Thursday, 10 May 2012

Like a puppet on a string

Got a letter from the council this morning telling me they've sent the DWP an order to stop my income support and pay it to them instead because of outstanding council tax benefit (that I'm not actually liable for).






It's nice to serve some useful purpose. If my despair wasn't keeping someone at the council with a love of schadenfreude entertained I would merely be just a useless scrounger off the state who added nothing whatsoever to society.



Apparently someone who should know better has fallen for the tabloid insinuation that all benefit claimants get £500 a week.



Like my life wasn't fucking miserable enough.

Wednesday, 9 May 2012

Crowd Mapping the affects of Housing Benefit Reform

I doubt there is anyone reading this who isn't aware that the reforms to Housing Benefit will have a huge impact on the lives of claimants. With more being deducted for non dependants living with claimants and a limit on size of property that can be claimed for amongst others big changes are underway.

Citizens Advice is working hard to protect people's rights and support those who are in difficulty. Benefit reforms are something they are watching closely, both the national organisation and the individual bureaux on a local level. A big part of their social policy work is gathering evidence as to impacts. It's really useful for raising awareness.

Hackney CAB have been using crowd mapping to record the impact housing benefit cuts are having in their area.

The map shows the area (ward not exact address due to confidentiality) where a problem has been reported. These are colour coded by type such as shortfall, overcrowding or arrears. You can the click on an entry for more details.

Looking at the map highlight the scope of the problems in Hackney. I knew there was a huge issue but seeing it like that is quite eye opening. There will however be many others in that area struggling who haven't sort advice. And thousands of others all over the country in exactly the same position.

On that website there is also a page with some stats about predicted the impact of the housing benefit cuts. It includes a stat the coalition are probably hoping no one realises.

93% of new housing benefit claims since the election are from people who work and have a low income. Working isn't going to help those people deal with the cuts.

Disabled people aren't mentioned in any of those stats. But the impact on us is likely to be bigger than on any other groups. Not are we facing ESA migration and cuts, the implementation of PIP and drastic changes to many other services a lot of us will also be hit by benefit changes which also affect non disabled people.

Hackney CAB crowd map can be viewed here

I'd really recommend contacting CAB if you need help or advice with benefits or any other issue. Advice Guide is the best place to start and as well as factsheets has a find your nearest bureau function.

Sunday, 6 May 2012

A hidden benefit cut #counciltaxbenefit #welfarereform #wrb

On Wednesday I attended a forum of people who are for the most part volunteers and campaigners. The main purpose of the event was to discuss the planned changes to housing benefit or local housing allowance.

Another benefit change was also briefly discussed. One I hadn't been aware was happening.

As of April 2013 Council Tax Benefit will no longer exist in its present from. It was suggested by the facilitator at the forum that the news of this change has been lost in all the information and outcry about the planned housing benefit changes. I leave you to make your own mind up about whether this was done deliberately by the government. I did wonder just how it was I hadn't heard of this.

Council Tax Benefit is centrally controlled at the moment. You apply to your local council but the rules and money come from a central pot. It's not strictly speaking a disability benefit. A lot of disabled people do receive it but it's available to anyone who is on a low enough income. A high proportion if the people who receive it are in work and for some it is what allows them to remain in work or to take work in the first place. Currently it's possible to receive all or part of your council tax paid via benefit (claimants don't receive this money it goes straight to the council) and also in some circumstances to receive a separate discount for which you don't need to be on benefit.

So in my own case
My council tax bill is discounted by 25% because I live alone (this is called the single adult reduction and any household where only one person over 18 lives is entitled to it. Claimed via contacting the council)

My flat is a band b property however because I'm a wheelchair user the council tax due is reduced by 1 band meaning I'm liable for band a prices. For people who live in band a it's reduced by a set percentage. (this is available to anyone who needs extra space for wheelchair use or an additional room due to medical needs. Again claimed from the council)

And as I am deemed to have a low income I receive Council Tax Benefit which in my case pays the remainder in full.

If I was working I may have received some benefit and had to pay the rest. It really is on a case by case basis. I know of people who receive perhaps only £15 a month council tax benefit and pay the rest and people who receive all but £5 a month of their council tax in benefit and pay that £5

From April 2013 however there will be no set rules for the provision of council tax support. Instead it will be provided locally with each area deciding how best to use it. The pot of money to be available for this is to be 10% less than the current bill for council tax benefit and this money will not be ring fenced.

This will almost definitely create a postcode lottery in what support is available. My suspicion is that areas which are already poor at providing services such as social care are likely to also use little of the available money for council tax support. Yet another hit for disabled people and for many others who may well not carry the scrounger stereotype we crips must fight.

The government would probably argue that if people have enough income to be only receiving a small sum of council tax benefit each month - say the £15 I used above - they can afford to pay that too.

It's easy to say that when you have a high paying job, secure accommodation, good health and family who support you like most of the government do. £15 is maybe a starter in a restaurant. They miss it but it wouldn't be a big deal and come next week they probably wouldn't remember it.

It's not so easy when you're on a low income. The £15 you've just lost could mean you can't pay for your prescriptions or you can't eat for a few days or the carer who comes once a week to change your bed must be stopped. Not easy to manage without and not something you can say "oh well" and forget about.

Edited (by Lisa) to add: We've had quite a lot of Tweets related to this post. As not everyone follows us on Twitter so will have seen them RTed; I thought I should post some of the more crucial ones here to add them to the debate. The limits on what html can be used in comments means you can't embed tweets below the line.






Tuesday, 1 May 2012

The Price of Hate #BADD2012



It’s Blogging Against Disablism Day, and that’s taken me by surprise. That wouldn’t normally be a problem, last year I knew about it well in advance, but this year I’m struggling more, and – Ironically? Poetically? Absurdly? – I think the reason is the disablism I’ve faced over the last couple of years

The problems started with my application for Employment and Support Allowance, for which we have to go back to February 2010, and the day that Jobcentre Plus admitted (under ministerial prodding, having previously told me to shut up and do as I was told) that I was too disabled to claim JSA, too disabled for any of their training schemes, and needed to claim ESA instead. ESA comes complete with a massive form, in which you are expected to summarize every aspect of decades of disability in the tiny spaces provided (there was no electronic version of the form available at that point, despite it having been in use for several years – DWP’s contempt for our needs was all too apparent). So I improvised and created my own electronic version, because I can’t write legibly for more than a sentence and some of the information on my disability is so personal I hesitate even to tell my consultant, so there was no way I could ask someone else to do it for me.

To say things then descended into low farce would be giving ATOS,  DWP’s French contractor (who are IT rather than disability specialists – and it shows), an unwarranted reputation for competence as I now had to face their infamous Work Capability Assessment. At my first assessment appointment, the adjustable seating I had told them I needed hadn’t been provided. The doctor I spoke to confided that they had requested better seats, but been told to make do with the cheap, unsuitable seating they had by their area management (so, contempt yes, competence no). That visit triggered a massive flare-up in my disability, I quite literally spent a week on the bathroom floor, in so much pain I didn’t know what day it was, and the next three months doped to the eyeballs on opiate painkillers. Needless to say I didn’t get very far with my ESA claim. When I finally got back on top of things, I found ATOS had told DWP I didn’t attend the appointment. In a rare demonstration of competence DWP agreed to reinstate my claim (the ‘Oh, not again’ when being told what ATOS had done might have had something to do with it) and arranged another assessment.

