Guest post: When "the vulnerable" have everything to fear

This is a guest post from @Spoonydoc and originally appeared here.

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". 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.

The Death Of Decency #wrb

It's been a long, hard eighteen months. Harder and tougher than I could ever communicate to you. I could try and tell you of the times Sue and I spent hours fevered, medicated and desperately unwell just trying to string together a few coherent sentences. The times we tried frantically to finish articles for newspapers interrupted by journalists, politicians or charities wanting us to help with research about issues they didn't really understand, or the times we took turns to cry with despair about what was happening to our country which no-one but a handful of seriously ill people seemed to care about.

I could tell you of how receiving messages from people so terrorised they wanted to tell us their lives were no longer worth living became routine. Of sleepless nights fearing that the person had gone ahead with their plans, or even of the devastating night when despite the online community rapidly rallying help we heard that the prompt police response was too late and another person was found dead.

I could tell you that we always knew this to be an unwinnable battle. That very early on we decided that whatever dirty tricks politicians pulled we would not sink to that level. That we would always act with honesty, ensuring our facts were double and triple checked, that we would counter lies with integrity and truth. That the more justice appeared to be absenting herself from this process, the more we were determined to ensure her voice remained.

I could tell you all those things and more, but never would you be able to truly understand how much this battle has cost those who had least to give. We have lobbied, debated and pleaded, often ignoring issues which would affect us personally as we decided on principle that we would act for the the best interests of all our community, even if that was to the detriment of our own personal lives, financial situations and our long term health.

I could, but that's not the most important thing to say.

The most important issue of all is the message sent by a British government to the British people. That disabled children who aren't the most disabled of all will have their support cut to 'justify' increasing the support to the most severely disabled children by less than £2 a week. That newly disabled or seriously ill adults living alone will lose the money previously deemed vital to pay someone to provide care. That children with serious illnesses and disabilities will have their entitlement to National Insurance contributions removed. An entitlement previously supported by politicians of all parties as sending a crucial message of the inherent value of life. That people with serious illnesses such as Multiple Sclerosis, early onset Alzheimers or cancer will, after 12 months, no longer be entitled to the financial support they spent their working lives paying National Insurance for if their partner earns more than £7500 per year.

I could tell you of how this was sold to the British public. A people with 'it's just not cricket' hardwired into our DNA. Of how carefully, deliberately, knowingly successive governments moved from all agreeing that it was inhuman to demonise the sick or disabled to carefully, deliberately, knowingly, drip feeding a complicit media into a propoganda exercise stunning in its success, to label these very same people as unworthy of empathy, compassion or support. Of how calculated this rebranding exercise was to ensure the public believed the empty promises of 'always supporting the most vulnerable' because, after all, these people are mostly faking fraudsters anyway. Doesn't it say so in the papers, on the news, even on the BBC?

I could try and explain to you that this isn't about eliminating fraud, that this will affect you or your family when inevitably accident, sickness or ageing moves you from being 'not yet disabled' to 'one of us'. I could try, but that's the nightmare of 4am no-one wants to remember when they awake. I could tell you that understanding, that empathy, that sense of life altering devastation is an insight that will only come to you when it's too late.

I can, with pride, tell you of a demonised community who have found strength in each other. I can tell you of how inspiring it is to feel the love and support of these people, and the awesome sense of privilege in witnessing the broken come together. I can tell you of the values we all grew up with, principles our ancestors fought for, our playground guilt as we were chastisted for hitting the bespectacled child.
I could tell you of how bewildered we have been to witness a British government act in a manner more befitting China. I could tell you how each deliberate lie, each serpent tongued statement and guarantee of consultation rankled and oozed. I could tell you that something fundamental in us was mortally wounded when finally we produced cold, hard evidence to prove the government were saying one thing and doing quite the other, to then witness the government's nose grow proportionately only to it's falsehoods.

I could tell you that actually, this is not about the money. That the financial cuts will be detrimental to lives, but that the message the government have sent to the British people, that the weakest, the frailest, the most vulnerable are no longer worthy of collective support will be rejected once that same public understand that message.

I could tell you all of that, but over the next few years you will discover this for yourselves. So all I will tell you is this;

Something fundamentally British died yesterday. If you thought it was already dead, think again.

A Premium Life

There's one cut that I've heard almost nothing about. I mean literally only 2 tweets and one blog comment. There's been nothing about it in either the mainstream press or on leftie/disability blogs.

At the moment there's an Income Support top-up called the Severe Disability Premium (SDP). It's often confused with Severe Disablement Allowance because of the similar sounding names despite being very different things.

The amount of money the law says you need to live on each week depends on your circumstances. If you're considered "severely disabled" for the purposes of benefits it's regarded that you need £151.65 a week to live on.

As someone that gets the middle or high rate care component of DLA and as someone who lives alone I'm considered "severely disabled" for such purposes. My Incapacity Benefit, including age-related premiums, is only £108.05 a week. This leaves me with a £43.60 shortfall between the amount of money the law says I need to live on and the amount of money I get. This is where the SDP comes in: I get an Income Support payment of £43.60 to bridge that gap.

