what's meant.
Fourbanks: "As for Time limiting Employment Support Allowance (ESA, previously Incapacity Benefit) to 1 Year
ReplyDeletethis is only for those placed in the work activity group only and is based on the fact that it allows you a full one year to allow for an appeal to be heard so for most people this should be OK the one year ceiling"
You are right that this only affects people in the WRAG, but the problem has nothing to do with appeals. For anyone in receipt of Contributions Based ESA and placed in the WRAG, after 12 months their entitlement will cease and their benefit will be cut to zero. DWP's own estimate (IIRC) is that this will affect 700,000 people from April next year.
If those affected have low enough household income they may then become eligible for Income Related ESA, but if their household income is more than £5,200, or they have savings (including pension plans) in excess of £16,000 they will not be eligible, with pro-rata cuts in eligibility for any savings over £6000.
Sam: "Seems hypocritical to use such figures ourselves, rather than being clear what's meant."
ReplyDeleteHoist on their own petard would be the other way of looking at it, and we have to address the debate in the way it has been shaped by the dominant voices of DWP and media, so, while I certainly see your point, I'm not convinced this is unreasonable.
That is indeed correct David but the year does allow an appeal to be heard and if you fail the appeal you still have the upper appeal to go for
ReplyDeleteIf you fail that then you are fit for work
What do i think ?
well if you fail two appeals then i would think that you are fit for work and the games over as you would be extremely unlucky to find two independent appeals to be wrong
Upper tribunal only hears cases where there is a question of law - broadly, where you're claiming the first-tier tribunal did something wrong, rather than just disagreeing with their conclusion.
ReplyDeleteThe lords next week will do us no favours we need to be clear on that they themselves haven't a clue about sickness and disability at least i have thirty years personal experience so it makes me more qualified then most in this country
ReplyDeletePrior to my illness i use to look after in my spare time elderly sick people so all in all i have forty five years of experience and can cover most aspects of sickness and those disabled and what their needs are
I can tell just by looking at someone weather there fit for work or not unlike the ATOS staff who need to ask meaningless questions
like can you pick a coin up or make a cup of tea how bizarre is that all that tells me is the person asking the questions hasn't got a bloody clue in what there talking about and if were in government would just say to them your fired
What i very much regret is having not been able to attend any of these conferences that sue has been to because of being not well enough as i am a very good speaker who is able to shoot down in flames anyone who hadn't a clue in what their saying
My conservative mp would vouch for that with my vast personal experience it would be plain sailing for some reason we have had a load of conferences and have not achieved anything solid despite the excellent work done by sue and her friends. Something has gone wrong very badly if you ask me as to what well after next week in the lords we will know and have to work out what went wrong with our campaign in this blog no doubt ?
Old poem written by a sick and disabled person
ReplyDeleteFrank is a nice boy
He never makes a fuss
Frank spends all his time at home
He can't get on the bus
Bite the hand that feeds you
Make the bugger bleed
Then maybe they'll notice you
And ask you what you need.
Terry can't stand cripples
They fill him full of fear
But raising money on their behalf
Is good for his career
Bite the hand that feeds you
Make the bugger bleed
He doesn't care a toss for you
He does it out of greed
If tugging at your forelock
Is making no impression
Don't think that Lady Bountiful
Will counter your oppression
Bite the hand that feeds you
Make the bugger bleed
You don't get rights without a fight
So fight for what you need
This is welfare policy from Australia can you spot the difference?
ReplyDeletehttp://economics.org.au/2011/06/singo-and-howard-join-forces-to-dismantle-welfare-state/
Re the 7% figure.
ReplyDeleteOnly 7% are found unable to work. There's no other way of looking at it!! Others are found "fit for work" or "fit for some kind of work with the right support"
What we complain about in the media is the jump that that somehow means 93% are fit for work. That is the leap papers etc make that is so insidious.
If you disagree Sam, how on earth would we look at the figure that go into the support group?
Also guys please try to remember these are tricky enough, complicated issues to get across to the public in the first place. If every sentence has a caveat, every problem a ten point technical description, we'll never get anywhere.
Going back to the 7% figure - for me this is one of the things I can't believe people don't look at and go "hang on a minute, that can't be right"
ReplyDeleteAll these people keen to see scroungers hunted down must surely at least pause for thought when they find that just 7% are found unfit for work. Can they really believe that 93% were trying it on all along?
Also, sorry, but make no mistake, Time Limiting, all but makes the distinction irrelevant. WRAG is just transitional now, so in effect, we're all found fit for work except those in the support group.
