Iain Duncan Smith Legacy

EDIT: On November 07th 2016 the UN found the UK guilty of grave and systemic violations of disabled people's rights.

This was a direct result of the cumulative impact of the policies listed below.

The following is a list of policies and damning court decisions and findings undertaken under the watch of Iain Duncan Smith (emphasis on those affecting disabled people):

• April 2011:  LHA (Local Housing Allowance) is reduced to 30th percentile of local housing market instead of 50th with immediate effect.  Affects 775,000 households.
• April 2011: Uprating of benefits is changed from RPI to CPI (a cut expected to save £6 billion).
• January 2012: LHA single room rate is extended to under 35s instead of under 25s. Disproportionately affects disabled people who cannot flat share due to disability but do not meet the stringent criteria for exemption (mid rate care DLA).
• April 2012: Contribution based ESA WRAG is time limited to 1 year (out of work benefit for those too sick/disabled to work), affecting 700,000 disabled people.
• April 2012: The "Youth Provision" is abolished. This allowed young disabled people to access contributory benefits. It results in loss of income for 80% of those benefiting from it and total loss of income for 12.5% of those.
• May 2012: LHA regulations are found to discriminate against disabled people for failing to allow an extra bedroom for overnight carers or children who cannot share due to disability.
• December 2012: New Sanctions rules are introduced, allowing sanctions to start sooner and for longer.
• 2012-2013: Remploy factories are closed down. Iain Duncan Smith infamously says workers sit around making cups of coffee. 3 years on less than half have found employment.
• January 2013: ESA regulations are amended, making it harder to qualify. Assessors may make a decision based on therapy or aids a claimant *could* have whether or not they do or whether it is in fact available, possible or (in the case of treatment) they have given consent. Physical impairments may no longer award points in the mental health and cognitive section and vice versa. Eg a physical injury causing cognitive impairment would have all such symptoms ignored.
• April 2013: Legal aid is abolished for welfare cases.
• April 2013: DLA is begun to be replaced with PIP to make 20% savings (benefit to cover extra costs of disability). 500,000 disabled people are expected to lose their benefit. By 2016 14,000 disabled people have had their motability car repossessed. This is just the start as most people have not yet been assessed due to errors and delays. EDIT (March 2018) This figure has now ballooned to 75,000, 43% of the 175,000 motability clients so far assessed.
• April 2013: The Social size criteria more commonly known as the Bedroom tax is introduced. This removes housing benefit for "spare" rooms for social housing tenants. 660,000 households are affected, two thirds of which include a disabled member. 
• April 2013: All benefits are capped to a 1% uprating until 2015, bar Carer's allowance, DLA/PIP and disability premiums. Ministers lie by claiming disabled benefits are unaffected, even though ESA is included (even the support group to some extent).
• April 2013:  Council tax benefit is abolished and replaced by council tax reduction scheme, administered locally. This leads to a postcode lottery with many disabled people, including those in the ESA support group, liable for up to 25% of their council tax.
• May 2013: UK Statistics Authority finds ministers from the DWP repeatedly used false disability statistics to justify benefits cuts.
• May 2013: In a legal court case the WCA is found to discriminate against claimants with mental health illnesses. As yet the recommendations to remedy this have not been implemented.
• October 2013: Non time limited unpaid mandatory reconsiderations are introduced as an extra step before being allowed to appeal benefit decisions.
• March 2014: The Work and Pensions Committee warns the DWP "to exercise care in the language used in accompanying press releases and ministerial comments in the media, to ensure it avoids the risk of feeding into negative public views about benefit recipients."
• June 2014: The implementation of PIP is called a "fiasco" by the Public Accounts Committee after a "failure to implement a pilot scheme resulted in significant delays, a backlog of claims and unnecessary distress for claimants who have been unable to access the support they need to live, and in some cases work, independently."
• July 2014: A court case against the restriction of high rate mobility from 50m to 20m in PIP fails. However the DWP admits (para 80) "we were aware that the vast majority of recipients of DLA were individuals with genuine health conditions and disabilities and genuine need, and that removing or reducing that benefit may affect their daily lives".
• August 2014: Figures reveal a 580% increase in ESA sanctions.
• November 2014: The Government Work Programme is branded a failure by the Public Accounts Committee. 90% of ESA claimants have not been found jobs and providers are spending less than half than promised on these hard to place groups.
• March 2015: A new study by Cheshire Hunger shows that problems with benefits account for nearly half (47%) of all referrals to food banks, with sanctions accounting for 11% and ESA claimants 4%. A significant number remained dependent far longer than the initial crisis.
• April 2015: A second study published in the BMJ finds that the unprecedented rise in foodbanks (soaring from 29 Trussell Trust banks in 2009-2010 to 251 in 2013-2014) is linked to higher unemployment, sanctions and cuts in welfare spending.
• June 2015: The delays to PIP are ruled unlawful in the High Court.
• June 2015: The ILF is abolished. 17,000 people lose funding to pay for their personal care. Some funding is given to councils for the first 2 years and then agreed for a further 4 years, but it is not ringfenced. Most disabled people affected see huge cuts to their hours and loss of independence.
• August 2015: Following FOI requests, figures are released showing thousands of people died after being found "fit for work."  However the statistics released are confusing, omit key data and make it hard to draw accurate conclusions.
• August 2015: The DWP admits to using fake claimants in leaflets praising the use of sanctions.
• September 2015: Coroner rules that the death of disabled man Michael O'Sullivan in 2013 was a direct result of  his failed WCA.
• September 2015: The UN confirms it is investigating the UK for "grave and systematic violations of the human rights of disabled individuals", the first time such an investigation has taken place in a first world country.
• October 2015: A cap to Access to Work is introduced, limiting or eliminating entirely work options for those with higher support requirements.
• November 2015: Independent research is published in a BMJ Journal suggesting 590 suicides and 279,000 cases of reported mental health illness can be directly linked to controversial WCA. 
• December 2015:  Latest figures show that PIP appeals now account for 38% of all appeals and carry a 60% success rate. ESA and DLA success rates are 58% and 55% respectively. In contrast, appeal success rates for tax credits or income support run at between 25 to 40%.
• January 2016: The Bedroom tax is found unlawful and discriminatory at the court of appeal in the case of disabled children requiring overnight care and people requiring panic rooms.
• February 2016: Figures show half of those reassessed for PIP are losing their motability vehicle. There are 650,000 disabled people on the scheme and only 31,200 have been reassessed so far. Of these 14,000 have lost their car or wheelchair. EDIT (March 2018) This figure has now ballooned to 75,000, 43% of the 175,000 motability clients so far assessed.
• January 2016: Conservative Disability Group launches inquiry into abolition of ILF following widespread concern about its impact.
• March 2016: Evidence has emerged that a "prevention of deaths" letter was received by the DWP from a coroner in 2010, following the suicide of a disabled man who failed his WCA. Graying and Iain Duncan Smith failed to act or respond despite a legal obligation to do so, and the  WCA was rolled out with no change to millions of Incapacity Benefit claimants. The letter was also not shown to Professor Harrington, later in charge of reviewing the WCA to make it better and safer.

