Welcome to the Guardian's live blog on the welfare reform bill. This proposed legislation, hailed by the work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, as "the biggest welfare reform since 1945" has entered a crucial period in its passage through Westminster. At issue is a series of often controversial proposals aimed at reducing public spending on a wide range of welfare benefits, from disability living allowance to housing benefit.
Since its publication last year there has been vocal opposition to many aspects of the bill from charities and disability campaigners. But during its passage through the House of Commons there was relatively little political controversy. The Labour party has been circumspect in its opposition, supporting welfare reform and the need to cut the benefits bill in principle.
But in recent weeks political opposition to aspects of the bill has begun to crystalise: in December, a crossbench-led revolt in the House of Lords saw the the government defeated on a proposal to cut housing benefit for social tenants as 13 Lib Dem peers rebelled. The government abandoned unpopular proposals to cut mobility benefit payments to disabled people living in care homes. There was a close vote over proposals to cut children's disability benefit. Ministers have signalled that they may compromise over plans to cap total household benefit payments to £26,000 a year, in response to pressure from peers.
Pressure on ministers over the proposed changes to disability living allowance (DLA) has also increased in the past few days. It emerged the Tory mayor of London Boris Johnson formally opposed the DLA reforms, in defiance of the ministerial line. Labour's shadow work and pensions secretary, Liam Byrne, called reform of DLA a "shambles". And an extraordinary social media campaign against the DLA changes launched by a network of disability activists went viral on Twitter this week under the #spartacusreport hashtag.
We'll be analysing the bill in detail as it goes through a series of critical debates and votes in the House of Lords over the next two weeks: following the political manouvering over the bill; examining the robustness of the data underpinning the legislation and the human consequences of the proposed changes; and hosting debates with policy experts, politicians, service users and benefit recipients, and welfare professionals.
The key areas of the bill are:
• The introduction of Universal Credit, which rolls up a series of existing benefits allowances and tax credits into a single payment.
• The introduction of Personal Independence Payments in place of the current Disability Living Allowance.
• Reducing housing benefit entitlement for social housing tenants whose accommodation is larger than they need (the so-called "under-occupation" clause).
• The uprating of Local Housing Allowance rates by the Consumer Price Index, rather than local rent levels.
• The abolition of the Social Fund, which provides crisis loans to vulnerable people.
• The limiting of the payment of contributory Employment and Support Allowance to a 12-month period.
• A cap on the total amount of benefit that can be claimed by a household to £26,000.
The House of Commons Library has published a detailed briefing on the bill, here and a separate paper on universal credit here. You can read the latest version of bill here, together with explanatory notes here.
The Hansard page charting the progress of the bill is here.
We want you to be active participants part of this live blog: please leave comments and suggestions in the comment thread below, or tweet us at #wrbliveblog @patrickjbutler and @lauraoliver.
The Guardian's social affairs leader writer Tom Clark has published an excellent overview of the critical issues being debated in the Lords over the next fortnight.
In his comment for tomorrow's Society pages the points out that the Lords will consider three important issues tomorrow alone: the time limiting of Employment and Support allowance (ESA); the issue of whether disabled children enter adulthood with little chance of working should qualify automatically for ESA; and the scrapping of the social fund.
He points out that the Lords are the last barrier protecting impoverished and disabled people from the battery of financial blows contained in the bill. On ESA time limiting Tom writes:
Even for those who pass the eye-watering stringent medical test, money will be cut off cold after a year. Only those sick people who have no spouse or a workless one will pass the means-test for continuing cash – if you are married to a full-time shelf-stacker you will be deemed not to require any income at all in your own right.
So far, controversy has centred on cancer victims, but there are all sorts of permanent and degenerative diseases that preclude people from earning a wage. They ought to be able to count on a measure of compensation. They will not be able to rely on that unless the time limit is scrapped.
He concludes:
A century after reactionary Lords vowed to die in the ditch to stop the people's budget, let us hope that their successors prove just as dogged in protecting poor people from attack.
You can read the full piece here.
Proposed changes to the Social Fund are being debated in the Lords tomorrow. This is a special hardship fund which makes community care grants and crisis loans to vulnerable people needing emergency help.
They are designed to help impoverished people who need rapid and unexpected social assistance to help them get back on their feet: a victim of domestic abuse who finds herself with nowhere to live, for example or young people leaving a care home.
The proposed reforms would effectively devolve responsibility for crisis payments to local authorities - but the risk is that the cash would be unringfenced, which councils admit means it might be spent on other things.
Giving councils the freedom to choose how to spend unringfenced money is a key tenet of the Coalition's localist approach - but as we saw with supported housing funding streams last year, councils dealing with overall budget cuts of 28% over three years often give in to temptation.
Local authorities even admitted this in a Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) report published in December:
A number of authorities were concerned that without a ringfence and some level of reporting funding would quickly become amalgamated into existing budgets and as a result its identity, visibility and purpose would be lost. A second concern was that Councillors or Directorate heads would redirect the funding to plug gaps in other budgets. The most common example mentioned was the Social Care budget.