The Welfare Reform Bill is scrapping the SDP. Entirely. Not replacing it with something different and stricter like the DLA to PIP changeover: It's just going.

The cost of living is going up, not down. So why do I suddenly need £43 a week less to live on?

I know that to a Tory £43 a week is a drop in the ocean. To a Tory it's maybe the cost of dinner if they eat somewhere cheap. But to me it's almost a third of my week's income. To me it's the difference between being able to visit my father or not. To me it's a grocery shop.

Crossbencher Baroness Meacher put forward amendment 21A on the second day of the report stage in the Lords which would have preserved an SDP-esque payment after the WRB had gone through. It didn't even go to a vote: Freud pointed out to her that letting severely disabled people retain their current income level would cost more than the amount the bill budgets for, so she withdrew it (it's not "cost-neutral").

It's not only people in similar circumstances to my own that will be affected, during the discussion Baroness Grey-Thompson brought up the fact that this will have a huge impact on young carers. People love to don a Red Nose to raise money to send young people assisting a parent 10 Pin Bowling once a fortnight, but where's the outcry over the fact that the government is stripping away financial support from parents which will make the young person's life harder?

All in this together? How about we knock 33% off the MPs' wages instead of severely disabled peoples' incomes. It'd be a much more sizeable saving than the mere £43 a week that makes such a huge difference to someone like me.

Update 15/11/13: DavidG has just pointed me to this article from October last year. It states the number of people that will be affected by the cuts to Disability Premiums: 230,000. I've also become aware today of this 32 page report by the CAB (also from October 2012) into the withdrawl of the Severe Disability Premium.

And in the news...

The BBC today published a news story on their website about right-to-die campaigner Debbie Purdy, her husband, and the benefits system.

Husband of Debbie Purdy told 'quit work' for benefits.

It's a ridiculous situation, it shouldn't happen, but it does. It's the final paragraph that really irritated me:

The Department for Work and Pensions said it did not comment on individual cases but that planned reforms of the welfare system would benefit people such as Ms Purdy.

In the first half of the sentence the DWP say "we don't comment on individual cases." This is then followed in the second half of the sentence by commenting on an individual case. My cat is more consistent than the average DWP employee and she frequently demands to be petted and then bites me when I touch her.

There's also the problem that the second half of the sentence is a complete lie. Yes, the government are resolving the problem that one can sometimes be better off on benefits than in work. But they're not resolving the problem by improving benefits for families like Purdy's: They're just making everybody poorer.

Many of the benefits to be capped, including housing benefit, are available to people in work on low incomes. By cutting back on these benefits you're making remaining in work harder not easier.

The article says that Purdy gets IB and DLA. DLA is being subjected to 20% cuts and many genuinely ill people are being found fit for work in the IB to ESA moves. Right there is another possibility that these reforms might leave Purdy worse off.

Whenever there's a benefit-related news story the DWP are always given a right-to-reply in which they invariably tell a pack of lies. So why is it that when the right wing press - which unfortunately has to include BBC News these days - run a story straight from the mouths of the DWP that disabled people don't get the same right?

ESA amendments success in Lords

Yesterday the Welfare Reform Bill (WRB) was debated in the House of Lords. Specifically three amendments that relate to Employment and Support Allowance (ESA).

These amendments were to keep the automatic entitlement to ESA for young disabled people. In order to qualify for the contribution based ESA a person must have made a certain level of NI contributions in the two years before the claim. Previously people such as myself who had never been able to work were given an exemption from this requirement if their disability started before age 20. A kind of levelling of the playing field for those of us who've never had the chance to earn and make NI contributions. If I hadn't had that automatic entitlement to Incapacity Benefit (one of the benefits ESA is replacing) I wouldn't have been able to leave home and go to university. My parents would still be my carers and my mum wouldn't be running her own business.

The government had intended to remove this aspect under the WRB. The amendment called for it to be kept.It was believed that this would be a "too close to call" vote but the Government were defeated with 260 votes for the amendment and 216 against.

The second and third amendments related to the plans to limit entitlement to contribution based ESA to just one year. Some claimants would then be able to go on to claim income based ESA if this time limit did come in in the WRB. But those who had a partner who was working would lose out entirely even if their income is as little as £16K a year. This is likely to lead to increased poverty and knock on affects such as worsening health. Campaigner Sue Marsh has shared how if she lost her ESA the only way they could cope would be if her husband gave up his job to become her carer.

So the second amendment called for the time limit to be increased to two years. This was passed with 234 voting for the amendment and 186 against.

The third amendment called for cancer patients to be exempted from ESA time. In this vote 222 lords voted for the amendment and 166 voting against. This meant an unprecedented third defeat in a row for the government and a much needed boost for campaigners after the work that had gone into promoting The Spartacus Report etc. We haven't won and we can't rest yet but we have achieved something.