By now we were into October 2010. ATOS did manage to have an adjustable chair for me this time (it didn’t help), but every other aspect of the assessment met the worst stereotypes about the way ATOS behaves. The hour wait past my appointment time - ATOS routinely overbook by 25%, having nothing but contempt for the fact their patients may find extended sitting acutely painful – left me in pain and shaking before I even got through the door of the assessment room. The ATOS doctor was abrupt, overbearing, wouldn’t meet my eyes, had clearly made up his mind I was faking before I ever entered the room and generally tried to browbeat me into saying what he wanted, and not what would get me the benefit I was entitled to. He clearly wasn’t used to someone who was able to meet him head on and argue their case intelligently and knowledgeably (though he did criticise me for having that knowledge). And then came the moment when I had to tell him ‘I need to stand up, or else I’m going to throw up’, and a look of utter panic passed across his face as he realised that my claim was utterly genuine, and that he had just spent most of the last hour abusing a patient in violation of his oath. The change in his manner couldn’t have been more marked, though he still managed to criticise me for being unable to bend my knee because of the degree of pain I was in. I walked into the room on crutches and both feet, I came out in so much pain I couldn’t weight bear on my left leg (ironically this was one of the symptoms I had been criticised for describing earlier). Fortunately this time the flare-up only put me in bed for the rest of the day, not weeks or months.

Amazingly I passed the assessment, though whether I would have without the visible flare-up is the elephant in the room. Nevertheless, the Select Committee on Work and Pensions were interested enough in what goes on in ATOS assessments, even those where people pass first time, to put my account into their report documenting the failures of the ATOS run WCA. On the other hand, I still couldn’t bring myself to apply for Disability Living Allowance. My walking difficulties mean I probably qualify for Higher Rate Mobility, but it’s marginal, and applying would mean another assessment, and likely an appeal, and that was just more than I could face.

With ESA sorted, things seemed better at the end of 2010, but 2011 brought disablism crashing back into my life. DWP contacted me to tell me that they had received an anonymous tip on the National Benefit Fraud Hotline, alleging I was working full time. The DWP are proud of their hotline and emphasise it to the public at every opportunity, yet 94% of claims it receives are either malicious, or have no basis in fact and I’m willing to bet most of that lack of basis in reality itself originates in xenophobic attitudes, whether they be related to race, disability or whatever. DWP seem to be very careful not to release any figures to show how many of those 94% of claims are directed at minority members.

I am lucky if I get out of the house for 4 hours in the week, and my car sits in open view for all of that time I am at home, so I was really interested to hear what evidence had been provided to DWP in support of this claim that I was working 9 til 5. The answer turned out to be none, DWP investigate all claims, no matter how much evidence is provided, no matter the consequences to the person being investigated.

So the DWP investigation crashed and burned the moment their investigator met me, but the stress was still enough to trigger another massive flare-up, one that lasted for 4 months, at its worst I spent an entire month without being able to sleep for more than an hour at a time, and that only while propped into a sitting postion. The overwhelming likelihood is that the claim was disability related harassment, in breach of the Equality Act 2010, but DWP refuse to release any information on allegations made by the Hotline, no matter how egregiously obvious the discrimination driving the claims is. Or to put it bluntly, DWP are allowing themselves to be used as the tool of racists and disablists in criminal harassment, and such is their contempt for us they are happy to go along with it no matter how overwhelming the evidence of this is.

And so 2011 went on, a year of fighting the government’s increasingly open disablist attitudes, fighting against the horrific Welfare Reform Bill, occasionally talking to the media about my experience of disability hate crimes, the benefit fraud allegation being a popular topic there. Yet no matter how hard we fought, attitudes to disability seemed to go from bad to worse, with even BBC getting in on the act, whether it be Dom Littlewood chasing down another supposed scrounger on Saints and Scroungers, John Humphrys claiming we are a generation without the will to work, or Panorama telling everyone that any disabled person who dares to sail or drive a good car is clearly a fraudster (I had just got back from a holiday sailing with friends, that was the first time a TV programme had ever left me too intimidated to leave the house). When I talked about disablism on the BBC local TV news, they even brought in the local Tory MP to counter me and claim that people were perfectly entitled to be angry with us. 

I even managed to get the campaigning group 37 Degrees to recognise that disabled people couldn’t hope to win their popularity contest method of choosing campaigns, but where they spent well over a year campaigning against the NHS Bill, their sole intervention on the Welfare Reform Bill came not at the eleventh hour, but at 11:59:59. Needless to say it didn’t help, but it did show that when it comes to appealing to humanity’s common goodness, crips will lose to badgers, or trees, every time.

And then, just at the end of the year, it happened, a brown letter lying on the floor in front of the letterbox. ATOS wanted me to attend another WCA.

I tried to fill the form in, I really did. I even tracked down the electronic version, but every time I tried to fill it in I felt physically sick and my pain levels soared. I lost nights of sleep, spent days curled up in pain, and ultimately I realised I couldn’t do it. I honestly don’t know what the state of my claim is, it’s fairly obvious DWP have suspended or dropped it (no money going into my account), but I simply can’t bring myself to open the letters from them, or anything that even looks like it might be from them.

I have finally had to realise that those farcical ATOS WCAs, amplified by the disablism that runs rife in the media and taints attitudes on the street, have actually done me some very real damage, and that, like any other traumatized abuse victim, I hesitate to put myself back into the environment where I was abused and where the likelihood is that I will face more abuse. I don’t know where I go from here, even if I submitted a WCA claim today, I would get no money from it, because Time-Limiting of ESA kicked in yesterday, and anyone who claims Contributions Related ESA will lose their benefit after a year, which I have already had. The government accepts that tens of thousands of ESA claimants are genuinely unfit for work, but says it is unreasonable of us not to have adapted to our disabilities after a year and not to have found another job, no matter the rampant disablism of the jobs market, no matter the millions of non-disabled people out of work, no matter the reality that disability is generally for life, and if that attitude isn’t disablist, then what is?

I could still apply for DLA, but HRM isn’t remotely enough to live on, and I would face precisely the same attitudes in its assessment. Worse, it is being replaced by Personal Independent Payments, and the companies shortlisted to run PIP's assessments are a rogues gallery of those with the most dreadful reputations for dealing with people. What exactly is it about a company that spends its time playing prison guard by shoving immigration detainees around the system that qualifies it to assess how disabled I am?

I have been trying to write this article since the New Year, but the fear spilling over from the WCA thing has left me struggling to manage at all. I seem to be climbing out of it, slowly, but it needed the impetus of Blogging Against Disablism Day to let me, force me, to do this, and I still have to find a way to face my WCA demons. No matter our efforts, Disablism is not just alive and well, but thriving.

Postscript 1: Leveson

In grim irony, Blogging Against Disablism Day has seen Katharine Quarmby, author of the stunning and sickening expose of disability hate crime ‘Scapegoat, Why We Are Failing Disabled People', writing in the Huffington Post to say that the Leveson Inquiry into Standards in the Media has refused to call either her or any of the disability organisations who have submitted written evidence. Apparently the systematic demonization of disabled people by the British media is not considered important enough to justify Lord Leveson taking an interest.