The government argues that the new system will be more personalised and that what is essentially a social care package should not be delivered through the social security system.
But a coalition of charities argued this week that the effects of the social fund reforms would be "catastrophic". The government has suggested councils may wish to give assistance in kind - food and furniture, for example - rather than cash. The Lib Dem peer Lord Kirkwood said this made his "Blood run cold":
"Is it 'take it or leave it', living off the scraps from the supermarket when they clear the shelves at night?"
There's a useful guide to the localisation of the social fund changes here. The DWP page setting out the changes are here.
My colleague Hannah Waldram has been speaking to readers below the line who are directly affected by the changes about what this means for them:
demonwrangler writes:
I have personally experienced cuts of over £120 per month. I have only experienced these because I did work and did contribute for 20 years. Now I am a lone carer for my disabled son and am facing the very real prospect of losing my home as a direct consequence of these cuts. Had I never worked, never contributed and claimed housing benefit then I would not be in this situation. The irony is that when I do lose my home and have t move into rented accommodation I will then be eligible for these benefits which will cost 3 times more.
Barbsx adds how things might change for them:
I am currently awaiting to get hold of a wheelchair - I do not know if this will be provided for me by the NHS or not or if it will be appropriate for my needs - I may need one specially designing - customised - this seems to be the consensus of opinion. [...]
Being as descriptors havnt been finalised I do not know what help I would get under the changes. What I do know is that my middle rate care entitles my partner to carers allowance and he looks after me and helps me with the things I cant do.
If I lose my DLA then my partner loses his carers allowance and if he goes out to work then there is no one to help me with the day to day tasks I need help with or with the emergencies which arise from my health condition.
gherkingirl tells of their experience on income support and how the changes might affect difficulties in maintaining constant work due to physical and mental health conditions.
I want to work. I want to have the independence and pride of earning a wage. I do not want to be constantly watched and interrogated by the DWP. But nothing in the Welfare Reform Bill will help me (or others) achieve that. It actually just entrenches the benefits trap and makes work more difficult (as evidenced by the abolition of Independent Living Fund, removal of Severe Disablement Premium and the eradication of the Social Fund.)
Read the full comment here.
There has also been some debate in comments about the common myths of those relying on benefits. Neko2412 highlights one:
I think what most people fail to realise is that most folk with disabilities want to work. I for one know how miserable it is being sat at home in one room day after day. Being unemployed with a disability is no bag of fun.
If you have any more experiences of how the reforms would affect you please do add them in a comment or tweet using the #wrliveblog hashtag.
Now this is extraordinary. I've just picked up a tweet linking me to the Daily Mail website, which has published a long, impassioned blog post attacking the welfare reform bill.
Twitter seems to think this may be a first from an organ that has a reputation for its dogged and vicious pursuit of "benefit scroungers". The blog is by journalist and regular Mail blogger Sonia Poulton. Here's a flavour:
[David Cameron's] current big idea - the Welfare Reform Bill - may yet prove to be his Margaret Thatcher - Milk Snatcher moment. The point when people will look back and shudder at the sheer callousness of it.
Here's another pasage, about the scrapping of DLA:
Even more savage are those disability cuts that will result in as much as 50 per cent of weekly benefit deducted. When you are receiving little more than seventy pound, as it is, then reducing the income by half is a frightening and shocking amount. People are already dying through lack of food and heat and it will surely only increase. Remind me. We are living in a privileged country in 2011, yes?
It seems Poulton's view is informed in part by the experience of her brother, who suffered from a range of physical ailments. After a lifetime of work and paying in benefits, he found himself pushed from pillar to post in his attempts to get social security support. And Poulton is not happy about it:
Disabled or sick people have more than enough to cope with without having to put out the begging bowl to be helped when they are entitled to be and should not be treated as a leper when they need it.
It is also striking that Poulton has clearly been reading the #Spartacusreport published yesterday by a network of disability campaigners. This report, Responsible Reform, lays bare in persuasive detail what it says are the government's brazen attempts to mislead the public about its plans for DLA reform. We'll be coming back to that campaign and that report in the coming days.
The proposed time limiting of Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) is the other big welfare reform bill issue being debated in the Lords tomorrow.
It sets out two changes, which if passed will be introduced in the Spring, namely:
• A limit to the amount of time that people in the Work Related Activity Group can receive contribution-based ESA to 12 months; and
• Removal of the special contribution criteria that enables young disabled people who reachadulthood with little chance of working to qualify for ESA.
Here my colleague Tom Clark sets out what the changes mean:
What it does: An earnings-replacement benefit for people for whom health problems or disabilities pose a barrier to work. It can be received either because a family has no significant other income, or because an individual who has developed health problems had previously worked and contributed their National Insurance.