Unfortunately however later that evening after most of the Lords had left Lord Freud proposed another amendment to take out the entitlement to ESA for young people. This was passed 132 for, 49 against. At the point this happened the WRB debate had ended. It was restarted for this. As Steven Sumpter explains this is against usual parliamentary procedure and I for one would like to know about the legality of what happened.

The Guardian and The BBC have good coverage of the debates although neither of them cover the sneaky fourth amendment of Lord Freud. The results of the votes are also available.

Time Limiting ESA / Clause 51 Amendment

At the moment the Welfare Reform Bill proposes to limit Contributory ESA (cESA) to one year.

This means that if you become too ill to work (for example, if you develop cancer) and you have a partner that earns more the £7,500pa you will not be entitled to any income-replacement benefit. Could the 2 of you really cope on so little? Especially if one of you has such a costly condition?

Lords Patel and McKenzie have put forward the following amendment:

Page 36, line 34, leave out “365 days” and insert “a prescribed number of days which must be
at least 730”

The vote on the amendment is on this Wednesday, 11th January 2012.

We need to lobby Lords before Wednesday. So far the votes have been close.

The Labour peers are planning to vote for the amendment. It's safe to say that the Tories will vote against. What's important is lobbying the Lib Dems and the Crossbench peers. There's a list of all the Peers that user Twitter here (not organised by party, sorry. But if anyone's got the time to create Twitter lists of the Lib Dem and/or crossbench Peers do let us know!)and there's a list of the Email addresses of Lib Dem peers here.

If you can't convince Lib Dem peers to support the amendment, then the next best thing is convincing them to abstain.

There's further info about the amendment in this pdf from the Disability Benefits Consortium that @kmachin dug up.

Things to do this Christmas: Please act on and share this post!

There are so many things that need doing this festive season in the fight against the welfare reform bill and the closure of the ILF I thought I'd collate all the actions in one place. If there's anything I've missed out, please, please post it in the comments.

The most important thing to do is to sign Pat's Petition to get the Welfare Reform Bill paused for reflection. Activists manage to get the NHS bill paused to buy themselves more time to present evidence of the harm it would do: We need to do the same for the WRB. The petition needs 100,000 signatures and so far it's only had 7,935. We're a long way off but it can be done if people sign and share; in the summer petitions around punishing rioters reached the 100,000 mark in a day or 2. But it requires people putting in the effort and giving a crap. Please, please, sign and share this.

Other government e-petitions that need signing while you're on the e-petitions page:

• Someone has started a petition to make it a criminal offence to maliciously report someone for benefit fraud. With 96% of calls to the benefit fraud hotline being malicious in nature, falsely accusing someone of benefit fraud is a major form of hate.
• The other relevant e-petition is to save the Independent Living Fund. In a guest post for us last year, Martyn Sibley explained the importance of ILF funding. On a related note; DPAC are collecting signatures opposed to the ILF closure on a campaigning letter to be circulated next year.

The Welfare Reform Bill is currently at the report stage in the Lords. Votes on amendments like DLA and contributory ESA will be held in January. So far the votes have been really close with the amendment on the frequency of Universal Credit payments being defeated by only 3 votes and the amendment to not halve disabled children's benefits losing by only 2 votes. The government has suffered one defeat so far in the under-occupancy amendment. In that vote there was even one Tory peer who voted against.

This all shows that we can make a difference at this stage if we put pressure on the peers. We mainly need to target the Lib Dem and crossbench peers, but Lord Newton of Braintree has proved that even Tories can be persuaded to vote against these barbaric cuts which will have devastating outcomes for disabled people.

Some of the info in this template letter is now outdated as it was drafted back in September. But the list of contacts for Lords is useful for getting in touch and sharing your concerns. Tell them that you're worried about the effect arbitrarily slashing 20% from the DLA budget will have, tell them that limiting contributory ESA to one year is ludicrous as many - possibly even most - serious ongoing illnesses don't clear up within 365 days.

There's also a list of the peers that use Twitter. Tweet at them with your concerns, send them links to articles and blog posts that you feel express your worries best. As with writing EMails or letters; it's best to target your energies at Lib Dem and crossbench peers, but it can't hurt to send your concerns to all peers; Lord Newton of Braintree having proved Tories can be persuaded to vote against these brutal cuts.

Some members of the House are either depressingly ill-informed or simply liars. Lord Wolfson claimed on Question Time 2 weeks ago that disability benefits have the highest fraud rates. This is desperately untrue. One of our readers, Joss, has written to Wolfson pointing out his statement lacking in factual basis. I would urge you to do the same; not just to Wolfson, but to any Peer you happen to catch spouting inaccuracies. It's possible they are simply ill-informed rather than malicious so it's important we make sure they are informed before they go to vote.

Other petitions apart from ones on the government's own page:

• The Lords have already voted to allow disabled children's benefits to be cut as part of the bill, despite the fact that 4 in ten disabled children already live in poverty before that cut comes in. Every Disabled Child Matters have set up this e-action to Email David Cameron (who once had a disabled child himself, of course...)
• Scope have set up this action to try and save legal aid for benefits appeals. 14,000 people every year are vindicated when their DLA rejection is overturned; Legal Aid is a lifeline.