About to be introduced:

• 2016-2018: £22 million is to be spent on the DWP to recruit presenting officers to support the department in PIP and ESA tribunals. (Recall that in contrast, claimants do not have recourse to legal aid, axed in April 2013).
• April 2016: All benefits will be frozen for the next 4 years bar DLA/PIP and disability premiums. Ministers lie again about disability benefits being unaffected as once more ESA is included, including the Support Group to some extent.
• April 2016: Disability benefits, premiums and carers allowance are frozen for 1 year due to a negative CPI in September 2015.
• April 2016, Universal credit: Recent cuts to tax credits which were dropped due to fierce opposition will be included as part and parcel of this benefit
• Universal credit (law passed in 2012):  There will be no equivalent to the disabled working tax credit. Help will only be available to those who have "limited capability for work or work related activity". This will affect up to 116,000 working disabled people at around £40 per week (however the timetable for this is unclear, as the UC system can currently only cope with simple cases).
• September 2016: DSA (Disabled Student Allowance) will be cut. Government is withdrawing funding entirely for some types of support and hoping universities will pick up the cost. This will affect 70,000 disabled students.
• 2017: ESA WRAG rate is to be cut by a third by £30 per week to align it with JSA. This will affect new claimants and those with a 12 week break in their claim.
• April 2018: Social housing rents are to be capped at LHA rates. This will see large numbers of evictions of single people under the age of 35 suddenly only eligible for shared rate (see above). It will also devastate the supported housing sector whose rents are naturally higher, affecting disabled people, elderly people, women's refuges and more.
• April 2018: Support for Mortgage Interest (SMI) for people on very low incomes to be changed from a 'benefit' to a loan from 2018. Waiting time from application also changed from 13 to 39 weeks.
• By 2020: Social care is facing a £3 billion funding gap

• Universal Credit (law passed in 2012): Disabled people face the abolition of the Severe Disability Premium (SDP) at a cost of £62 per week. This will affect new claimants and those with a "change of circumstances". 230,000 disabled people currently receive this premium and will see their benefit frozen and/or eventually cut.
• Universal Credit (law passed in 2012): The disabled child premium is to be halved, affecting an estimated 100,000 disabled children.
• Universal Credit: Disabled people will have to attend a mandatory "health and work conversation" (work focused interview) BEFORE their WCA. This puts the onus on a medically untrained DWP jobcentre work coach to decide what the claimant is capable of doing prior to any medical assessment. Disabled people will be sanctioned if they do not attend.

March 2016: The budget sees further extensive proposed cuts to PIP: Iain Duncan Smith finds his conscience and resigns...??!

Important comment: Other than the major *direct* impacts on disability I have made a conscious decision not to include the fiasco which is universal credit in this timeline. This is because an account of the various stages of Universal Credit, the controversial inquiries, statements, court cases amd statistical rebukes concerning it would require a blog post all to itself.

NB: Please feel free to let me know anything I have forgotten.

PIP fiasco! But where was the press 2 years ago?

A little over 2 years ago, I and a handful of other disabled people wrote what is now known as the Spartacus Report.
We exposed the sham consultation run by the government into the abolition of DLA for working age claimants and its replacement by PIP.
Thousands of disabled people came together on social media in an unprecedented campaign to highlight the report and the importance of DLA in their lives.
Together, we sent the report to all the representatives in the House of Lords and all MPs.

Alarmed by the proposals and seeing the harm they would cause, we were doing whatever we could to mitigate the damage the then Welfare Reform Bill would do. Voting was still ongoing, the bill was not yet law, and it seemed there was still a chance to avoid disaster.