Context: The caseload for incapacity-type benefits tripled over the 1980s and 90s, initially because jobless people were shunted on to them to massage the unemployment figures down, but with no active support back into work most of them remained without work even after the economy began to pick up. Over the last decade, however, the overall numbers have started to fall, helped along by more pro-active policies. Initially, the Labour government provided additional support and new financial rewards for working, but over time it got tougher and moved to tighten an already-strict medical test, a controversial change which the coalition has since accelerated, leading to high numbers of rejected applications that ultimately win on appeal.
What the bill does – and why: With a view to saving money and (perhaps) discouraging welfare dependency, the bill time-limits the payments to one year for all new and existing claimants who receive their ESA by dint of having paid National Insurance, as opposed to because the means-test. It also tightens some detailed conditions about who counts as having paid contributions – ending the old assumption in favour of adults who were disabled as children and so never had the chance to pay in.
What critics say: The time limit will effectively cut-off cold anyone with a permanent health condition who is married to someone with even the lowest-paid job. For people with progressive conditions, in particular, developing health problems will be compounded by the fear and the reality of losing money. The already-strained contributory principle, which links National Insurance payments in to the system to benefits paid out and which was recently hailed by Labour's Liam Byrne, will be undermined anew.
That's an extract from Tom's analysis of the wider bill which appears in Wednesday's Guardian. The Lords will vote on three key ESA amendments tomorrow:
• Doubling the ESA time limit to two years
• Exempting patients with cancer from the time limit
• Automatically crediting contributions to those who entered adult life as already disabled, and so have never worked
The DWP page on the ESA changes is here
What happens when you lose employment and support allowance, as many will, come April (if the bill goes through)?
The journalist Mark Sparrow contracted a rare bone disease three years ago and suffered complications during treatment. He has been in receipt of £89 a week ESA ever since. His mobility is now restricted, and some of his mental and motor functions are impaired.
Sparrow has "paid in" to national insurance all his life, but that contribution will count for little in two and a half months time. As he explains:
In April, when the Welfare Reform Bill becomes law, thousands like me - including cancer sufferers, people with psychiatric problems and those with MS - will become a burden and a dead weight on their partners and families as their benefits are summarily stripped from them.
In April, those who have already received 12 months or more of ESA payments will see those payments cease immediately. This move is unusual as it's retrospective. The Government says that claimants will be eligible to apply for Income-related ESA and other means-tested benefits, but if the claimant's partner earns as little as £149 a week, or if they have modest savings, the chances are they won't be eligible to receive a penny.
The consequences of ESA withdrawal - coupled with a proposed cut in disability living allowance - will be dramatic, he writes:
At the age of 50, and with very limited job prospects because of my mobility problems and chronic pain, there is only the mercy of family and loved ones to count on. The satisfaction of being able to contribute to the family budget with a benefit that has been earned and paid for will be removed. The last shred of dignity will be stripped from people who have already lost a great deal in life and who may already feel a burden on those who care for them.
You can read the full length version of Mark's story in Wednesday's Guardian.
Right, that's us finished for Day One of the Guardian's welfare bill live blog.
Today we set out the agenda for the bill over the next fortnight and looked in some detail at two crucial debates going ahead on Wednesday in the House of Lords. We also discovered that the Daily Mail, scourge of the "benefit scrounger" has startled everyone by publishing a corruscating critique of the government's proposed disability living allowance changes.
Thanks to everyone who contributed to the blog today, in the comments section and via Twitter, using the #wrbliveblog hashtag
On Wednesday we'll be following up on the proposals to scrap the Social Fund and reform employment and support allowance. We hope to interview Lord
McKenzie, Labour's work and pensions spokesperson in the Lords about this hopes for the afternoon's votes.
I'll leave you with this quote from the prime minister David Cameron, taken from his speech introducing the welfare reform bill 11 months ago:
I passionately believe that the welfare system should be there to support the needy and most vulnerable in our society and provide security and dignity for those in old age. That's why the system was born, that's what it's always done – and with me, that's the way it will always stay.
Welcome to Day Two of the Welfare Reform bill live blog. There are crucial votes in the House of Lords this afternoon which we'll be keeping an eye on:
• Crossbencher Lord Patel's ammendment increasing the elegibility of period for contributory employment and Support Allowance (ESA) ffrom one year to two. Labour is supporting this ammendment, where much of the focus will be on cancer patients who would lose up to £94 a week in sickness benefit as a result of this proposed change. The Macmillan Cancer charity estimates 7,000 patients could be affected.
• An amendment put down by crossbencher Lord Listowel to ensure those who are disabled at a young age (and therefore have been unable to build up national insurance contributions) will still be able to claim ESA. Labour peers are supporting this.
• Proposals to scrap the Social Fund, which supplies crisis grants to vulnerable people who need emergency help.
We'll be examining the issues in more detail over the day. We also hope to carry an interview with Lord McKenzie, Labour's work and pensions minister later on. We also hope to speak to protesters against the bill outside Westminster, and carry live coverage of the debates.
