First, I asked him to write to Iain Duncan Smith to push for assurances that the Department for Work and Pension's Comprehensive Spending Review proposals would be subjected to a full and robust disability impact assessment.
I also asked him to sign Early Day Motion 706.
EDM 706 says:
That this House welcomes the Coalition Government's commitment to ensuring that the public spending cuts will be fair; is concerned that the Government has not adequately assessed the impact that spending cuts will have on disabled people and their families; notes that nearly a quarter of individuals in families with at least one disabled member live in relative income poverty; further notes that only 50 per cent. of disabled people are in paid employment; recognises that millions of disabled people rely on state financial support to help meet their social care needs and the extra living costs associated with their impairment; seeks assurances that the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review proposals will be subject to a robust disability impact assessment; and urges the Government to take steps to ensure that spending cuts will not further compound poverty and social exclusion experienced by disabled people.
I've now received a reply and I hope Kaufman won't object to me sharing his comments widely.
He has promised to write to Duncan-Smith and keep me informed of the response, when it comes.
However, he has expressed reluctance to sign EDM 706 because:
I am torn. On the one hand, I applaud my MP's stance which seems based on sound principles and yet... apart from that opening line, the rest of the EDM is a strong plea for fair play regarding the cuts.[it] begins by welcoming a commitment by this government, since I do not welcome their whole approach to disability or other issues affecting vulnerable people.
I think this is one for debate. Should I write back and ask him to reconsider? Or should I accept his position and wait, instead, for him to pile pressure on Duncan-Smith? What would you do?