But we ran into trouble. No one in the media was interested. Yet the government had disobeyed its own rules. It had misled parliament. It was going to enact laws which would harm thousands of disabled people. Surely this would be enough to get the press talking?

The answer was an emphatic "No". Why? The same question came up again and again.
"Where is the human interest angle? Do you have an example? Can we talk to someone "suffering" please?"
We explained that no, no one was suffering yet, but that if nothing was done then there would be plenty of examples in a few years time. Our aim was to prevent that from happening in the first place.
The press was implacable. No sobbing disabled person? Then no, sorry. No can do.

As a lot of people know, we did eventually get coverage. This is only due to the fact that voting in the Lords swung in our favour against the government and this was, in part, put down to the impact of our report.
Questions were raised in the Commons by prominent MPs. It started to become a story.

Thanks to Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson an amendment was added attempting to get PIP halted and a proper trial imposed. Unfortunately by now the government was desperate to avoid an embarrassing 4th defeat and the proposal was narrowly defeated by just 16 votes.
In any case it would hardly have mattered. The government invoked the archaic law of "financial privilege" to override all amendments the Lords had voted for. I have to say that this for me, was the day I realised democracy is dead.

Two years on and PIP is indeed failing. Inquiries have been launched. The Public Accounts Committee has deemed it a "fiasco" and condemned the lack of a pilot scheme, saying

"The department's failure to pilot the scheme meant that the most basic assumptions, such as how long assessments would take and how many would require face-to-face consultations, had not been fully tested and proved to be wrong."
This has resulted in "significant delays, a backlog of claims and unnecessary distress for claimants who have been unable to access the support they need to live, and in some cases work, independently".

They also revealed that claimants had been forced to turn to food banks, charities and loans.

There is no joy in "I told you so" though.
The press is now gleefully and ghoulishly commissioning articles and reports about terminally ill patients going without any support in the last few months of their lives or disabled people resorting to food banks.
While these articles need writing, I question the motives of those commissioning them. They can spare me their crocodile tears. They have finally got their "human interest" stories. Is this not what they wanted?

In my eyes they are complicit in this. Where were they when they were needed? If they really did care, they would have ensured that what the government was doing was fully reported and that the public was made aware of what was happening. Then maybe, just maybe, this whole thing could have been averted in the first place.

ADDENDUM: I would like to make clear that I do not hold individual journalists (such as the ones who have written the pieces linked to in this blog post) personally responsible for this lack of interest and demand for "tragedy". I do however hold the various newspapers and TV channels responsible, with a flawed commissioning process.

PIP: MP's ignorance spreads misinformation

Disability News Service just reported that two influential Liberal Democrats have disputed the government's official impact assessment of the new disability benefit PIP (Personal Independence Payment) which is replacing DLA (Disability Living Allowance), saying DLA reform fears are exaggerated.

The impact assessment estimates that 600,000 disabled people will lose the benefit altogether.

But Lord German, the party’s work and pensions spokesman in the Lords is quoted to have said

My guess is we won’t see much difference in shape at the end of it. My suspicion is that it will be nothing like the numbers of changes that people are anticipating. I don’t think these estimates can in any way be made to be accurate.

Meanwhile Stephen Lloyd, Liberal Democrat MP, concentrated on the controversy surrounding the criteria for the mobility component of PIP, which I have already extensively covered on this blog.
In essence the original version of PIP had two major problems.

1) Being able to complete any given task “safely, reliably, repeatedly and in a reasonable time period” (SRRR) was only guidance and not set in the regulations themselves

2) The criteria to receive high rate mobility was changed from 50m to 20m without consultation

Disability campaigners were able to obtain the concession that SRRR should be in the regulations and not merely guidance.
Furthermore a new consultation took place regarding the change from 50m to 20m.

Stephen Lloyd is quoted to have been "furious" about the change from 50 to 20m which "came out of nowhere".
However he mistakenly believes that the SRRR concession means that people unable to walk 50m with SRRR would still receive high rate mobility and is quoted as saying that he

“cannot envisage” how a current DLA claimant could lose their Motability vehicle if they were able to walk up to 50 metres but could not meet the SRRR test.

and

“As a regulation, that will ensure that the vast majority of people who are entitled to a Motability car on the basis of mobility will keep their car.”

He is therefore also "furious" that disability campaigners are still asking that the mobility limit return to 50m.


When I read this article and the views of these two politicians I was literally speechless.

Lord German's "guess" is apparently of more certainty than the government's official impact assessment. Why this is, no one knows. But I am sure disabled people across the country will be heaving sighs of relief.
Personally I will await the publication of the extensive research he must have undertaken in order to make such an important claim affecting several million disabled people. I am assuming he HAS undertaken this research of course...

Stephen Lloyd's comments are even more worrying. This is an MP who votes on disability policy. Yet he is clearly uninformed.
I refer him to the government's own consultation and example 2, p10, of someone who fails to obtain high rate mobility. This person can walk 20m but cannot walk 50m SRRR. Contrary to what Stephen Lloyd blithely and blissfully believes, she is only entitled to standard rate mobility.

Situation:
Sabeen is able to stand and move short distances unaided, usually between 30 and 40 metres. On a good day she can move as far as 50 metres but she can rarely ever go further than this because of severe breathlessness. She can, however, repeat shorter distances with a short break in between.