Postscript 2: The Grim Truth

Also released today was a survey commissioned by the MS Society. Its conclusions were:
1 Briton in 4 thinks disabled people should expect to be discriminated against
1 Briton in 4 thinks we exaggerate our disabilities
1 Briton in 4 thinks we are being unreasonable if we expect to go to a bar or a club in a wheelchair

So that’s one Briton in four is openly disablist and proud of it.




Guest post: Disability benefits and the self-made mouth #badd2012

This is a guest post from @indigojo_uk that originally appeared here. It is reproduced here as part of Blogging Against Disablism Day 2012 as it's a write up about a disablist appearing on the radio decrying benefit claimants.


Last Saturday night, there was a debate on the Stephen Nolan show, a late-night phone-in on the BBC station Radio 5 Live, in which the former Apprentice contestant Katie Hopkins, who styles herself “the only candidate to say ‘no’ to Sir Alan” [Alan Sugar of Amstrad, who runs the TV series, The Apprentice], defended the government’s cuts to disability and housing benefits and Lisa “Lisybabe” Egan and one of the other callers tried to oppose her. Hopkins is clearly of the opinion that disability benefits are given out to an awful lot of people who aren’t really disabled or don’t deserve them, as shown by this tweet:



Her stance was that people need to rely on their own resources rather than the state as we live in “austere” times, a line that she trotted out again when Lisa reminded her that people had paid National Insurance and that the whole idea of an insurance scheme is that it pays out when things go wrong. As for housing benefit, she said she did not see why the state should pay for people to live in the south-east, without apparently realising that the majority of housing benefit recipients are actually in work. She also posted this rant about child benefits on her blog, claiming (without the slightest evidence, of course) that “for so many of our poorer families in this country the child does not benefit at all – but rather the overweight mother guzzling McDonalds with her large brown Primark bag bulging at her feet”. You can listen to the show here for the next week. (For non-British readers: a Primark bag does not signify affluence.)

The issue of housing benefit is not the main concern here, except to state that the majority of recipients are in fact in work, and much of it pays for the shortage of affordable housing stock, the political decision to sell off council houses, and the runaway house price inflation caused by the credit boom which ended in 2008. Disability benefits are a burden society has always had in one form or another, because there have always been people whose physical or mental condition, whether temporary or permanent, either does not allow them to work, or makes them a less attractive proposition to employers for one reason or another. There are two separate categories of disability benefit: the Disability Living Allowance, which covers the cost of being disabled (such as for care and mobility aids) and is paid regardless of whether the recipient is working — indeed, it may help them remain in work — and the former Incapacity Benefit, which supported people who were unable to work, whether due to illness or a complication of their disability. Many of those who currently receive DLA would previously have been institutionalised, a practice which ended because the public realised that there were rampant abuses, the care was often impersonal, taking no account of people’s needs and abilities, and there was little dignity or privacy in many of them, besides the fact that the vast majority of people do not need to be housed apart from their families and the community. They were paid for out of state expense as well, and the land they stood on is now in many cases prime real estate and the grand buildings have been demolished or converted into luxury flats, so a return to that is going to be extremely expensive as well as unsatisfactory for all concerned.

Hopkins introduced herself by saying that “as a taxpayer” it had become obvious to her that people could live where they choose, have as many children as they choose, and smoke if they choose and have the state pay for the consequences of that, and that benefits should be a privilege and that people should “look to themselves” rather than the state to provide for them. She also invited the others to come with her on “claimants’ day” to the benefit office to see people collecting their benefits in their pyjamas. (I was on Job Seekers’ Allowance for two years and I almost never saw people in the Job Centre in their pyjamas.) Lisa asked her if, in the event of her getting cancer or having an accident, she would try to use the national insurance contributions she had paid, and Hopkins replied no, that she had savings that would provide for her family in such circumstances, money she had made by “grafting” and getting up at 5:30am every morning to provide for her family. Further enquiries reveal that Hopkins has epilepsy, and if she expects everyone to rely on themselves rather than the state, she should explain whether she has used the NHS to provide either the medication or the care she needs such as consultations to decide which medications to take and so on, and hospitalisation in the event of a severe seizure. In any case, she is not the only one who gets up at that time or earlier, and the majority of us do not make a lot of money because our jobs do not pay us that much. Hopkins got lucky; she does not mention on her website that she invented anything or has actually run a business doing anything other than selling advice to other businesspeople and public speaking. She is, in other words, a professional mouth, someone with opinions who gets paid for them.

When Egan asked her if she really was so cruel as to insist that people with cancer not receive help from the state, she fell back on her claim that the benefit system was too generous. She claimed that the people she “accosts” in their pyjamas get “home allowance” of up to £400, job seekers’ allowance, disability allowance “although they’ve managed to walk very well to the job centre”, and that it makes it not worth your while to work part-time. In fact, having been on JSA, the last time I received it, it was about £65 per week, which is about a day and a half’s average pay and just enough to buy the bare essentials for a week with. The reason it is “not worth your while to work” is because the money is deducted from your allowance and the allowance is stopped if you have two days’ work that week, even if it is a one-off booking through an agency during a slump, so unless you get a permanent job or a prospect of a lot of casual work, accepting a work booking could well leave you worse off. This is simply a consequence of the version of means testing that is used for JSA, and it is one of a number of circumstances in which means testing is a proven disincentive to work.

Nobody really confronted Hopkins with why some benefits need to be paid, and disability benefits in particular. We either pay for people with disabilities to live at home, and for the necessary adaptations and home care arrangements, or we pay for them to live in a care facility, when the land is bought, and they’re built, and all the cooks, cleaners, nurses, managers and others are hired, at huge expense — there is no third option, unless you count leaving them to die or leaving them to beg on the streets. Some people with disabilities can work, and others can if they are provided with some assistance, or if people help them to find a niche they can cope with working in, or helps them through (or past) the interview process, and the benefits made to these people may be more than recouped in the taxes they pay because they are then able to work. Others cannot, either because they do not have the intellectual capacity, or because their physical limitations make it impractical, or because their health complications or mental health problems mean they will not be able to work reliably, or because prejudice or inconvenience means people will not hire them. Of course, some people with disabilities are very wealthy and can afford to pay for care themselves, and some can run their own business, but this is not the majority and the costs of being disabled or of having a long-term medical condition add considerably to the cost of living, which is why we have a health service and a welfare system.

Hopkins clearly does not know much about what she is talking about here, only that she doesn’t want to pay to finance anyone else’s lifestyle. She promotes herself as some sort of “self-made”, self-employed person who “tells it like it is” as a social commentator and public speaker (reinforcing her “tough” image by boasting that she went to the Sandhurst military officers’ academy), but on this evidence that seems to consist of making bigoted and ill-informed comments that might go down well with all the well-paid drunks at a corporate party but do not add much to this discussion. There is a lot of talk about scroungers in pyjamas claiming benefits that were enough to live on comfortably without working, yet no solution has been given as to how to get the idlers off benefits without impoverishing people who are in real need and are unable to work; the government did not come up with one and neither has she. Yet again, British talk radio allows a serious and important debate to descend into a slanging match by giving undue prominence to an opinionated but uninformed guest — at the expense of the licence fee payer!