When there have been criticisms of Mail/Express etc about the reporting of these figures, I've always felt vaguely uncomfortable. The real scandal surely is that so few people are getting the help they need, not splitting hairs over conclusions applied to 93% who don't go into the support group.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/work-and-pensions-committee/inquiries/dla/
ReplyDeleteThe Work and Pensions Committee has decided to conduct an inquiry into the PIP proposals .
Short submissions (no more than 3,000 words) are invited from interested organisations and individuals.
The deadline for written evidence is Friday 2 September 2011.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/work-and-pensions-committee/inquiries/dla/
The main trouble is that the vast majority on whose lives are affected by all of these proposals have not even been consulted and would have no idea whatsoever that the committee even existed such is the madness of the whole of the welfare reform
The stress alone on the sick and disabled has been very acute over the past year many are far to ill to get involved i myself at deaths door should in no way be putting my life further at risk in getting involved all i am doing is supporting sue the best way i can as she to is very ill but and I've said this before there is a limit to how far both sue and i can go
I am not speaking for sue but she gets my drift i hope
The DWP should be personally consulting the sick and disabled in their home and advising them of the new proposals and asking if they would wish to take part
That is what i would have done if i was the prime minister
To try to keep making policies which effect a large number of people and the committees themselves without any first hand knowledge speaking and implementing changes on our so called behalf is outrageous
no one will be speaking for me and for the very simple reason they are not me and dony have a bloody clue on how i am and what my needs are i only know that and no one else and for a fit person to try to speak on my behalf is just to ridicules for words
it makes me wonder why the prime minister is targeting the sick and vunerable. he had a severley disabled son does that mean he's glad he's gone because he would have only been a leach on society as he see's all the sick and disabled. this government only cares for itself and those who are loaded. i say god help those in britain who have needs because this government is out to crucify you.
ReplyDelete[QUOTE]Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteit makes me wonder why the prime minister is targeting the sick and venerable. he had a severely disabled son does that mean he's glad he's gone because he would have only been a leach on society as he see's all the sick and disabled. this government only cares for itself and those who are loaded. i say god help those in Britain who have needs because this government is out to crucify you.[/QUOTE]
You make a good point rich and powerful conservatives have a very great weakness in that they don't ever get involved with the sick and disabled i myself have worked very closely and have known many in my lifetime they just don't get involved even when it affects their own family
They are just most ill at ease in their company cold some would say and i would go with that description.
Illness and disability is the biggest thing they most dread as it's the complete opposite as to the way they think if they do talk about illness they do it with a great detachment as for making a friend with you yon can forget that that's never going to happen
As for David Cameron's son Ivan that was indeed the biggest tragedy to befall on a parent any parent and for the life of me cant understand why David Cameron wonts to inflict the pain that he encountered when his son died on to the sick and disabled today
This will never be understood by anyone who has a decency about them the most natural thing in the world is for a human to protect another human from upset or harm and yet here we have David Cameron and co doing the complete opposite. They may not even be aware of the stress that they are causing but then again they just maybe be plain evil and we may have to just accept that fact as in the war in Germany with Hitler
What i do know also is that wealthy conservatives are very detached people even with their spouses a bit like the royal family with separate bedrooms for everyone showing that trait again of detachment
A high percentage of those with these conditions are being found "fit for work" under ESA but after 1 year, if they have a working partner, they will receive no state assistance whatsoever. All of their benefit will be stopped, a loss of just under £5000 a year.
ReplyDeleteMORE means testing, and another disincentive for disabled adults to stay in stable, decent relationships with working partners. This is simply social engineering of the worst kind.... Add the fact that many long-term disabled will have been working part time prior to leaving employment, and will thus be denied even this first year of ESA(C) due to having paid 'insufficient NI contributions', and I can see a lot of hardship for the 'decent, hardworking families' that both sides of the political spectrum seem to love.
Physicians provide consultations 24 hours a day, 365 days a year
ReplyDeleteGovernment has not consulted the ordinary person to whom it effects. Many people don't write in and speak their mind they only know the words cuts as my own daughter who has a milder disability.
ReplyDeleteLong term illnesses and how each person faces their problems daily is not really considered. Housing for disabled on lower earners as many will lose their homes. I wonder where my daughter is going to live. I was once told she would be looked after. I have spent a lifetime looking after her and I haven't worked so I don't have enough to leave her. If I knew this I would have let the council look after her so in the long term I would earn to leave her enough money to survive. Disabled aren't even considered for work and the education system fails them. Job centres can only offer them what is in place and what is in place lets them down.
I agree with you entirely the Bill should not be going through. The consultations have been inefficient and many young disabled don't understand what is happening. Those with a learning disability should also be consulted in their language as they are individuals who should have a voice.
Let them cut out second homes from MP's expenses before they target the poor. Afterall they are working for us. I have lost trust in the political system, government but together we must unite and fight for those who are unable to speak for themselves.