There are many campaign groups out there that have had tremendous success this year but have done little (if anything) to engage with these welfare issues. We need to get their support.

38 Degrees have had so many successes this year like getting the forestry sell-off cancelled and getting the NHS bill paused. We really need their help but they're reluctant. They say they only carry out campaigns their members ask for so tell them loudly and clearly that you want them to campaign against welfare reform! Blogger Chrissy sent them this excellent Email and I'd suggest you do the same. It also occurs to me as someone with a bit of a background in the voluntary sector that if an organisation receives a restricted donation earmarked for a specific cause they have to either spend it as the donor requests, or return the money. With bodies like 38 Degrees funding their campaigns through asking for member donations, I don't see why one can't send them a restricted donation earmarked to only be spent on fighting the welfare reform bill. Not as underhand and manipulative as it might sound; charities get restricted funding every day, and returning unspent restricted donations is not uncommon either. They need to know people are willing to pay for an anti-WRB campaign, so give them the message loud and clear!

If you are, or you know people who are, in the UK Uncut inner circle then please beg them to do something. Occupations ditto. OccupyLSX were asked by WtB to support Hardest Hit rally in London in October. They didn't. Please, please try to change this.

And finally, get this to-do list out there. Tweet it, post it on Facebook and Google+, link to it from your blog, and Email it to all your friends. Ask left-leaning slebs or those who've shown interest in disability issues to retweet it. And not just celebs, of course: Ask anyone who can get the list of actions shared on to a greater audience. But most importantly: Do the actions too! So many people these days will retweet or share a link to a petition without actually signing.

We've only got until January to stop this list from exploding exponentially in 2 years when the proposed WRB would come into effect. Don't let this happen. Please do something to stop it.

Not OK

Suicide and depression have been in the news a lot this week. First footballer Stan Collymore talked openly about his depression. This was followed a day later by news of the suicide of Wales football manager Gary Speed. Then that delightful chap Jeremy Clarkson "joked" on The One Show that trains shouldn't stop for jumpers.

Warning of possible triggers in discussion below the jump:

Scottish Welfare Reform Bill Debate

This is a guest post by Michael S. Collins, about the Scottish Welfare Reform Bill debate. He wrote this yesterday evening, after the debate had taken place.

So today, the Scottish parliament stood on what had been called potentially their finest hour. If in doubt, start posts with hyperbole. Nevertheless, it was an important moment, as Holyrood got ready to debate the infamous Welfare Reform Bill, proposals which have divided people, even from the same party.

Before the debate, there was a statement on the fuel poverty allowance, followed by queries from several MSPs including Patrick Harvie. The most interesting news to stem from that was the idea that the heating bill scheme was to be extended to that long misused service to society, carers. The feeling seemed to be, on the whole, we aim to keep our promises in this area, even if 'them down South' try to slash our budget.

Deputy SNP leader, and regular sight in Govan, Nicola Sturgeon opened the Welfare debate with as clear a statement on government policy as we shall hear for some time. "We want a welfare system which is fair to all." She followed up with an attack on a system which allowed genuine claimants to be found "capable of work". It was her conclusion that "We must recognise some people are unable to work and must be able to life comfortably on benefits." The Big Society was on the other channel, but Call Me Dave politics this was not.

Jackie Baillie opened the debate for the Labour party, who were mostly to agree with the SNP policies with a few tweaks. "Attacks on the welfare state is nothing less than an excuse to cut." She said, before turning to former Scottish Tory leader David McLetchie. In a pre-emptive strike, she warned him not to bring up the "13 years of Labour misrule" agenda once more, before throwing a dig in at the nearly entire missing Liberal Democrats: "Beveridge would be ashamed to see the Liberals cosy up to this".

Alongside Patrick Harvie's earlier assertions that he planned to argue against the WRB, so far the score suggested it was SNP / Labour / Green for, Tory against, and Lib Dems unaccounted for.

We now handed the debate over to Mary Scanlon of the Scottish Tories, one of that famous breed of formidable Sexagenarian / Septuagenarian Conservative women which populate parts of Scottish politics. At this point we got a lot of Labour mentions. Labour's legacy. Thirteen years. Unelected Prime Minister (though, the evidence that polling for Labour in 2005 rose after the "Vote Blair Get Brown" campaign suggests the general public didn't really disagree with that idea at the time). You know the jist. A lack of "the mess we inherited" in all but name. "39% claimants gave up claims as they didn't need it anymore." Other such familiar claims were made.

Liam McArthur of the Lib Dems, and the only Liberal Democrat available, had the floor now. "I do not accept the Welfare Reform Bill means the dismantling of the welfare state and benefits system" he started. Then he went into the usual Liberal defence of the Conservative policies. Nothing new to report there.

Bob Doris took the floor.

"We must speak out against the Bill, which is unfit for purpose, even if we can't prevent it."