Assessment Result:
She can repeatedly walk distances of more than 20 metres but less than 50 metres. Aids or appliances do not help her to walk further in a reliable way, so the most appropriate descriptor is C. Based on this Sabeen would receive entitlement to the standard rate of the PIP Mobility component.

This is why disability groups are still campaigning.
Anyone who can walk 20m but cannot walk 50m SRRR will lose high rate mobility. Such people would be unable to leave the house without a wheelchair. If they are unable to self propel they will be electric wheelchair users. These are the people who, if the government does not change its mind, will be losing their benefit or their motability car.

And yes, Stephen Lloyd, I am "furious" about this.
And the fact that you are so ill informed that you are oblivious to our plight and spreading "comforting" misinformation makes me even more "furious".

Extremist? Moi?

Extremist: a person who advocates fundamental political, economic, and social reforms by direct and often uncompromising methods.

Wow. That sounds pretty scary. I'm thinking violent demonstrations, perhaps even possible terrorist activity from people making unreasonable and impossible demands.

But actually apparently I'm talking about myself, which I have to say comes as a bit of a surprise.

For the past couple of years I've been involved in some disability activism. This has taken various forms. Posting on this blog is one. Writing to my MP is another. Signing petitions such as the WoW petition which simply asks the government to do an impact assessment on disabled people of their welfare reforms is yet another.

My main success has to be of course the Spartacus Report, aka "Responsible Reform". Using government data this carefully constructed 40 page long report contradicted the government report which claimed disabled group's responses to a consultation were in favour of replacing the disability benefit DLA with PIP.

I may have been the main co-author, but it was written and coordinated with a number of other fellow disabled people (all names in above link). It was then shared by thousands of disabled people all coming together in unison to publicise it on Twitter, trending as #iamspartacus, forcing government and media to take notice. 

The research itself was well received and acknowledged. It has been used countless times in Hansard and investigations by committees such as the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Following this the We Are Spartacus network was born. With my failing health I am much less involved, but there have been other great people to take up the task.  

Further reports were researched and written, from responding to further consultations, to analysing the effects of the implementation of PIP to warning about problems implementing a cap on social care in Worcestershire. These were also well received and used. 

Members of the group are now involved in discussions with politicians in an attempt to improve policy, including forming part of the Labour Taskforce.

It was therefore a surprise in today's Opposition Debate involving the Cumulative Impact Assessment to hear the We Are Spartacus group being called "an extremist group" by Paul Maynard MP.

I understand that being criticised and disagreed with may not be pleasant, but lying in bed with a laptop, looking up government figures and statistics and then writing long winded polite reports pointing out potential flaws in disability policy is rather a long way from extremist activity!

We were not the only ones singled out. We were joined on the naughty step by Pats Petition and the WoWpetition, who had the temerity to set up a petition asking for the Cumulative Impact Assessment. Both have been signed by 49,000 and 65,000 people respectively, presumably also all extremists. 

Astonishingly we were later to be joined by the independent, non partisan Citizen's Advice Bureau who were accused by the Minister for Disabled People Esther McVey of being biased and left wing. They had made the mistake of recently criticising government policy.

It is fairly obvious that pointing out problems or flaws in disability policy is enough to be publicly smeared in the House of Commons and labelled biased, left wing, or extremist. This is not conducive to constructive dialogue, which is essential if any progress is ever to be made.

There is much anger following these insults. It is my worry and my suspicion that this may, in fact, be intentional. Some people are now wondering aloud if they should "act like extremists", saying after all, that if that is what the government wants, that is what it should get.

This is extremely dangerous. Any foolhardy act will only give fuel to the government's allegations. They will then in all righteousness be able to refuse to engage in any further dialogue.

It is therefore vital at this point to keep calm and ignore the insults that keep coming our way. In the mean time we must continue to do what we have always done: expose the facts and try to find new solutions. Let them call us extremists for it if they must. And if that really is the new definition of extremist, then so be it. I have done nothing to be ashamed of. In fact, I am proud of it.

Note: In a bizarre twist, when pushed on his "extremist" slander by Anne McGuire, Paul Maynard MP started angrily talking about special schools. This is strange because WeAreSpartacus has never had anything to do with this issue in any shape or form that I am aware of... Weird!

Crossing the line into organised propaganda

EDIT: May 30th
The posting of this blog led to stories in both the New Statesman and Liberal Conspiracy. The issue had been strongly followed up by Sheila Gilmore MP among others and prompted a petition by disabled activists Jayne Linney and Debbie Sayers demanding an inquiry into Iain Duncan Smith which attracted no less than 98,000 signatures.  All of this has had an astounding resolution.

1. May 9th Iain Duncan Smith was officially rebuked by the UK Statistics Authority
2. May 17th The Work and Pensions Select Committee announced it will conduct an inquiry into Iain Duncan Smith's use of statistics as part of its annual assessment of the DWP Annual Report and Accounts (ARA). In preparation the committee plans to hold a session with the UK Statistics Authority to see how the department should correctly be using their statistics.
3. May 30th Grant Shapps was also officially rebuked by the UK Statistics Authority

____________________________

This month saw sweeping changes to the welfare system which impacted on disabled people. In particular Disability Living Allowance was replaced by Personal Independence Payments and the Bedroom Tax came into play, which disproportionately affects households with a disabled member.
Elsewhere Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), the benefit paid to those too ill or disabled to work continues to provoke controversy, with a discredited assessment (WCA) and a backlogged appeals process.