Image source: The Sun.

Monday, 23 April 2012

Across the pond

We all know that DLA and social care cuts are going to result in more disabled people being institutionalised. When the money to fund independent living is taken away you have no choice but to acquiesce to being banged up. Tonight's Panorama is one of many recent examples of how horrific institutionalisation is. Remember Winterbourne View?

Over here disabled people have almost no support from the mainstream in fighting the cuts that will ultimately result in more people being incarcerated in these places. The media campaign decrying all disabled people as faking scroungers being so pervasive; people are even less likely to stand alongside us than they ever were.

Not so in America.

Today ER star Noah Wyle has been arrested at a disability rights protest in DC organised by ADAPT. They're fighting the proposed cuts to Medicaid; the scheme that funds independent living over there.

Noah Wyle being led away by police with his hands cuffed

Photo tweeted by @NationalADAPT


Wyle is the second ER star to be arrested for protesting in recent weeks. Last month George Clooney was arrested protesting outside the Sudanese embassy in DC. Does anyone have Alex Kingston's number? I ask purely for activism purposes, obviously... *innocent face*

It's both exciting and saddening. Exciting that a Hollywood star is willing to stand up for disabled people's basic right to live outside of an institution. But saddening because you can guarantee that it'd never happen over here.

Edit 24/04/12: Here's a brilliant interview with Wyle in which he explains that: "To institutionalize a disabled American costs four times as much than to give assistance for independent living."

It's the same story here, of course. Disability Rights UK have carried out an impact assessment of the cuts to DLA and found that the costs of cutting the benefit will wipe out any planned savings.

Tuesday, 17 April 2012

Guest post: Personal Independence Payment – The Next Great Welfare Train Crash

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

Banner with 'cuts kill' painted on in red
Brutality combined with incompetence are becoming the hallmark of the current Tory administration and the plans to abolish Disability Living Allowance (DLA) are riddled with both. The Government is driving ahead with their plans to replace DLA with the new Personal Independent Payment (PIP). The aim of this is to strip benefits from a fifth of disabled people.

This will be achieved by using an independent medical assessment as the key part of the decision making process when considering a claim for the new benefit. That assessment will be carried out by a private company.

We already have an effective model of how the new scheme might operate. The Work Capability Assessment (WCA) is a short computer test carried out by French IT firm Atos which is used to determine eligibility for the out of work sickness and disability benefit Employment Support Allowance. For everyone other the Government and Atos themselves, it has been an unmitigated disaster. The constant assessment and re-assessment regime has driven an increasing number of people to take their own lives. A recent Daily Mirror investigation found that 32 people a week die after being declared ‘fit for work’ by Atos. Around 40% of appeals against Atos’ decisions are successful and the appeals system is in meltdown due to the number of cases being brought.

Despite some tampering around the edges due to a recent review of the process, there are no plans to abolish or significantly reform the WCA. This should serve as a stark warning to people facing the new PIP testing regime. The Government are happy with Atos the way things are. Lots of people are losing their benefits. That was always all they wanted.

The stated agenda of PIP is to remove benefits from 20% of disabled people. All other mealy mouthed attempts at reform are secondary to this. It will be down to the private sector to carry out this cull. In many ways the PIP process will be identical to the WCA. It may yet even be Atos who carry out the assessments.

This will not only prove traumatic for the people forced to undergo demeaning health tests, but will bring devastating social costs. The Government’s plan that “entitlement will depend on the person’s circumstances and the impact of their health condition or disability on their everyday lives” is vague and open to all kinds of interpretation.

How it will be measured in practice is anyone’s guess. Given it’s the private sector who will be carrying out the bulk of the work the answer is likely to be the cheapest way possible. It will be difficult to imagine how, for example, being in full time work can be ignored by any assessment. Under the WCA claimants who have admitted to watching Eastenders have had it used against them as evidence of being ‘fit to work’. It is therefore very likely that having a job will come to be seen as a disqualifying criteria for claiming PIP, if not formally but as a reality of people’s experiences. This may not be the Government’s intention, but in practice it seems unavoidable.

Atos, as well as human rights abusers G4s and private sector sharks Serco, are some of the companies believed to be bidding for the PIP contract. They should be warned it is a thoroughly poisoned chalice. Atos have already seen their reputation destroyed by the WCA, with the name of their company becoming a dirty word. This will seem trivial should they take on the PIP Assessments.

DLA is a non means tested benefit designed to help people meet the additional costs of disability or ill health. In many ways it should be seen as an adjunct to the NHS rather than a benefit comparable to those paid to people unable to work. DLA is used for things like additional transportation costs, specialist equipment or personal care. For many working disabled people these things are essential to help them remain in work. As Disability Rights UK have recently pointed out (PDF), the removal of DLA from over half a million people may drive many into unemployment.

People currently claiming DLA include doctors, lawyers, journalists and MPs. Whilst those claiming out of work benefits are by their very nature economically disempowered (in that they don’t have jobs and are forced into the poverty of the benefits system) many DLA claimants are highly skilled professionals. We could face the unedifying spectacle of Doctors having their health and disability needs assessed by the two bit NHS rejects at Atos. Disabled legal professionals may yet be forced into the appeals system and are likely to prove ferocious. Any company which takes on the PIP contract will face unprecedented resistance at grass roots level, from people in some cases far more qualified than their own assessors. It will be doctors, lawyers and journalists lining up alongside benefit claimants to take action against the companies concerned.

Imagine becoming public enemy number for not just the three million plus DLA claimants, but their friends, families and carers. People with many more skills and resources to fight than those on out of work benefits. Every mistake, appeal or careless remark by an assessor will be scrutinised. Assessment centres and other business sites could find themselves thronged with disabled protesters. An avalanche of legal challenges seems almost inevitable.

It is possible that on the ground a two tier process will develop. Disabled doctors and lawyers may be informally waved through the process in the hope they won’t make too much fuss. Can we honestly believe that David Blunkett or a Paralympian Gold Medal winner will face the same kind of scrutiny as an out of work disabled single mum living on a Council Estate?

The alternative is that the PIP assessment will become an unofficial ‘means test’. Those in work, or able to lead more active lives, may find themselves punished as any sign of independence is used against them. However the upcoming farce plays out it will prove catastrophic not just for disabled people themselves but for the wider credibility of the system.

As we have seen under the WCA regime, there will be more suicides, more appeals and more people having conditions made worse by the stress of endless testing. The Government says that only in very few cases will PIP be awarded for life. This will mean for example, that people who may have lost a limb will be forced back to continual re-assessments, presumably to check it hasn’t sneakily grown back.

Despite lurid headlines DLA is not an easy benefit to qualify for. A wealth of medical information is required, from GPs, consultants and other health professionals. As with the WCA, this is likely to become secondary to the short assessments carried out by private companies. As more disabled people are forced into poverty it will be down to Local Authorities and the NHS to pick up the slack. Just like so much of this Government’s Welfare Reform, it may yet cost more money to go down this road than simply leaving things as they are.