"A savage attack on the most vulnerable groups in our society. [WRB] is cutting cash at any price. It is not a price worth paying."

A female MSP rose to speak next. The tag team of the washing machine and the sound problems on Holyrood.tv meant I never caught who it was, so anyone who knows, please let me know.

"Welfare state is a sign of compassion" she said, expressing that "Social ails" stemmed from the events of the 1980s. "We need safeguards for those who play by the rules and need nothing more than help from the state at their time of need."

Mark McDonald, SNP, was next to refute the claims that the SNP were sensibility and nae sense, as he noted that he had met "many voluntary groups and charities" who "have made sensible ideas for reform that wouldn't hurt the vulnerable."

"60% of genuine claimants rejected, being overturned on appeal suggests something wrong with the system."

"If it is your mistake, you'll be punished. If it is the UK governments mistake, you'll be punished."

He followed this remark up with a reference that 'Sir Humphrey Appleby' would be proud of this system, endearing himself to Nigel Hawthorne's legion of fans and politicos alike. His parting dig - "Now is the time and the hour for the Liberals to show their 'civilising' impact on the Tories" - was given with expert timing. McDonald is a new SNP MSP, elected in May during the landslide, who famously showed up at his count in jeans and T-shirt, so utterly unconvinced he was of his own victory. Here he made an impassioned speech.

Margaret Burgess, SNP, was swiftly to steal the show, however.

Key points?

• The [WRB] "will have long term detrimental effect to Scotland."
  
• "I worked as an advisor. People want to work, not wanting to work is untrue, they are not getting the help they deserve."
  
• "20% less will get help even if they need it. That is wrong."
  
• The circle of ESA/JSA/ESA/bad decisions "badly effects mental health of the most vulnerable."

She spoke with the full authority of years of experience, and with the full passion of someone who had first hand seen the hopelessness and victimization of the vulnerable in the name of society.

For fear this is turning into the SNP propaganda society, up next was Siobhan McMahon, a young Labour MSP of whom I was unaware of. It is hard to argue that her opening gambit was not one of the most strongest in the debate. "I have (a form of) cerebal palsy. It is surprising how easy it is to forget how you can't do normal things." She added: "I am better off than many others though, and it is for them I am passionately opposed to the [WRB]." McMahon showed an effective and well honed use of the orators mantel, noting of those who screamed about 'unnecessary benefits' that "Benefits cheats in this suspicious society invade their dreams like so many sprites and goblins." A brilliant use of rhetoric. The SNP may have held the floor and had the most condemnations of the ConDemNation (sorry, couldn't resist), but this was the most flowery and brilliant Footian quote of the day. Siobhan McMahon went on to warn that Scotland will "suffer disproportional by this reform, due to our high level of disabled people", and that, as an example against those who say looking harder for work is the solution to all our welfare woes, "Only 12% of people with aspergers in this country are in employment."

Annabelle Ewing, SNP and Winnie's daughter, was up next. She had "Concerns about devolved areas - housing benefits, carers etc - to be adversely effected by this [WRB]." She said there was "New assessment tests" but "little optimism the flaws of the Work Capability tests will be learned." She reiterated that she was "infuriated that disabled and sick are 'made to feel like second class citizens'".

Kezia Dugdale (Labour) took charge next. Her key points:

• "If the Tory government is about the bigger picture, why does the [WRB] gain from broken marriages?"
  
• "One of the most abhorrent aspects of bill is changes to child maintenance proposals ie Lone parents needing to pay their own."
  
• "Child care costs, contrary to popular belief, does not pay to work."

Christine McKelvie (SNP) was up to reiterate the SNP policy that "UK benefits system is needlessly complex", and "doesn't ensure people better off in work". We need to " treat systems not causes." She was damning of the Tories: "Instead of lifting poverty, the Tories plan to plunge more poor families into it."

Our sole Lib Dem summed up. Liam McArthur (Lib): "No one can identify what welfare reform would look like in independent Scotland. Still need to reduce budget."

David McLetchie finished for the Conservatives, stating that "Responsibility should be at the heart of our benefits system. Tinkering the edges of broken system wont work.". He was also, sadly, the only man to bring immigration as a sniping point. I may be rather cruel as I suggested that his whole debate could be summed up as "I agree with the SNP, but...". Given he was odds to stress both his support of certain sections of the policy but also his full support of the Tory reform, it wasn't unfair though. Players of David McLetchie Bingo - "Labour inheritance", "SNP record", "problems of independence" - would have had a happy day at the office though.

Drew Smith, the rather nervous Labour MSP, summed up for his side: "We see merit in simplifying system for those who can't..." He then talked up Universal Credit. He seemed genuinely terrified of Mary Scanlon, staring a hole through him constantly and trying to interject.