Please tell us how the proposed changes will affect you: leave a comment below, or tweet to @patrickjbutler, @lauraoliver, @hrwaldran or #wrbliveblog
Comments
Show comments in new window |
Sign in to comment or to join the conversation
10 January 2012 12:37PM
Welfare reform is long overdue
10 January 2012 12:40PM
Here's hoping it makes it through unscathed.
10 January 2012 12:43PM
What does IDS think of Pat's Petition, which calls on the government to Stop and review the cuts to benefits and services which are falling disproportionately on disabled people, their carers and families?
Disabled people, carers and their friends are alarmed at the perfect storm created by all the changes and cuts at the same time. There appears to have been no impact assessment that takes an overview of them all.
How would he reassure disabled people that their needs and concerns are being addressed?
10 January 2012 12:43PM
What would you know? Have you ever had to depend on benefits or are you happy to just parrot hollow rhetoric? The people introducing this bill, who seek to take from those at the bottom of the pile, the disabled, people already disadvantaged and needing the support of society, rely on people like you who are happy to swallow simple propaganda with little thought.
10 January 2012 12:47PM
why are you pursure the most evil piece of welfare legistration that a tory government has ever suggested you as politicians do not realise what you doing to the poor and vulnerable and hope one day should you be un lucky to be unmploymed you get a taste of your evil propsals in realiy to sample how heartless this governemnt really is we are not all beneifit cheats and hope you can all sleep at night
10 January 2012 12:52PM
well i hope you experience the evil reforms yourself and survive the paperwork the argony of being made to wait for a decision and being seen by a so called professional that does not understand you and make a decision on how you survive this world and is just decided to turn you down for the beneifit you are on and you have to go though more misery . i dont have a problem with reform but this this reform go against ids grand idea oof unviersal credit let say call it unversail poverty ..
10 January 2012 12:53PM
You cannot take from someone what was not theirs in the first place.
I have no need for simple propoganda as you call it, I believe that state assistance should be minimal and that income based benefits, as opposed to contributory ones, should be smaller still.
Stop over reacting, it is not as though benefits have been axed altogether, only trimmed.
10 January 2012 12:58PM
Welfare reform is long overdue but it has to be the right welfare reform. We need a much simpler and fairer system. I would suggest cutting the number of benefits from (I think) around 40 to 4, pensions, unemployment, disability and sickness. Unemployment benefit should consist of two categories, one for those that have worked for at least 6 months and those that have not. For the first category they should receive 80% of their working income between a maximum and minimum cash value. This percentage should reduce overtime to push people back into work. For those that have not worked for at least 6 months previously they should get the bare minimum. Enough to house, feed and clothe themselves but nothing more. You could even give them some form of food vouchers. This would massively incentivise work and create a system where the more you pay in the more you get out. The problem with our system at the moment is that if you own your own home and you lose your job you get £50 odd a week dole and nothing else unless you have kids. Very unfair if you've been paying your taxes for years! That would be truly radical reform!
10 January 2012 12:58PM
Hi all, thanks for posting your comments. Obviously a lot to cover in this bill but interested to hear from those directly affected on questions like 'how will the changes affect you?' and 'what would you do differently?'
It would also be great to hear from anyone opposing the bill on their specific reasons (not just the ideological ones). Leave a comment here or tweet @patrickjbutler, myself or @lauraoliver.
10 January 2012 12:58PM
Change may be required but it should be responsible and fair. I have personally experienced cuts of over £120 per month. I have only experienced these because I did work and did contribute for 20 years. Now I am a lone carer for my disabled son and am facing the very real prospect of losing my home as a direct consequence of these cuts. Had I never worked, never contributed and claimed housing benefit then I would not be in this situation. The irony is that when I do lose my home and have t move into rented accommodation I will then be eligible for these benefits which will cost 3 times more.
10 January 2012 1:01PM
Regarding the Changes from DLA to PIP I suggest people read the #spartacus report.
Keyfindings are that 75% of respondents to the governments own consultation thats charities drs etc. were wholly against every single aspect of this change.
Taking it into its parts opposition ranged for each proposed change from 75% to 100%
The government didnt conduct the consultation according to its own rules.
The conclusions of the consultation have been misrepresented that is in plain speak - lied about - throughout parliament.
I wonder how many people know that the proposed descriptors involved for deciding if you are entitled to DLA or not will include things like - if you can wash above the waist only - you are not entitled.
If you can use a wheelchair even if you have one or not ie you may not be able to afford one - you are not entitled.
If you cannot speak but can type/use sign language or any means of communication (im not sure if they take this to the level of blinking) as the term used is 'any other means of communication' - you are not entitled.
The fact that the house of lords has already voted to take support away from disabled children - speaks volumes - no wonder the sick and disabled and their carers are so frightened!!!