It was maybe not surprising then that, perhaps fearing a reversal of public opinion, ministers from the Department of Work and Pensions decided to act by releasing a number of press releases to support their actions.

This would not be a problem IF they were accurate. It would have still have been acceptable albeit  slightly upsetting if, as is often the case, the statistics were "spun" in their favour. However what actually happened was in my opinion unprecedented and unforgiveable. We saw a string of stories which were completely untrue and highly damaging. I put that a line was crossed into organised propaganda.

It seems others may agree. The former chief economist of the DWP finally spoke out talking of "a consistent pattern of ministers trying to manipulate statistics to their own political ends". MPs have also called for an official inquiry into the manipulation of official statistics by the Committee of Work and Pensions.

In Order these are the Stories.

Over the Easter Weekend on March 30th, two damaging stories came out, one surrounding DLA and the other ESA.

• 1)  Grant Shapps said 900,000 people had abandoned their claim for ESA RATHER than take the assessment.

This was proved to be totally misleading.  This is the sum total of people who had abandoned their claim over a 4 year period since the beginning of ESA and is simply the usual amount of those people with shorter term conditions who rapidly move on and off the benefit. This is confirmed by the government's OWN analysis which says

“Current data does not allow anything conclusive to be said about the destinations of closed and in progress cases, nor to infer what would have been or would be the outcome of assessment."

“An important reason why ESA claims in this sample were withdrawn or closed before they were fully assessed was because the person recovered and either returned to work, or claimed a benefit more appropriate to their situation” 

Unfortunately truth is irrelevant. The 900,000 figure has now entered benefit folklore and is brought up by the general public whenever disability benefits are mentioned as proof that many people are abusing the system and will abandon their claims if challenged.

Please see my previous blog post for more details.

• 2)  Esther McVey, Minister for the Disabled appeared in an article for the Daily Mail. In this she gave a strong impression that many were claiming unnecessarily and even fraudulently. She also said there had been a rush on claims in the run up to PIP to avoid assessment.

It was reported that she would "go after bogus disabled... some of them DO get better!"
She "says many who get DLA and are officially assessed "disabled" are no such thing: Only three per cent of people are born with a disability, the rest acquire it through accident or illness, but people come out of it. Thanks to medical advances, bodies heal."

This was just short of accusing DLA claimants of fraud and/or mindbogglingly ignorant. People who acquire disabilities later in life are just as disabled as those who are disabled from birth. Many such illnesses and disabilities are incurable and life long despite current medical science: for instance Parkinsons, MS, lupus, amputations, paralysis, blindness, schizophrenia, autism but to mention a few off the top of my head.
Furthermore she is being deliberately misleading as under the current system those who have more short term conditions will be given shorter DLA awards of 1 or 3 years.

She then went on to say:
The decision to introduce new tests has produced an extraordinary ‘closing-down sale’ effect, with rocketing claims as people rush to get their hands on unchecked ‘welfare for life’ before McVey’s axe falls on April 8.

Again, this has turned out to be untrue. While the total number of DLA claims has indeed increased, the number of DLA claims among working age people (ie those affected by the changeover to PIP) FELL. So this is in fact the direct opposite behaviour to that claimed by the minister.

• 3)  Iain Duncan Smith repeated the claim on April 8th in all the major newspapers, including The Telegraph, the Guardian, the Daily Mail, the Express, Sky News, the Huffington Post and others, despite this having been pointed out to the ministers by the Disability News Service by April 4th.

Making one untrue statement using misleading figures to back it up is bad. Doing it twice having had it pointed out is completely unforgivable.

• 4)  On April 24th, Iain Duncan Smith gave a press release claiming that "one million who are fit to work have lived on benefits for 3 of the past 4 years".

This is the front page of the Telegraph and news in the Daily Mail and the Express.

Once again the headlines are untrue. The claimants are not "fit for work" nor even "capable of trying to find a job". Upon reading the articles it becomes clear that the figures include people who are in the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG) of ESA. 

By the DWP own figures on ESA "fit for work" decisions, these people have been found unfit for work. Unlike people in the support group though, it is felt that they will eventually recover at some time in the future. Right now though, they cannot work. 

When the WRAG was first conceived of, it was felt that it would take 2-5 years for people placed in it to return to work. It is therefore perfectly feasible that WRAG claimants have been claiming ESA for 3 of the past 4 years without being "stuck" or fraudulent.

Once again figures are being used to stigmatise disability benefit claimants.

In 4 weeks, 4 misleading news articles.

In 2011 the Work and Pensions Select Committee severely criticised  the way the government was releasing official statistics. It reported this was leading to negative views of long term disability benefit claimants not only in the tabloid press but the mainstream press as well. It noted that many newspapers had subsequently had to publish corrections.

At the time the minister replied "the government could not control the editorial approach of tabloids" and was often "bemused" by the stories which ran.

I would put that this excuse no longer washes.

Current ministers are releasing untrue statistics and making false statements. The proposed investigation must go ahead at the earliest opportunity and the practise stopped. A whole section of the population is being demonised for political gain. It must not continue.

Your help

A petition has been started by disability campaigners Jayne Linney and Debbie Sayers to the Work and Pensions Committee asking them to commit to hold Iain Duncan Smith to account for his (mis)use of statistics.
It has had a huge response with 38,000 signatures at the last count.
You can read an article about it's success in the Guardian here (when it still only had 16,000 signatures).
To add your signature please go here. Thank you.