Alex Neil, the Secretary for Capital Investment, summed up for the SNP. He blamed everyone - the Labour, Tory and Lib Dem parties - for slashing capital spending. He pointed out the sole Lib Dem in the Chamber, and stressed that "No one is opposed to welfare reform. Purpose in reform isn't to do down vulnerable society, it is to make a fairer society." He also got in a less than subtle dig at the Labour party: "When Labour are in government, they introduce Tory policies. When they are opposition, they oppose the policies they introduced".

All the amendments went to division (ie, no clear decision) in the Chamber, so were voted on. The amendments of Mary Scanlon and Liam McArthur for the Tory and Lib Dems were rejected, and the combined SNP/Labour/Green alliance saw through Nicola Sturgeon and Jackie Baillie's amendments, to be proposed for the Welfare Reform Bill. That being, that matters which effect Scottish people should be ratified by the Scottish parliament before coming into effect.

It was nice to see Labour and the SNP unite on a principle. This didn't stop them digging at each other in much a Tom and Jerry style, but like Tom and Jerry, they united when someone else threatened them. In this, it was the WRB.

So was it Holyrood's finest moment? Rome wasn't built in a day and it will be hard to tell for some time if it was the making of anything but futile gestures.

It was, however, a delight to see some genuine factual, passioned but mostly good spirited debate on a matter which effects so many people, not just in Scotland, but in the UK today.

#WRB Twitter Summary of Welfare Reform Bill in the Lords

As you may know from previous posts, the Welfare Reform Bill has been going through the House of Lords in the past two days. Yesterday's debate felt a lot more thorough, and our side was represented more strongly, than in the House of Commons, but today the discussion disappeared 'upstairs' and was not televised.

This was a widely criticised decision, as we can not see how the discussion is going, and the room is said to be inaccessible.

For people who want to catch up on some of the details of what we saw in the Lords yesterday, and the discussion around moving rooms today, a lot was posted in twitter on detail, via various accounts including Where's the Benefit?, Latent Existence, incurable hippie, disabled medic, The Broken of Britain, Creative Crip, and many more. I have created a document which summarises the discussions and main points made, which you can access here. You may notice that I wrongly named the document the 'Welfare Rights Bill'. If only! But it is reform, not rights, so apologies for that error.

The tweet summary document is available to be viewed here. You can use the tools at the bottom of the page to zoom in and out as necessary.

[The image is a photograph of the interior of the House of Lords. It was taken by UK Parliament and is used under a Creative Commons Licence]

URGENT APPEAL FOR ACTION NOW!

After an incredibly constructive debate yesterday in the House Of Lords the government appear to be concerned about how many Lords had significant concerns about the Welfare Reform Bill, even those Lords who in principle supported the bill had major questions they wanted answers to.

For a bill of this size and importance, convention dictates that the next stage of the bill should be kept in the main chamber of the House of Lords for debate. It's particularly important the bill be continued to be debated in the main chamber as disability access to the smaller committee rooms is very limited and people will not be able to access the committee rooms to exercise their democratic right to observe the passge of the bill from the public chamber.


At 3.30pm today the govermnent are tabling a motion to move the grand committee stage of the bill into one of the smaller committee rooms. Presumably the government are hoping that by moving a bill into the committee rooms it will be harder to scrutinise - there won't be enough space in any of the committee rooms to allow for all the Lords to participate, let alone for us to scrutinise online or attend in person.


This is an outrage - the government are clearly concerned by the level of queries and opposition to the Welfare Reform Bill highlighted by yesterday's debate and wish to quietly sideline it to a committee room where they hope it will pass with less opposition. Tabling the motion for the afternoon following PMQ's is also an underhand trick as it means it will be harder for us to object through the main stream media.


This is our call to arms. This bill affects us, our families and every aspect of our lives, as well as the lives of those currently paying into the system in anticipation of protection should they require it. If we can make enough noise in the next few hours the government will be forced to keep the passage of the bill in the main chamber of the house of lords where it can be effectively and appropriately scrutinised by all.


What you can do to help is this;


Please post copies of this blog onto your facebook, your twitter, stumbleupon, wikio etc. Please email it to everyone you know, please talk about this on your own blogs. Email or phone your MP to register your objections, email or phone the house of lords to explain your concerns, email or phone the media, local or national and explain that whether or not people are in favour of this bill, that it is a fundamental democratic right to have it debated in the main chamber of the house of lords where there is space for all who wish to attend and observe. Highlight the injustice and hypocrisy of the governments behaviour in trying to sideline this important bill into a room too small for all the Lords to attend and certainly too small to allow those in wheelchairs, or with guide dogs, the very people most affected by this bill to be able to observe from the public gallery.


If we make enough noise before 3.30pm today the government will have to drop this underhand tactic and the Bill will continue to be debated in the main chamber of the House of Lords where everyone who wishes to can attend and observe.

UPDATE 13.30
The email addresses to contact are;

anelayj@parliament.uk – this is the chief whip to whom you should send the email and cc it to the others .

bassams@parliament.uk – opposition chief whip

freudd@parliament.uk –

BREAKING NEWS!!! Government Delays Welfare Reform Bill...