10 January 2012 1:02PM
I used to think thaT I paid my taxes so that when people fell on hard times they would be supported. Two years ago, I learnt the hard way that people in genuine need may struggle to access benefits they are legally entitled to.
If this bill goes through, people is genuine need will be left without any support from the state.
The assessments used for the planned PIP do not accurately assess the level of a person's impairment.
For those who would like to see welfare benefits reduced, especially income based benefits, I feel sure that they can never have been in the position of genuine need.
I too would welcome Iain Duncan Smith to comment on Pat's petition
10 January 2012 1:08PM
For a start, and because of the urgency of discussions, I oppose the time limit for contributory employment support allowance (cESA). The current proposal limits this to one year, and for anyone already on it, it will be implemented retrospectively. So if you've been on it for twelve months when the legislation is passed, you will lose cESA immediately.
10 January 2012 1:09PM
As regards the changes directly affecting me - I am currently awaiting to get hold of a wheelchair - I do not know if this will be provided for me by the NHS or not or if it will be appropriate for my needs - I may need one specially designing - customised - this seems to be the consensus of opinion.
I am awaiting an appointment with an occupational therapist who will advise me on what aids and equipment are best for me. These cost money - they are not all provided by the NHS.
I need to get taxis too and from the hospital. for various appointments with consultants, physios etc.
Being as descriptors havnt been finalised I do not know what help I would get under the changes. What I do know is that my middle rate care entitles my partner to carers allowance and he looks after me and helps me with the things I cant do.
If I lose my DLA then my partner loses his carers allowance and if he goes out to work then there is no one to help me with the day to day tasks I need help with or with the emergencies which arise from my health condition.
10 January 2012 1:12PM
Hey thanks! Oh, no, wait a sec...
I hope that the end result of the reforms give the UK a system which provides those unable to work or unable to find work with support such that some appropriate standard of living and well being can be maintained.
I question the idea of universal credits, and do not believe that a service for the poor is necessarily a poor service. Universal poverty? Absolutely not. A universal minimum standard of living must be the aim, where minimum does not not mean surfing at subsistence level, but rather a minimum capable of supporting a life, understanding that having a life involves (in a by no means exhaustive list) family, education, sports, arts, etc.
I believe these welfare reforms bring us closer to this idea.
10 January 2012 1:13PM
ludicrous that the very people who most see as the 'deserving poor' ie the ones who have paid into the system - are gonna be the ones who lose out re the time limiting of contributory ESA to a year!
10 January 2012 1:16PM
What do you mean 'not theirs'? This assumes that everyone in reciept of benefits has not paid into the system. Isn't that one of the reasons we pay tax? If it comes from our tax contributions then it is 'ours', who else's is it? And this meagre 'trimming' you refer to isn't meagre to those having to live on it. You said welfare reform is long overdue without answering my question. Have you had any direct experience of the benefit system, have you ever had to sign on, or had to rely on disability benefits? If the answer is no then aren't you the lucky one? Not everyone is, and who knows what the future may hold, which is why we have a welfare state, and also a national health service. Those who abuse the system and claim fraudulently are a tiny minority. The whole issue goes beyond welfare and into the education system, industry, and the economy, and our society in general overall, the failings there lead to welfare.
10 January 2012 1:23PM
Even those who contribute do not sign an agreement guaranteeing a return in the event of a claim. Benefits can go down as well as up. Don't have an issue with those who contribute so much. I claimed contributory JSA for 4 months but was so shit I would not have noticed if t was cut but I understand this is a benefit that will not be cut. Seems they are targeting those benefits whose claimant like to live on for ever and ever.
I have private medical insurance and income protection and hold it in higher regard than state benefit. If I had my way rebates would be given on NI contributions and the money diverted to providing even higher private cover!
10 January 2012 1:27PM
Thanks very much for taking the time to explain more - must be a difficult time of uncertainty, and thanks too to @demonwrangler. How do you think the welfare system could be changed for the better?
10 January 2012 1:31PM
Disabled people all over the country helped research and raise funds to produce the report "Responsible Reform", Also known as the Spartacus Report.
Yesterday this trended all day on twitter and today at #spartacus report. With over 3 million tweets, the mainstream media still ignored it.
This report shows the government has misled Parliament over the consultation process on replacing DLA with PIP. It declares it is in constant dialogue with disability charities and has their support. The problem with this is, as the report shows, this is blatantly untrue.
Today after their tirelss efforts to get this in the public domain, the two leading authors of this report, Sue Marsh and Kaliya Franklin, are extremely ill. One has been taken to hospital and the other is bed-bound on heavy medication.
This is the price disabled and chronically sick people all over the country are paying for trying to let the public know what is being done to the most vulnerable in their name.
Please remember, we are not just fighting for ourselves. We are fighting for you.
Today may be the day you have an accident that paralyses you for life. Tomorrow may be the day your GP tells you, your wife has cancer, your daughter has MS, or your father has dementia.