Universal Credit: But we're still on track!

EDIT, April 26th:

The following blog post was posted on March 29th. Following this story, I simply HAD to update it and add in the final, hilarious killing blow.

The Universal Credit Time Line thus far

Government: Universal Credit will be Universal. It will take all those complicated benefits into one simple benefit for everyone all round the country by April 2013, by means of a universal IT system working seamlessly with the tax system.
Us: Sounds good. But, er, what about contributory JSA, council tax benefit, child tax benefit, contributory ESA, Pension Credit, Attendence Allowance, Statutory Sick Pay, Carer's Allowance...
Government: Well, except those benefits. Apart from those it will be Universal.

Some time later.

Government: Universal Credit will be Universal. It will take all those complicated benefits (apart from those it doesn't) into one simple benefit for everyone  from 4 dedicated job centres by April 2013, by means of a universal IT system working seamlessly with the tax system..
Us: Um. 4 dedicated job centres? Wasn't it supposed to be universal?
Government: Well, yes. But it will be universal by October 2013. But we're still definitely on track.

Some time later.

Government: Universal Credit will be Universal. It will take all those complicated benefits (apart from those it doesn't) into one simple benefit for everyone  from 4 dedicated job centres by April 2013 (universal to come in October 2013), by means of a universal IT system from which you will be able to enter your details and do job searches.
Us: Er, wasn't the IT system supposed to be universal and work with the tax system?
Government: Well, yes. But that will come later. For now only part of the system will be operational. But we're still definitely on track.

Some time later.

Government: Universal Credit will be Universal. It will take all those complicated benefits (apart from those it doesn't) into one simple benefit for everyone  from 4 dedicated job centres by April 2013 (universal to come in October 2013), by means of a computer on which a jobcentre advisor will enter your details on the system and use a spreadsheet to calculate your entitlement.
Us: Er, wasn't a universal IT system supposed to have been developed to work out all this and claimants do everything online?
Government. Well, yes. But that will come later at an undetermined date. But we're still definitely on track.

Some time later.

Government: Universal Credit will be Universal. It will take all those complicated benefits (apart from those it doesn't) into one simple benefit for everyone  from a single dedicated job centre by April 2013 (more to come later at undetermined time), by means of  a computer on which a jobcentre advisor will enter your details on the system and use a spreadsheet to calculate your entitlement (IT system to be implemented at undetermined time).
Us: Er, weren't 4 dedicated job centres supposed to be implementing Universal Credit?
Government: Well, yes. And more definitely will later. But we're still definitely on track.

I am filled with confidence.


UPDATE April 14th: A few days ago the Government announced it would be abandoning its "digital by default" scheme which was the original cornerstone of Universal Credit. This would have seen all claimants apply and use the benefit scheme online with the developed IT system. No further comments were forthcoming.  (But they're still on track...)

UPDATE April 26th:
Progress at last! It seems claimants will be able to enter their details remotely via a form that takes a minimum of 45 minutes to fill in. Sadly there is no save function so if they need to stop to fetch a form they then have to start again from scratch.

On the other hand the trial has been even further restricted. Only 300 claimants will take part and must satisfy the following criteria as it is feared the system cannot cope with anything more complex:

• live in a specified postcode area but not be homeless, in supported or temporary accommodation or a homeowner

• be single, with no dependent children, a British citizen and aged between 18 years and 60 years and 6 months
• be fit for work
• not have a claim to Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) or Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) that ended in the last two weeks, except where ESA ended due to a decision that you no longer have limited capability for work
• not be pregnant or be within 15 weeks after the expected date of birth;
• not be receiving existing benefits (including Housing Benefit) or Tax Credits or awaiting a decision on, or be appealing against, a decision not to award any of those
• not be in receipt of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) or Personal Independence Payment (PIP)
• have expected take home pay no higher than £270 per month (under 25s) or £330 per month (25 or over) and not have savings in excess of £6,000
• not have any caring responsibilities
• not be self-employed, in education or have to rely on an appointee; and
• have a valid bank account and National Insurance Number.

What about everyone else I hear you ask? Well... they'll be sorted out later... somehow...

PIP, a mobile disaster

NOTE: PLEASE VISIT THIS WEBSITE FOR DETAILS OF HOW TO CONTACT YOUR MP AND FIGHT THESE CHANGES.

DLA and PIP

Disability Living Allowance (DLA) is being replaced by a new benefit called Personal Independent Payment (PIP). Surrounded in controversy, the government has said it aims to save 20% expenditure and it is expected that 330,000 disabled people will lose their benefit entirely by October 2015 and 607,000 by May 2018 ( see DWP impact assessment Dec 13 2012).

DLA is an essential benefit. Paid to both working and non working people it helps cover the extra costs of disability. It comes in two components. One covers mobility and is paid to people who have trouble getting around and the other covers personal care. Each has different rates to allow for differing levels of need.

The mobility component is particularly important as it can be used in the Motability scheme whereby instead of receiving cash the disabled person can lease a car for 3 years. This is vital for people who need larger or adapted cars for their wheelchairs or disability equipment, which can be costly. The scheme may also be used to lease electric wheelchairs which are not always provided on the NHS and can also be prohibitively expensive.

The mobility component comes in 2 rates and only the higher is eligible for the Motability scheme. The same will be true for PIP, with a standard and enhanced rate.