The Government are currently consulting on the changes and you can make your feelings heard here. If past consultations are anything to go by then don’t expect them to listen. The over privileged tory toffs have made their intentions well and truly clear. Don’t think that this scum will shed any tears for those driven into poverty or even suicide by these changes. As Maria Miller, the Minister for Disabled People has already said, the cost of disabled people is simply ‘unsustainable’. That tells us everything we need to know about this Government’s attitudes towards sickness and disability.

Join the growing protests against Welfare Reform including action called in Central London by Disabled People Against Cuts on the 18th April (tomorrow!).

Friday, 13 April 2012

PIP Survey - Can you Help?

The wonderful Sam Barnett-Cormack and wearespartacus.org.uk have designed this survey to help them put together an official Spartacus response to the PIP consultation.

We'd be REALLY grateful if you could spare a few minutes to take part. The more people that reply, the more reliable the results will be.

We don't feel that we should speak for you - but would love to base our response on what YOU think and need.

Thank you so much.

SURVEY

Tuesday, 10 April 2012

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.

Thursday, 5 April 2012

32 deaths a week.

I haven't been able to write here for a while. After the Welfare Reform Bill came into law it has all felt a bit pointless. I felt helpless, that all was lost.

Whether or not that is the case remains to be seen, but I've been prompted back into action after seeing this story: 32 die a week after failing test for new incapacity benefit.

32 people every week.
We've used the Freedom of Information Act to discover that, between January and August last year, 1,100 claimants died after they were put in the "work-related activity group".

This group - which accounted for 21% of all claimants at the last count - get a lower rate of benefit for one year and are expected to go out and find work. [...]

We don't know how many people died after being found "fit to work", the third group, as that information was "not available".

But we have also found that 1,600 people died before their assessment had been completed.
Go and read the whole thing, and kick up a fuss, put this to the top of everybody's agenda. It can't go on.

Tell Me Lies, Tell Me Sweet Little Lies #esa #wrb #nogobritain

It all sounded such a positive idea; reform Incapacity Benefit by introducing Employment Support Allowance to ensure those who are too sick or disabled to ever work receive life long financial support, those who could do some work with the right support get that support, and those who've been 'gaming' the system get kicked off the benefit. What's not to like about that? Those in need of protection get it, those in need of support to work receive it and the 'drains on society' drain jobseekers allowance instead of sickness benefit so hard working tax payers can rest easy knowing their money is going to the right place. It's such a lovely idea that its impossible to argue against. It's why welfare campaigners have had such an uphill struggle to explain to the public that the "I don't mean people like you" they always exclude from benefit scrounging justifications are actually almost all "people like me" and not the amorphous drain on society type that everyone knows exists...until you actually ask them to name just one person they know and head scratching ensues.

Support for the genuinely sick or disabled is so entrenched in British thinking that it doesn't get questioned until people are in that position themselves and discover that at the time they are most vulnerable those nice little bungalows and free cars they thought would be there to enablee the practicalities of life never really existed. It's why slashing welfare can be done on the premise that it won't affect 'people like me', because until you don't know any better you'd assume people like me are getting all they need to support their ill health or disability.

We've had 18 years of laws the government insist make Britain accessible to disabled people, laws now being used to justify removing financial benefits designed to help us pay for those access needs. Laws which have seen great progress but that are so poorly enforced that a Baroness found herself needing to crawl off a train dragging her wheelchair and a famous yachtsman told he could not travel on a train because "those things will damage the floors".

Against that background of promises to always protect the most vulnerable its proved impossible to explain to the public that the welfare cuts are disproportionately falling upon sick and disabled people. Impossible to demonstrate that this was in fact a giant exercise in simply redefining what to be sick or disabled means, whilst the media floundered around struggling to understand the different names of benefits, what they are for, let alone what losing that support might mean. As campaigners, we always knew what that would mean was being unable to alert the public to the long term human consequences of this until after the changes became law and enough time had passed to collect evidence of what happens to people.

That evidence is still at best patchy, and will gradually emerge over the next 18 months as the tribunal service struggle to process soaring number of appeals against denial of benefit. It will continue to be obscured by the confusion between responsibility caused by outsourcing the medical testing part of the system to a private company not known for their competency, leaving the final decision with an administrative employee of the Department of Work and Pensions and the appeals process by another arm of the civil service. A private company who have failed to provide adequate access to examination centres, failed to inject any humanity into their working processes, frequently failed to acheive the required standards for those working processes but been astonishingly successful in obscuring the true heart of this problem, the deliberate redefinition of sickness and disability designed by the Department of Work and Pensions.

Because, really that's the key to this issue. And slowly, but surely now the evidence will start to emerge that these cuts are very much targeted upon 'people like me', people like the mum with a fractured spine who's lost her adapted mobility car, the mum who used to be a nurse, but now recovering from breast cancer complicated by severe osteoporosis declared fit for work, or the 1100 people who died last year after being found fit for some work and put in the Work Related Activity Group. That's the same group of people now receiving letters to inform them the benefit they believed they'd paid for all their working lives is now being time limited retrospectively if their partner earns more than £7500 a year. These ARE people like me, and when life brings the events we all most instinctively fear they will also be people like you.

So as the government continue to tell their sweet little lies, remember that one day "people like you" will become "people like me", the people you so wanted to believe were somehow so different from you they could be excised from conscience with clever words and promises to protect.

Monday, 2 April 2012

♫...Let me take you by the hand and lead you through the streets of London; I'll show you something to make you change your mind. ...♫

Visit any American city and it's unlikely you'll get to the end of your first day before you've seen a rough-sleeping wheelchair user. Most seem to sleep in that awkward contorted position usually reserved for trying to sleep on a plane, though I have seen people try and achieve some semblance of horizontalness by laying with their head and upper torso on their chair seat and their butt and legs on a bench or low wall. That's the wheelchair users that haven't had their legs blown off in service of their country, of course. I'm assuming that if you laid down on the floor to sleep in a doorway that your essential mobility aid wouldn't still be next to you in the morning.

The first time I went to America it really shocked me. I'd never seen a wheelchair user sleeping rough in the UK. My parents explained that it's because our health service and welfare state were less brutal than there and we don't tend to leave wheelchair users destitute. I was 11 when I went on that trip and the only thing I'd known was Thatcherism: She was elected as PM 13 days before I was born and in October 1990 when I left this island for the first time she was still a month short of handing the reins over to Major.

Our system has always failed people with mental health and substance abuse problems and they make up a significant proportion of our rough sleepers. Wheelchair users aren't immune from ending up without a home to call their own - especially down to the fact that accessible housing is in such short supply - but we tend to end up as hidden homeless rather than living on the streets.

For 21 years since that first trip to America it remained the case that I never saw a wheelchair user sleeping rough in Britain.

As more and more applications for disability benefits are turned down disabled people are finding it increasingly hard to make ends meet. Things will get worse in the near future when people in WRAG claiming cESA start to lose their income, and yet worse still in little over a year when half a million genuinely disabled people lose their DLA.

The fact that cuts are already starting to bite can be seen on the streets of London: Over the last few months I've seen 3 different wheelchair users hunkering down for the night on the streets of my city.

Welcome to compassionate Conservatism: Even more brutal than Thatcher.