Who will you or they turn to then to survive? Years of National Insurance payments will count for nothing.
This is the privatisation of the Welfare State through the back door, just like the NHS.
When your time of need comes, which it inevitably will, you will not be able to say that no one tried to warn you.
Read the report here:
http://dlahelpgroup.com/downloads/Responsible%20Reform.pdf
or a summary here:
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/responsiblereformDLA
10 January 2012 1:32PM
3 years ago I was diagnosed with EDS. A genetic condition that means my joints are too loose, and they dislocate regularly and without notice (that's the short explanation), so I'm not very stable and fall a lot. Initially I got low care rate DLA, which helped towards gadgets and care within the home. It ignored my need for support outside the home. I managed because my employer let me work from home whenever I needed to. Yes, I held down a full time job, in a respected IT field, so I'm no benefit cheat sponger. After months of being housebound, I applied for mobility allowance. It was declined, and the low rate of care was also removed. Super!! Then I got made redundant and I've been out of work for 6 months. I'm currently living on the refundancy money (again, still not on benefits but it won't last much longer). When I advised the DWP of my situation and advised that mobility help, would help me back to work, they advised that my employment situation was irrelevant to them. How does that work?! I'm happy to be employed, I miss it hugely, but I need support. I can't just get any job, I can't stand for long periods, so I can't work in retail, and I'm hoping I can find an office job where I can work from home when I need to. But what if I can't find that? I'm terrified that I'm losing my independence and DLA would allow me to keep that.
I'm 32, I've been single for a long time because I'm not able to get out and meet people, I rarely see the few friends I have left and 99.9% of the time I'm confined to my bedroom on my own. People calling for reform, live like that for a week and see how it feels, for our sake.
10 January 2012 1:32PM
Disability Living Allowance (DLA) isn't a work based benefit, it's to help the disabled, whose services are also bearing the brunt of cuts but they want to cut that too. Not completely but 'reform' it, change it, reduce it. My son recieves DLA because he was dignosed as autistic last year. While DLA does make a difference my wife and I would much rather he wasn't autistic and not recieving DLA so that he could live the life that other boys his age without autism do.
10 January 2012 1:37PM
Re. contributory ESA, my wife had a car accident 3 years ago which left her severely brain damaged. I'm her carer, and work 3 days a week on top of caring for her. We won't get ESA once these changes go through, and will have to sell the house. We're lucky; there are lots of people who will be left in FAR worse situations than this.
10 January 2012 1:38PM
In reponse to some other comments, I would like to point out that I worked full time for 12 years (since leaving college), paying FULL TAX and NI. Other than the few months of low rate care DLA, I have never claimed any benefit. Now, I've paid tax and NI, and I'm in the unfortunate position of needing help, but there is none. Where is the fairness in that exactly?
10 January 2012 1:41PM
I think the bill will probably go through without any opposition what so ever. In fact, I think there's so much support for it that people will demand even more cuts. Cue hypocritical wailing from the Daily Mail when people wake up and realise it effects far more than 'benefit scroungers'. Sucks like hell, but that's the way things seem to be going these days.
10 January 2012 1:43PM
What is not being discussed at all in parliament is the method of how the new benefits system will be delivered.
The government’s current plans seem to be around a centralised model of IT self-service, call centres, and processing factories. Their logic for doing this is again to save costs. But again they are only seeing things in the short-term. Their plans will cost more and give a much worse service (leaving vulnerable people without the money to pay their rent). And again, this will mean more work (and costs) for other public and third sector organisations to deal with it.
The reason why their project, which will cost £millions and fail, are explained much better than I could ever do here. A much better alternative is also presented.
http://www.systemsthinking.co.uk/docs/Open%20Letter%20to%20Duncan%20Smith%20and%20Freud.pdf
10 January 2012 1:44PM
Governments don’t seem to ‘get’ social security.
They seems to be a huge error in their thinking, where they seem to think paying people money because they are out of work or unable to work is the cause of societies problems. It’s not. The social security bill is a consequence of the government not getting it right in other areas.
They are slashing the housing benefit bill with no apparent recognition that the size of it is directly related to massive increases in housing costs that are completely out of whack with people’s incomes. The often site the miniscule amount of claimants that are getting huge amounts of housing benefit in central London. But, they never seem to mention that a large proportion of housing benefit claimants are in low(ish) paid work, and the huge amounts paid out in these cases do not go to ‘scrounging claimant’ but to the pockets of private sector landlords. Many of these properties are of a lower standard, and they would not be able to get those levels of rents on the non-benefit market, but they can because there is no link between housing benefit and property standards.
They also do not get the unintended consequences of doing this. Thoughtlessly slashing the housing benefits doesn’t save money – it just shifts the burden of the costs elsewhere. Local authorities, hostels, homeless charities, and the voluntary sector (whose budgets are being cut) will be left to deal with customers who can no longer live in their homes, which all costs money.