The problem is that the goalposts have been moved and the criteria to qualify for the enhanced rate severely restricted.

From now on the only people who will qualify for the enhanced rate are those who can "stand and move" less than 20m (around 60 feet). This includes with the use of aids such as a prosthetic, crutches or a walking stick.
Anyone who can move further than this distance will only qualify for the standard rate, even if they then need to use a wheelchair for longer distances.
Furthermore, anyone who can "stand and move" more than 50m becomes ineligible for the benefit completely.

This is a huge change and far more strict than before. The various qualifying distances for ESA and DLA are 50 and 100m, not 20 and 50m.
20m is a very short distance indeed:

A bendy bus is roughly 20m long...

Example:

To give you an idea of what this might mean, take someone who is able to walk with a walking stick around their house and from their front door to the road or garage (eg as above) to their car but would have to use a wheelchair once they arrived at their destination.
At the moment they would get high rate DLA. They would qualify for Motability and could get an adapted car.
Under PIP they only get standard rate as they can "move" more than 20m. They lose Motability and their adapted car.

It is expected that at least 480,000 people will lose their entitlement to high rate DLA of which an estimated 100,000 are reliant on Motability. Remember that these are disabled people with high mobility impairments deemed under DLA "virtually unable to walk".

See Jane Young's excellent blog for more details.

The Reasoning and issues:

The reasoning behind this is strange to say the least.

• 20 metres is considered to be the distance that a claimant is required to be able to walk in order to achieve a basic level of independence in the home such as the ability to move between rooms. 
• 50 metres is considered to be the distance that a claimant is required to be able to walk in order to achieve a basic level of independence such as the ability to get from a car park to the supermarket.  
• 50 to 200 metres is considered to be the distance that a claimant is required to be able to walk in order to achieve a higher level of independence such as the ability to get around a small supermarket.  

The 20-50m case:

If a disabled person can walk from 20 up to 50 metres they are deemed not to need enhanced benefit because they have "a basic level of independence". This is characterised as the ability to walk from a car park to a supermarket.

We now enter the realm of Kafka.
Since the disabled person receives standard benefit, they are no longer eligible for Motability and may no longer HAVE a car in the first place. If they can only walk 50m it is unlikely they will be able to use public transport.
Having proudly walked "independently" 50m to the supermarket from the car park, one wonders what they are to do next. One also wonders how on earth they are going to get back.

If they need assistance or a wheelchair at this point, then quite frankly they should be getting enhanced mobility benefit. It is ludicrous to say otherwise. The cost of the car, wheelchair or help in this scenario easily justifies it.

The 50-200m case:

Someone who is only able to walk 50 to 200m gets nothing at all despite this entire distance being necessary to get around the supermarket. This begs the question of how they get to and from the supermarket if their entire "walking allowance" is used up shopping there.

I strongly feel instead that these people should qualify for the standard rate to enable them to get to and from the shop, since they are by definition unable to walk there. This will help them afford a taxi, car or mobility scooter.

No opportunity to discuss

The government has run two consultations on their criteria. The mobility criteria were harshly criticised and felt to be far too strict. However far from being improved, they have actually been made worse.
While the cut off distance was simply 50m in the draft, it is now 20 and 50m, which will disallow far more people. Furthermore the government has indicated that it will not now accept any further changes and is determined to press ahead as it is. This is clearly wrong since they have introduced with no warning a major change with no opportunity for discussion.


In summary:

I felt that even a 50m cut off was prohibitively strict. But what we have here is a disaster and will ruin people's lives and independence. We WILL see seriously mobility impaired people losing their benefits and their cars, including wheelchair users if they have the temerity to be able to walk tiny distances.
This activity needs to be looked at again, and soon.

ACT NOW!

If you want to ACT, please go to this blog which will tell you how to contact your MP with good ideas of how to drive the message home. This needs to be done so soon as time is running out with Parliament breaking up by Friday Dec 21st.

EDIT: I originally said the reasoning was "strange". Upon further reflection I have come to the conclusion that a decision has been made that the only people who will get enhanced mobility are those who cannot walk outside AT ALL however short a distance.

This is an incredibly harsh criteria. Many people can walk very short distances. This is why we have blue badge spaces. They may not be able to walk further than that and may need a wheelchair if further away or for longer trips. These people will face very high costs, many will rely on cars for transport, and will face poverty or being housebound with the removal of high rate DLA.



My story:

This is a subject close to my heart. 10 years ago, with a deteriorating muscle condition, I started putting money aside from my mobility DLA, and, when the time came, bought a good electric wheelchair. Thanks to this I was able to continue with my PhD without fuss or interruption and later get a good job.
Under these new PIP regulations I would not have qualified for enhanced mobility and would not have been able to afford my wheelchair. I would have been housebound and would never have been able to accomplish what I did.

When "the vulnerable" have everything to fear.

Many disabled people are currently living in fear since the welfare reform bill became law. Some benefits are due to be replaced with stringent new criteria which mean that many disabled people will no longer qualify for support. With social services cutbacks many will be left with no help whatsoever.

I am not quite in that position. I am among what the government likes to call "the most vulnerable" (a term I personally hate and would never use). Currently in receipt of the highest levels of disability benefits and having easily passed the new dreaded draconian Work Capability Assessment I am in the support group of what is called ESA and am not expected to be able to work again. Having seen the criteria for the new benefits it is clear that even being as harsh as possible, I should easily qualify for the highest rates of these too.