Friday, 23 March 2012

Budget 2012: the disabled marginalised yet again, with worse to come?

Yesterday's budget contained a kick in the teeth for disabled people, quickly followed by a punch in the face.

The Chancellor's retreat on child benefit, moving the threshold for ineligibility from those earning over £43,000 to those earning over £60,000, was a bare-faced example of the Government looking after its own voters. When the planned benefit cut was announced last year there were howls of outrage amongst higher rate earners, and the Tories, mindful an election has to be fought in perhaps two years time, decided to try and save their own skins.

How is this relevant to disabled people?

When the recent Welfare reform Bill passed through the House of Lords, three defeats were enacted on the Government as the Lords chose to make changes that they believed would safe-guard some of the most sick and disabled in the country. One of those changes was to extend the length of time that people on contributory-based Employment Support Allowance could claim the benefit. The Government proposed that those people place in the Working Capability Group of ESA (so claimants who are too ill to work but should be able to in the future) could only claim the benefit for a year. The Lords voted to extend this to two years to ensure that people had enough time to get better before being forced into work. Macmillan cancer support for example argued that annually 7.000 cancer patients, routinely placed in the Working group of ESA, take longer than 12 months to recover.

Although the Lords followed due democratic process to enact these changes, they have not come into force. The Government used 'financial privilege' to block these amendments. In short, MPs cried "Sorry, no money!" and did so in a way that has seen no precedent.

But suddenly come budget day, the Government discovered a stash of cash to save the child benefit of higher rate tax-payers, those who are doing ok in life, and yet still no money to extend ESA for those who are too sick to work through no fault of their own. More worryingly for democracy, the Government places greater value on the opinion of its voters then on the democratic process of a Bill being passed into law.

The second fear hidden in the budget was Osborne's casual mention that Ian Duncan Smith would have to find a further £10 billion of welfare cuts on top of the £18 billion already slashed from these bills. The biggest slice of welfare is spent on old age - with today's vicious headlines about a granny tax I can't see the Government making any further cuts to pensioners. Child benefit cuts now seem completely off the table, a decision that Ian Duncan Smith may come to resent Osborne for as he frantically tries to cut £10 billion.

So where can more cuts be found? Housing benefit perhaps, childcare credits even, but a clear forerunner would be disability benefits. Disability Living Allowance is already scheduled to be scrapped next year, and replaced by Personal Independence Payments (PIP). In the Government's last spending review it arbitrarily decided to cut recipients of PIP by 20%, before it had even decided the criteria for eligibility or assessed the needs of a single disabled person.

What's the betting that in the next spending review the Government decides to save 25% or even 30% from the PIP bill? I, for one, am very worried.

As first published on nhsbuff

Monday, 19 March 2012

The Government’s disability strategy out of touch with the reality of cuts

Earlier this month the Government ended its consultation period asking disabled people to help develop its disability strategy. Maria Miller, minister for disabled people, has said that: “The Government is committed to enabling disabled people to fulfil their potential and have the opportunity to play a full role in their community”. But in reality it is clear that the Government lacks any cohesive policy that will enable this to happen.

In the last three years 31 people have died while awaiting appeals against Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) medicals that had found them fit to work. At their most vulnerable, the sick and disabled were left worrying to the day they died about how they and their family would cope financially while their illness was slowly killing them. Society should be in uproar that people in dire need turned to the state for help and were failed by it, but instead media and Government debate focuses on disabled ‘scroungers’, further isolating the disabled from their communities.

Yet while it could be argued in the case of ESA that Government incompetence is forcing disabled people into hardship, the same cannot be said for Personal Independence Payments (PIP), the new benefit that is replacing Disability Living Allowance (DLA). Under PIP eligibility rules, even if you cannot walk more than 50 metres and need a wheelchair to get about for any longer distances, a disabled person still won’t be eligible for higher rate mobility – which in short means they will most likely lose access to a car through the motability scheme and the freedom such a vehicle gives them that their body cannot.

By cold-hearted design, these ‘independence payments’ will in fact take independence away from severely disabled people and force them to remain in their homes. No wonder Lady Grey-Thompson, speaking to the Guardian last month, said: “I worry that it is going to become the way it was when I was young where you just didn’t see disabled people on the street because they were locked away.”

These aren’t the only cuts aimed at disabled people. The Department of Work and Pensions’ own analysis into the housing benefit reforms states that 450,000 disabled people will face cuts to their allowance under new rules. 78,000 disabled people who use legal aid to appeal against decisions to deny them benefit will lose this support under Ken Clarke’s reforms. The Independent Living Fund (ILF) has been entirely closed to new claimants and by 2015 payments to the 21,000 severely disabled people it helps will cease. Tax credits to help with the extra costs of raising a disabled child will be cut from a maximum of £54 a week to £27 a week under Ian Duncan Smith’s Universal Credit changes – cuts that the Children’s Society says will see some families with disabled offspring £1,400 worse off a year. According to a Government Select Committee on Health, nearly two thirds of local authorities in England have reduced their disabled and adult social care budgets. As such councils have drastically altered their criteria for providing care to disabled adults, leaving many people unable to wash and dress themselves properly isolated in their own filth as they are not disabled enough to qualify for care.

These cuts will severely curtail disabled people’s ability to “fulfil their potential”. PIP will actually remove independence from disabled people, the scrapping of ILF will see disabled people condemned to care homes, decisions to limit ESA to one year, leaving 7000 cancer patients without any financial support while they are still too unwell to work, will only help in moving disabled people into poverty, not into the workplace. Cuts to legal aid will take away their voice, housing benefit remove them from often supportive communities and homes that are specially adapted for their needs. Harsh reductions in social care budgets will see people stuck in hospital for longer periods of time as they cannot be discharged into communities because they lack provision for their basic care. Disabled people were already twice as likely to be living in poverty than others before these cuts were imposed: no wonder disabled people up and down the country are scared stiff of these ‘reforms’.

The Government’s consultation document, entitled ‘Fulfilling potential’, makes specific mention of “tackling discrimination” towards disabled people and “promoting positive attitudes”. Yet charities have directly linked a rise in disabled abuse with the increasing rhetoric from Government ministers that disabled people are scrounging off society.

So bad has the Government’s attitude become that disability groups are now questioning whether they can continue to work with it on shaping further welfare reforms.

By the end of this parliament, if all these cuts are implemented, far from disabled people fulfilling their potential, the Coalition would instead have successfully reversed twenty years of advances made in helping the disabled play a valued and active part in society. Shame on all MPs if that is their intention. And if it isn’t, then the Government must wake up to the impact of these cuts, ban negative ministerial rhetoric linking the disabled with ‘scroungers’ and honour its supposed desire to develop policies that give back respect and support to some of the most vulnerable people in society.

Previously published on the blog nhsbuff (apologies for the slow cross posting - illness took my eye off the ball)

Sunday, 18 March 2012

Happy Mother's Day


"Another Brown Envelope arrived today. It's clearly marked from the Department. My neighbours might have seen, but I think I got it in time. It told me I cost too much. They're stopping my money next month. I am a Useless Eater. What will become of me?