Instead of short-term knee-jerk reactions, why not think long term:
1. Build more social housing. As well as bring rents down and providing housing, it also creates more jobs and means more money going back to the state. At the moment too much housing benefit goes in to landlord’s pockets. Wouldn’t it be better to go back to the local authority or social housing provider, so more low-cost good quality housing can be built?
2. Introduce a living wage. At the moment housing benefit is effectively subsiding employers who do not pay enough in wages for people to pay their rent.
3. Change the way housing benefit amounts are decided, so they are more closely linked to property standards
They all may take a little more work and investment that a quick arbitrary slash of the housing benefit budget, but surely this is a much better alternative if we are thinking long-term?
10 January 2012 1:44PM
So these are the ideas (no pun intended) of the quiet man as dubbed by himself
and the press. This is tantamount to so called rolling back the state. A continuation
of the Thatcher revolution as advised by the 'mad monk' Keith Joseph. Well we are
in for a rough ride with these Tories. Each one for himself, God for us all and the
devil take the hindmost. An exceptional way to live one's life, as per Tory philosophy.
Kick these b**t**rds out ASAP.
10 January 2012 1:45PM
You don't appear to have given any reasons why you think these reforms are for the better, or indeed responded to any of the points made?
10 January 2012 1:46PM
• The introduction of Universal Credit, which rolls up a series of existing benefits allowances and tax credits into a single payment.
On paper, this sounds like a fair thing. The trouble is from what has said by government ministers, it is being done in an insensitive manor that is causing much stress to those who are least able to cope.
• The introduction of Personal Independence Payments in place of the current Disability Living Allowance.
This is being done in a way that ignores to a certain extent people with mental health conditions causing much stress and worry. as a result, suicidal tendancies are up.
• Reducing housing benefit entitlement for social housing tenants whose accommodation is larger than they need (the so-called "under-occupation" clause).
Sounds fair on paper, but are there sufficent 'smaller' properties for the displaced to move into. I suspect that the real motivation behind this is a desire to break up communities that tend not to vote tory.
• The uprating of Local Housing Allowance rates by the Consumer Price Index, rather than local rent levels.
Again, sounds good on paper, but what will be the effects of this? Displaced people moving out of what will become 'safe tory areas' as a result? Bet they didn't see this one - NOT!
• The abolition of the Social Fund, which provides crisis loans to vulnerable people.
What will the effect of this measure be - Poor people turning to loan sharks to cover them when emergency calls (i.e.; when the cooker or fridge goes wrong)?
• The limiting of the payment of contributory Employment and Support Allowance to a 12-month period.
Sounds fair on paper. However, given that I'm skeptical was to this governments motives, I wonder what the effects of this will be?
• A cap on the total amount of benefit that can be claimed by a household to £26,000.
Again, sounds fair on paper. Work should pay rather than being dependant upon benefits. My only concern about this is the Cavalier way in which this govenment is doing this.
On the whole, much of what this governemnt is proposing sounds fair on paper, but the devil is in the detail as they say. As a result of what they are doing, they are causing much stress and worry too those with mental health conditions particularly. What they are doing could be done in a more sensitive manor. Do I trust this government and their motives? No.
10 January 2012 1:47PM
Welfare reform has to happen so that those claiming disability benefit for issues that can be resolved and choose not to take up a job will be forced to.Those of us who have disabilities that are not easy to detect such as ME, MS, neurological disabilities etc. We have to get some under qualified twat, sorry professional, to assess me who has never had any neurological training or specialised assesses me and determines that i choose to live an abnormal life. This makes me so angry and despair for the future. Tories have never really been fair on those at the lower end of society its always been the middle to higher classes that thrive. I want to work and i have dreams but there is no system to support me. I was forced back to work last year and now i have been off work as my condition has deteriorated. System answer lets put him on jobseekers allowance. Are you kidding me? I have to come in every week at an allotted time and prove im looking for work or my money gets cut. I CANT WORK. There are times i can't move or speak, how can i prove im working or looking. AAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!
10 January 2012 1:47PM
I only hope you don't have to fall under a bus or develop a life-long illness to recognise that having any benefit stopped after a year is a sickening thing to do.
I read something last week that said that since the government said it was going to vigorously tackle people on DLA that 31 people died while awaiting reassessment for having had their DLA removed.
it's beyond rational. It's sick.
By the way, have you read the Responsible Reform report?
10 January 2012 1:48PM
Reading the comments below, there's a clear demarcation line between those people who are currently not on benefits and those of us who are. Most of us who are currently receiving Disability Benefits actually do not want to rely on them. I, for one, would love to be able to find employment but most employers are not set up to accomodated disabled people or feel that they are equiped to deal with potential hazards associated with disabled people. This increases, exponentially, when that disability is perceived to be mental in nature.