With the government having promised that the reforms will see more support diverted to the "most vulnerable in our society", you would therefore think I have nothing to fear.

You couldn't be more wrong.

I currently live independently.
As I live alone I receive an extra payment called SDP (severe disability payment) which helps cover the extra costs of care and disability.
However a large portion of this and my other benefits goes to social services and in return I receive direct payments, money with which I employ carers to help me with every day tasks such as getting dressed, washed, eating, shopping, etc.
My LHA (Local Housing Allowance) is upgraded to a 2 bedroom rate so that carers or family can stay when my illness is so bad that someone needs to stay overnight.
My flat was adapted 8 years ago so that it is wheelchair friendly.

When the changes start coming in next year, all this will go.

a) SDP is being abolished completely.
b) The 2 bedroom allowance is no longer guaranteed.
c) I will continue to have to pay most of my benefits towards my care. I cannot manage without it.

I calculate that I will be around £80 per week worse off (around half from SDP and half from LHA).
At first I might be ok. Apparently there will be a transitional protection as far as SDP goes, which means I will only be £40 worse off and might be able to get that together somehow. As time goes on however, that will be eroded by inflation and benefit freezes.

The second big issue is : I cannot manage without a second bedroom.
Even if I could, there are no wheelchair friendly 1 bedroom flats available for rent privately (I've been looking). As far as social housing goes there is little wheelchair accessible housing available and in any case I am not allowed a bungalow until I am 50, ie in 17 years time!

So I either have to go into non wheelchair accessible accommodation without provision for my carer or go bankrupt!

The only other solution is for me to go into a care home at the ripe old age of 35. Ironically this will cost far more than if I were to stay put and continued to be paid benefits.

Before the election David Cameron said "If you are sick, disabled, frail, vulnerable, or the poorest in society you have nothing to fear" 


Sir, please look me in the eye and say that now.

EDIT: On April 20th the following article was published explaining that cuts in Worcestershire are to change social serices policy and would henceforth push disabled people into care homes. I rest my case.

Open letter to the Opposition: Where are you?

The Welfare Reform Bill is now law.

As a result of the Welfare Reform Act, DLA is to be scrapped. Its replacement, PIP will be denied to an estimated half a million disabled people, left with no support at all.

Under this scheme, among many many issues consider just the following:

• People who can move just 20m will lose their high rate mobility benefit, will be stripped of their car, yet still face an inaccessible public transport system.
• People unable to bath or shower will be stripped of their personal care benefit as long as they can wash their face and under their arms. Personal hygiene does not seem to matter.
• People unable to dress and undress themselves do not qualify
• People who are incontinent no longer qualify for help to clean up clothes and bedding, regardless of whether they need it.
• People requiring assistance to cook will no longer qualify for help. No information on what they are supposed to do is forthcoming.

Against a backdrop of social services cut, these disabled people will get no help there either and will now be left entirely without support.

Where are you? Why are you not speaking out against this inhumane treatment of disabled people?

As a result of the Welfare Reform Act, a working family who has to support a disabled adult unable to work now receives £100 per week less compared to an equivalent family supporting a child. This is despite the disabled adult having faithfully paid their National Insurance contributions throughout their working lives.

Families with disabled children have just seen their benefit almost halved.

This was done despite the fact that a third of disabled people already live in poverty.

Where are you? Why are you abandoning working disabled families and disabled children to sink even further into poverty?

The Independent Living Fund is closed to new claimants. Its continued existence is under threat. Social services are restricting care to all but the most disabled, cutting care to those who already receive it and increasing cost contributions to a point where people are unable to pay. As a result, many disabled people face an uncertain future and a possible return into institutions. Others already live in dangerous conditions and poor qualify of life through lack of care. This is only set to get worse.

Where are you? Why are you not fighting for the reinstatement of ILF? Why are you not fighting for ringfencing of adult social services care money to safeguard disabled people's independence?

Disabled people unable to work face a test unfit for purpose by a company unable to fulfil its obligations with a third of test centres remaining inaccessible. Seriously ill people with cancer, MS, parkinsons, strokes and heart disease, not to mention debilitating mental health conditions are being found fit for work and face a jammed backlogged appeals process.

Where are you? Why are you not insisting the system be fixed before rolling it out to all claimants?

A disabled person still classed as unable to work can now nonetheless be forced to work for free. Unlike healthy young people, this will be indefinitely.

10,130 disabled people have already faced sanctions, with around 45% handed out to those with learning difficulties or mental health illnesses making them 50% more likely to be stripped of benefits. This is 50 times the amount of sanctions handed to non disabled people and reports are coming in that they are often targeted as an easy way to meet a sanctions quota.

This will only get worse as the workfare programme is rolled out nationally.

Where are you? Why are you leaving sick and disabled people to a system without hope and which will punish them unfairly?

For the past few years disabled people have been the target of a concerted effort from the media and the government, portrayed as scroungers and fraudsters, with misleading statistics released and quoted as “evidence”.

As a result hate crime is rising. In the past year alone disability hate crime has risen by 20% against a backdrop of an overall drop in hate crime. Many disabled people report living in fear.

Where are you? Why are you complicit in this instead of standing against it?

Disabled people need change. They need hope. They need representation. And they need it now before it is too late. WHERE ARE YOU?