They "assessed" me. Forced me to strip, made me touch my toes. It hurt, pain ripping through me. He never looked at me, said the pain didn't matter. He asked if I ever watched the TV. I didn't know how to answer? Was this a new trick? There have been so many. I nodded. He spat the question again "Answer me please". I said I did. The room was small, airless, cameras watched from every angle, moving as I tried to move. Grills at the windows. Grills at the doors. One time, I had to climb a flight of stairs. When I couldn't they stopped my money.

That brown envelope said I could work. They have work programmes now. We work for free, they make us. I don't know when it will end - perhaps it won't You can see my ribs, count them as I bend to reach the lowest shelves. I ate on Monday. Or was it Tuesday? I forget. The Minister said work frees us.

The letters. The endless brown envelopes, The logo makes my heart beat faster. I feel sick, terrified to open each one. The lawyers write to me, the advisers, the courts, the Department, the Providers. I don't understand them all but they never stop, they keep writing until you give up, until you are too worn down.

I saw a paper today. I didn't mean to. There, on the front page, the Department caught someone like me Outside. What was she thinking? Fool. She must have got the new directive? She must know we are not welcome Outside now? Perhaps she stopped opening the Brown Envelopes. I tried that once, but they sent someone to my house. Said I'd get no money at all for 2 weeks. The food ran out after 4 days. I always open the Brown Envelopes now. Eventually.

The paper called us cheats again. Scroungers, shirkers, we are "mugging the state". Every day, there on the front page. They print a telephone number. They get people to call it if they suspect a Useless Eater. Neighbours must report us now. The Department can follow you, take pictures, go through your bins. Check your bank accounts.

They say we're getting ID cards now. They'll list our defects. We must produce them if anyone asks. If a snarling, sneering bulldog of a man attacks me in the street, I must show him my card. The Department said it would make them stop, but sometimes it just makes the beating worse. Sometimes more join in when they see my Useless Eater ID. Another reason not to risk Outside.

I used to use a wheelchair, but it broke and the Department said I couldn't have another. Just as well I suppose. It makes things Outside worse. They said we couldn't afford it. I have to use nappies if I can't get to the toilet now, now one comes to help me get there any more. I live in one room now, use the walls and furniture to get about. It's easier, and saves on heating. The pills are in the drawer. I pretended to take them, but saved them up. The woman who came to change my bed and give me a bath used to make sure I took them, but she doesn't come any more. The Department say I don't need to wash below my waist. I've got lots of pills now. I think I've got enough.

The Department say I have to move. Well, I only use one room now anyway. There aren't many places Useless Eaters like me can go these days. Just the area beyond the river, on the edge of town, where it's cheaper. There are lots of us there. You can tell, because the curtains stay drawn. There is no bus. Another Department stopped them. It's far from the hospital now they've closed the one I used to go to. They stopped my drugs too, but it's OK, because I've got mine, safe in the drawer. They said it wouldn't apply to us, but it does.

I wonder where it will all end? I can't possibly imagine. Can't imagine things getting worse than they are now. I heard that some tried to protest, took to the streets! Outside! All around the world, they say! The police sprayed gas in their faces, hurled them back withwater cannon. Closed their internet sites down so they couldn't tell anyone. Arrested some. One got dragged backwards, tipped out of his wheelchair . I suppose that's why no-one really knows what is happening to us. I suppose they couldn't do all this if they did? Could they?

Where will it end? Will it end?

Monday, 12 March 2012

Workfare: Privacy? What Right to Privacy?

One of the comments on my piece on Workfare, the DWP and Duty of Care raised a further alarming prospect, that DWP believe their right to impose Workfare takes precedence over a disabled person's legal right to privacy regarding their medical records.

The comment pointed out that a FOI request at the 'What do they Know' site contains the following statement by DWP:

Section 3 of the Social Security Act 1998 allows DWP to reuse personal information relating to social security and employment and training for another social security function. This includes reuse by persons providing services to DWP, such as Work Programme providers, where acting as the DWP's data processor.

In addition,
in order to carry out their functions under the Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme, the Work Programme provider may need additional personal information from the claimant. If the claimant does not wish to provide this information it may be the case that, with the provider, they can investigate ways in which they can still participate in the Scheme,  without the additional information being provided.

However, there may
come a point when the Work Programme provider becomes concerned that the claimant’s withholding of information potentially amounts to non-participation in the Scheme. If this is the case, they will refer the matter to a decision maker who will consider all the facts of the case, including any good cause issues the claimant wishes to raise, and determine whether the claimant has failed to participate. If the decision maker considers that the claimant has failed to participate, their benefit will be sanctioned.


Now the first paragraph is disturbing enough, but clearly falls within the legal powers granted to DWP, however the second and third paragraphs are particularly troubling, both in general and specifically for disabled people, as they seem to show the DWP taking the position that they can insist that any information they feel relevant is provided under threat of sanction, even where that insistence is counter to a disabled person's rights under the Equality and Data Protection Acts..


A disabled person when considering an employment position is forced into the iniquitous position of having to decide whether or not to reveal their disability. Declare your disability and you have the protection of the Equality Act when requesting a reasonable adjustment, but declaring your disability also opens you to the threat of discrimination. Equally there may be considerable privacy issues wrapped up in information that could be relevant to Duty of Care issues, as examples mental health issues, continence and epilepsy all draw considerable negative opinions, if not outright discrimination, in contemporary society.

When we face a new job, disabled people face a whole additional set of decisions over and above non-disabled people: do we declare, if we do declare, then how much of the extent of our disability do we declare, and how widely do we allow that knowledge to be spread. The Equality Act and the Disability Discrimination Act before it provide specific protections for disabled people, we cannot be penalised for not declaring (though we have to declare to make the reasonable adjustment provisions enforceable) and we can insist that the details of our disability are not spread to people other than those we declare to. So for instance, I could declare my disability to HR, but insist that my line managers are told nothing more than that I am disabled and can legally request reasonable adjustments. If those provisions are breached. particularly in instances where that data is passed to other organisations entirely, then I can bring legal action against my employer for violations of both the Equality Act and the Data Protection Act.

The DWP statement above appears to attempt to subvert those rights, by stating that they can insist that information is provided to the Workfare provider, no matter that the Equality Act gives disabled people a right in law to insist that it is not, no matter that the Workfare provider is not an employer in any normal sense. Given the overwhelming disablism in recruitment decisions that disabled people face, forcing people to reveal details of their disabilities is actually going to undermine any chance of them getting a job out of the mandated assignment, the overwhelming advice from recruitment consultants is not to reveal disability until you have the written offer of a full time job in your hand. So DWP are actually shooting the whole point of the exercise in the foot by forcing declaration of disability. Worse than this, however, is the way it tramples over the right of disabled people to maintain privacy around the details of their disability. If I am being forced against my will into some utterly inappropriate position,  with an utterly inappropriate company, a company whose data protection measures I have no confidence in and with whom I have no hope of a job at the end of it (and we've seen plenty of those reportedly involved with Workfare), then there is no way that I am willing to provide them with the full details of my disability, and I will be far from the only disabled person to feel that way. It will particularly be a problem for people with Mental Health issues, who are likely to be particularly frightened of being forced to declare details of their disability, and where there is already considerable evidence of them being deliberately targeted as 'an easy mark' for sanctions by JCP staff.