This just in from the Disability Alliance. I'm sure they won't mind me posting it in full:

Government delays Welfare Reform Bill

The Government has been forced to delay the 2nd Reading of the flagship Bill in the Lords due to peers' concerns over the people affected.

DWP is suggesting other business has blocked progress but the surprise postponement till September from Tues will also give the Government time to lobby peers and answer the queries raised in DA's legal challenge

This is wonderful, surprising, startling news!!! I need a little lie down before I say any more, but remember this - if it gives the government more time to lobby, it gives us more time too :)

Labour takes *another* pop at disabled people

There have been 2 Labour stories today about "responsibility" and welfare.

The first story was Ed Miliband's speech. You can tell it's not going to go well for disabled people from the outset. He starts off by telling this story:

While out campaigning during the local elections, not for the first time, I met someone who had been on incapacity benefit for a decade.

He hadn’t been able to work since he was injured doing his job.

It was a real injury, and he was obviously a good man who cared for his children.

But I was convinced that there were other jobs he could do.

And that it’s just not right for the country to be supporting him not to work, when other families on his street are working all hours just to get by.

Which sums up the Labour party's attitude to ill and disabled people: No qualifications in assessing people's health but meet someone for a minute and deem them "fit for work" without any additional info besides that minute meeting. It's the Work Capability Assessment in a nutshell.

No wonder strangers in the street feel it acceptable to deem someone a "scrounger" when our political leaders are doing the same.

You can read the full transcript of Ed's speech on politics.co.uk. [Warning: May induce vomiting or violent behaviour.]

Liam Byrne's been at it too today. His plans include:

rewarding those on the council house queue who are in jobs or doing voluntary work.

Need social housing because you're too ill to work? Tough.

Yet in that same article it says:

The potentially tough ideas come as Labour prepares to vote against the third reading of the government's welfare bill this week because they feel it punishes the ill, including victims of cancer, and cuts childcare provision.

Erm, what about people who can't get social housing because they can't work. Is that not punishing the ill?

Miliband says similar:

Just take their current welfare reform bill.

We support their attempts to build on our plans to make those who can work do so.

But their bill will make it harder for people to be responsible.

It undermines childcare support for those seeking work.

It punishes people in work who save, denying them the help they currently get through tax credits.

It cuts help for the most vulnerable, those living in care homes, who receive support to get out and about.

And, it takes away money from those who are dying even though they have contributed to the system all their lives.

None of this will help people show more responsibility.
In fact, it does the opposite.

Nor are they ensuring there is the work available for people who are responsible.

In the same speech in which he says the man who's been assessed by someone with medical qualifications as unfit to work should be getting a job. One of those ones that don't exist.

Both Byrne and Miliband comment on how Labour has lost sight of it's direction as "the people's party." Byrne said:

"The worst statistic for me was that nearly 60% of voters said Labour was not just a bit, but seriously, out of touch with the lives of ordinary working people. For the peoples' party, that was a hell of an achievement."

It seems to me that they've lost more than that. It appears they've lost the ability for making their minds up. Either they want to force that man incapable of working onto JSA OR they want to help the "vulnerable". Either they want to vote against a bill that punishes the sick OR they want to prevent ill people from getting social housing. I would remark that they need to pick a direction, except I know which one they'd take so I think I'll settle for them acting like dogs chasing their tails.

2nd Reading of Welfare Reform Bill - Summary

Today was the 2nd reading of the Welfare Reform Bill and, on the whole, it seemed a very constructive, mannerly affair with both sides of the house making reasoned arguments. There seemed to be a genuine desire on both sides of the house to make sure the reforms were fair and any problems resolved.

The main points that came up time and again were those things IDS couldn't confirm, the parts of reform for which details haven't been decided despite them being in the original bill. These include :

• Child Tax Credit will be abolished but IDS cannot confirm what will take it's place One study seems to imply that whilst currently up to 97% of childcare is paid for, this might drop to 70% acting as a disincentive to work.
• We also don't know what will happen about free school meals, passporting of benefits, disability premiums, housing for those on DLA or whether DLA will continue after retirement age. Council tax benefit and elements of support for carers are also unclear. Labour argued throughout the debate that there were far too many details yet to be presented to the house.
• Labour continually pointed out that without work to go to, these reforms would fail and cause hardship and inequality. Jobs must be the starting point for welfare reform.
• The savings cap came up over and over again. Members argued that capping savings at £16,000 for those on Universal Credit did not "foster ambition"
• Members on both sides raised concerns over the Work Capability Assessments and reassurance was given that these would be addressed.

It was however, noticeable from the start that by far the biggest issue was sickness and disability benefit reform. It came up over and over again from members on both sides of the house, many waving sheaths of letters from frightened constituents. A huge congratulations to campaigners who have worked tirelessly to make sure that MPs were well informed on the issues sick and disabled people face. It showed in every part of the debate that the message had got through.

Questions were asked on DLA and it seems that the government have backed down on scrapping mobility payments for adults in care homes. Liam Byrne pushed IDS for confirmation which wasn't quite given, but it was certainly a stronger concession than was given last week.