Workfare alone is bad enough, but to combine it with an contempt for the right to privacy of the people with most to lose from privacy and data protection violations, and to do so in apparent contempt for the protections granted by the Equality Act and the Data Protection Act, suggests that this is just one more piece of evidence that DWP consider themselves above such menial issues as the law, particularly laws relating to equality and discrimination.

Friday, 9 March 2012

Workfare: DWP Don't Care....

A recent Freedom of Information request seems to raise huge concerns over whether the Department of Work and Pensions accept that they have a legal Duty of Care with respect to benefit claimants forced onto mandatory Workfare placements. With DWP intent on implementing new policies which will see disabled people in the ESA WRAG being forced onto indefinite mandatory Workfare placements under threat of sanctions, never mind all of the complexity, risk and privacy concerns that disability adds to the existing Workfare farrago, this is obviously hugely concerning.

The DWP have apparently stated "If however, a work placement is considered appropriate then the responsibilities of the individual, the provider and the organisation accepting the placement must be discussed and made clear (including liability)." and pointed their respondent at the generic guidelines for workfare, which state "All participants involved in any way with DWP Provision are entitled to train and work in a healthy and safe environment with due regard to their welfare. Under Health and Safety Law they are regarded as your employees, whether they are paid by you or not. You must, therefore, comply with your Duty of Care under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Act’s associated regulations in the same way as you would do for any other member of your workforce"

This may seem quite responsible on the surface, however the implications are anything but. The Workfare situation is an unusual one, in which people are being forced to work by (or is it 'for'?) a government agency, the DWP, at a private contractors, while the DWP pay them benefits - which of course amounts to people being forced, under threat of having their benefits stopped entirely for anything up to three years, to work for less than the national minimum wage. Under normal circumstances the person paying your wages would be considered your employer, no matter where you were working. So if I work for Company A, but they send me to work at Company B, then both Company A and Company B would have a Duty of Care towards me, Company A because I am their employee and they have a legal responsibility to ensure that I am not exposed to unnecessary risk wherever I am, and Company B because they have a similar responsibility towards anyone on their premises. Yet DWP seem to be denying that they have the Duty of Care towards me that would normally descend from me being their employee. They also seem to be insisting on a process which would require the disabled person to fully reveal details of their disability to a company they are being forced to work for, in order to allow a risk assessment, no matter the privacy concerns of forcing someone to reveal full details of disability to an organisation for whom they not an employee.

This would be worrying enough for anyone in any circumstances, but for a disabled person dealing with the DWP it is a recipe ripe for disaster. The Workfare process involves someone, either from Job Centre Plus or one of their providers, such as the much castigated A4e (facing two more probes for fraud just this week), deciding that the benefit claimant would be helped by a work placement - or at least that is the spin on it, there is a considerable body of evidence pointing at JCP and contractors like A4e being very heavily target-driven, with JCP employees under massive pressure from management to hit targets such as number of people sanctioned per week, which whistleblowers have revealed means they are driven to target people with intellectual and mental disabilities as 'easy marks'. Now extend that pattern of behaviour to Workfare, and we will undoubtedly see large numbers of disabled people being forced onto Workfare not because it is in their interest, or appropriate for their disability, but because the JCP employee will be bawled out by their manager if she doesn't mandate another dozen crips before the end of the week, or because the training agency employee will miss a bonus if their figures aren't better than the rest of the office's...

I've dealt with JCP Disability Employment Advisors and training agency employees from the benefit claimant's position, a more clueless bunch of people about disability employment it would be difficult to imagine. The JCP staff persistently pushed the boundaries of what my disability allowed me to do, if I could do something for 10 minutes, they would write down 30, and then persistently try to undermine that at every other meeting. The training agency people (once I'd climbed the rickety outside staircase to their office - god help me if I'd arrived with a wheelchair not crutches....) knew so little about privacy and data protection that they saw nothing wrong in asking me to discuss the intimitate details of my disability while the gentleman sat immediately behind me was discussing his drug problem. Do either of these sound like organisations likely to give the necessary weight to the complexities of disability, or to their Duty of Care - especially if they seem to believe that Duty of Care doesn't apply in the first place?

When I was working I regularly ended up curled up in pain on the office floor because of my inability to sit for extended periods, Duty of Care can potentially be something as basic as recognising that someone cannot even sit at a desk, but how much recognition and understanding are we going to see when showing those may mean a bollocking in the manager's office, or a missed bonus? And if basic physical constraints are so readily targetted for undermining, what chance does someone with complex mental health issues have.

I thought this was scary when it was just the prospect of DEAs or A4e employees mandating disabled people onto indefinite Workfare assignments under threat of sanction, but if they don't even think they have a Duty of Care towards us....

Wednesday, 29 February 2012

Sanctions removed from work experience - but only a small victory

The government today caved in to bad publicity and agreed to remove the possibility of sanctions from those who refuse to take part in the work experience scheme. Those guilty of gross misconduct may still be sanctioned with removal of benefits.

However, a DWP spokesperson confirmed this afternoon that it is only the work experience scheme which is affected by this change. Those on the work programme, which is run by third party providers such as the disgraced A4e, may still face sanctions if they do not cooperate with the programme. As detailed in the previous article on this site, it is mandatory to attend the work programme after a set amount of time receiving Job Seekers Allowance or Employment Support Allowance. The DWP spokesperson pointed out that the work programme provides much more than just work experience placements and referral to the programme does not necessarily mean undertaking work experience.

I also raised the issue of those who are receiving ESA and placed in the work related activity group being referred to the work programme and possibly for work experience. This is problematic since at the current time many people overturn the decision to place them in the WRAG on appeal and appeals can take a year in many cases so that people who are not fit for the work programme, never mind fit for work might be sent for work experience. The spokesperson did point out that people can present evidence and ask for a reconsideration before going for an appeal, although since at least 40% of those who appeal their decision go on to overturn it I do not think this is enough to ensure that everyone on the work programme is physically and mentally up to the task.

As it stands then, the removal of sanctions from the work experience scheme is a minor victory but the danger is that it will convince the public that all is well once more and the anger over people being made to work without pay may cool. Jobseekers and sick people can still be referred to the work programme where companies such as A4e can send people to do unpaid work experience or face loss of benefits. In the case of those who recieve ESA there is no limit to the length of time they may be made to work without pay.

Wednesday, 22 February 2012

Meanwhile in "faker rhetoric fuels abuse" news...

Two tweets and one news article from this morning alone:



Young disabled stay silent over hate crimes - Crime - UK - The Independent including case study of one woman who was grabbed by the hair for having not "looked disabled" in her school days. Which would imply that her attackers presumed that she was faking now.

Saturday, 18 February 2012

Emergency Meeting: Organising Against the Welfare Reform Bill

Via Claire from Winvisible:

Monday 20 Feb 5pm-6.30pm at Tent City University, Occupy London, St Paul’s
London EC4M 8AD
All welcome
Buses 4, 11, 15, 23, 25, 26, 100, 242
Tube: St Paul’s, Central Line
Overground: City Thameslink

This is outdoors, so dress warm. Hot drinks available and accessible loos nearby.
For more info: Global Women’s Strike gws@globalwomenstrike.net
020 7482 2496 , 07904 255 145