For a while it looked as though Labour might back down on time limiting ESA and certainly, many Labour MPs raised this issue as one of the greatest causes for concern. Byrne didn't quite back down, but it seemed to me that this may still be up for debate - a positive sign.

Many MPs also mentioned that DLA was in little need of reform. It was an occurring theme that announcing a 20% cut in the benefit before any assessment had taken place could only be viewed as a cost cutting measure and would understandably cause concern. I wondered if there might be a push to remove DLA from the WRB altogether as too many details were still too unclear? Watch this space.

Concerns were raised over ATOS and the assessment process. IDS was pushed on whether he would reconsider inflicting regular assessments on those who's disabilities were lifelong or degenerative. this was one area he stood very firm on. He saw nothing wrong with assessing ANY benefit regularly.

The Conservative side of the argument was nearly always that benefits were far too complicated and that work must pay. I disagree with neither of those statements and felt that there would be little resistance to changing specific details as long as those two points were rigorously upheld. They mentioned a desire to see real jobs that pay - another desire I can't disagree with

Finally, I'd like to point out that attendance in the house was shameful. A handful of MPs scattered the benches during this, the most important change to our welfare system for 60 years. Along with the NHS proposals, I urge every MP to take his or her responsibility more seriously in our name. They all need to be informed on these proposals and surely every constituent has the right to think that his or her MP will give this enormous overhaul their full attention?

Sadly, right at the end when the cameras came in, Chris Grayling, the final speaker, turned the debate into a party political row. It wasn't like that all the way through. This issue should be above politics. To their credit, most who spoke managed this admirably.

The (Lab) amendment failed by 244 Ayes, 317 Noes. Where were the other 89 MPs? Again, I don't care about excuses. This is too important to miss.

Addicted to Benefits

The article's a few weeks old now, but prior to the second reading of the Welfare Reform Bill tomorrow I wanted to take a look at an article the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Iain Duncan Smith, wrote in The Telegraph in advance of the first reading. I did mean to write about this at the time the article was published but - funnily enough for a person with chronic health problems - I've been to ill to do so.

The article starts with a problematic headline:

It's time to end this addiction to benefits

We tend to think of "addictions" as unbreakable bad habits. When we think of addictions we think of people hooked on drugs, alcohol, tobacco or gambling. We have mental images of people stealing to pay for their heroin fix, people turning yellow because the booze has wrecked their liver, people whose spending priority is their fags no matter what essentials they have to go without and gamblers being chased by loan sharks because the football team they'd placed their last hope with didn't win. We think of self-destruction.

IDS is clearly trying to keep up the government propaganda that benefits are a hook that destroys lives; that they're like Pringles and you just can't stop.

Except benefits don't destroy lives, they save lives. My ability to earn my keep was destroyed by illness. If I lost my benefits, I'd lose my home. It's notoriously difficult to access medical care when homeless. Without my vast amounts of prescription meds every day I would not be able to go on living, the physical pain would be more than I could bear. People have already died after losing their benefits, people like Paul Reekie. It's not the benefits that are destructive, it's their stoppage.

Yes I'm benefit dependent, but that's a world away from being addicted.

Duncan Smith wheels out the lines we've heard so many times in this assault on benefit claimants like "those who spend two years or more on incapacity benefit are more likely to die than to work again." Ya think? Sometimes ill people die rather than recovering and finding a job. People like George from Chesterfield who was deemed by ATOS as well enough to do some kind of work and placed in the Work Related Activity Group for ESA. He died the day before another Atos medical.

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, especially when it comes to maths and numbers; and I'm not ashamed to admit that. I leave the number crunching to people who understand that sort of thing while I focus my attention on stuff I do get. However even I, with my limited mathematical knowledge, can see the flaw in this:

Incredibly, the proportion of working-age adults living in poverty is the highest since records began.

Because his proposal for dealing with the problem is to make sure poor people have less money. Like I say, I'm no maths whizz, but even I can see that if someone hasn't got enough of something, and you take away some of the little they have got, then what they're left with is even less than they had to start with. And I'm fairly sure that I could've deduced that in pre-school using Smarties: If one needs 10 Smarties but one only has 7 Smarties then taking an extra 2 Smarties away does not 10 Smarties make. This guy is responsible for administering the nation's welfare state despite having less grasp of economics than I had at the age of 4.

IDS devotes a whole paragraph to the lies about DLA that I debunked a few weeks ago in More Mail Lies. I would say "you'd hope the minister responsible for benefits would know more than the Daily Mail," except the Mail article was, of course, based on a press release by Iain's department.

Mr Smith says that the idea of the welfare state was to make society "fairer" but that the ideals were never realised and that the Welfare Reform Bill is about changing that. He's right, the welfare state has never been that fair; my combined benefits fall short of what's needed to reach a minimum standard of living and many people find DLA isn't enough to cover their disability-related costs. But reducing those amounts won't make the system any more fair; just ask any pre-schooler with some Smarties on the table in front of them.