Those of you who are healthy & fully enabled, how would you react if, upon being told that you had to go into hospital, were then informed that you had to pay for half the operation yourself or that your illness was not covered by the NHS system? Bet you'd soon be up in arms then? This is what we, as disabled people have to put up with, day by day. We have an organisation (Atos) who, despite having no medically trained people on their front-line staff and who's ONLY medical experience is providing care home staff in France who, quite literally, have the power of life & death over us and who decide whether we get the care and benefits we're entitled to. Our own doctors opinion, despite knowing our condition for years, isn't taken into consideration. This is not heresay, not speculation, it's fact!
Agreed, there are those who abuse the system. No system is perfect. But those people pale into insignificance against those businesses (like Vodaphone) who cut deals with HMRC to pay a small percentage of what they owe in tax. These are the true criminals of this country and these are the people who, in an instant, would wipe out the governments spending deficit, if they paid what they truely owed. Remember, they're also keeping your taxes artificially high by not paying up.
I'm a great believer in fairness and this system is simply not fair. It's not fair on us, as disabled people because it doesn't allow us to live anything close to 'normal' lives, it's not fair on you, as taxpayers, because it favours big business deals over your hard-earned cash and it's morally not fair as it discriminates against probably the most vulnerable part of society.
Reforms yes, but let's ensure that they're better for us ALL eh?
10 January 2012 1:55PM
What critics of DLA seem to forget is this is not an out of work benefit, it an extra payment which seeks to mitigate the extra costs that having a disability incurs. Like many people in receipt of DLA we are working and do not receive any other help such as tax credits. DLA allows us to pay for support, for resources and equipment. For many families, especially those with severely disabled kids / adults, DLA means THEY CAN STAY IN WORK, because working means you do not qualify for most other benefits. DLA also allows families to stay together rather than (at great expense to the taxpayer) having to put their loved ones into residential care, or even turning to social services to put their kids in care, which again cost far more than DLA. I'd rather my kid didn't have a disability any day, and the £62 we receive a week doesn't equal the extra costs it just helps a bit.
10 January 2012 1:57PM
I agree with everything NEKO 2412 has said. I want to work but i can't because of my condition. No support for people wanting to go nd work. Jobcentre are a joke and those at the award board really need to learn compassion. RANT over.
10 January 2012 1:58PM
I'm on income Support at the moment and have been for several years due to a mix of physical and mental health conditions, but with a lot of hard work, support from friends and online acquaintances and the right care under the NHS, I've improved to the point where I can think about working again.
But my physical conditions are fluctuating. I cycle on a roughly four year period between well enough to work full time and totally bedridden with the variations of getting sick and starting my recovery, so I know the chances are that going back to work this time will end with me being back on sickness benefits within a few years.
But this time I might fall into the time limiting ESA trap and only have an income for 52 weeks so I either have to force myself to recover within an artificial time frame and struggle back to work barely fixed and probably end up back on the benefits merry-go-round OR I just give up the concept of ever working again and risk my mental health becoming worse because I have no purpose in life, live on very little money and face the constant accusation of being a scrounger or a burden.
I want to work. I want to have the independence and pride of earning a wage. I do not want to be constantly watched and interrogated by the DWP. But nothing in the Welfare Reform Bill will help me (or others) achieve that. It actually just entrenches the benefits trap and makes work more difficult (as evidenced by the abolition of Independent Living Fund, removal of Severe Disablement Premium and the eradication of the Social Fund.)
10 January 2012 2:04PM
This needs to be clarified repeatedly on every single one of these bloody articles. I wish the fat-heads would pay attention just once and absorb that bit of information.
10 January 2012 2:08PM
The majority of tax payers do not pay tax with the complicit agreement that MP's can redecorate whatever change of address they put on an Expense form, we pay for the likes of the truly Disabled to lead a decent standard of life as possible. I am outraged by the absolute shocking lack of coverage on the #Spartacusreport campaign in our mainstream media. The BBC has an obligation to report on whats happening in the UK and not just coverage on issues that they consider will not upset the government of the day and thus the License Fee. Will those missing limbs grow them back after a year I do not think so. If MP's consider it fair that we, the public subsidise their housing, living expenses, even fine food & wine while they sit around pontifcating on how important they are they are mistaken. Those who produced the Spartacus Report deserve our respect and gratitude for a deeply insightful study of the real issues concerning disability, benefits and the disgusting manner the coaltition government has gone about trying to con not only parliament but the country as a whole. I am Spartacus & Proud
10 January 2012 2:10PM
Too true. People need to realise that disability isn't a byword for laziness. Yes, there are some people who cheat the system and they should be stopped. And yes, there are people who have disabilities that cannot work regardless. But most of us with a bit of support from the DLA could go back to work or stay in work. This helps to raise people's self esteem and help them feel part of society. When I was working full time, I was also doing a part time OU degree in chemistry. That's hardly lazy is it?
I think what most people fail to realise is that most folk with disabilities want to work. I for one know how miserable it is being sat at home in one room day after day. Being unemployed with a disability is no bag of fun. People in prison get more outside time than I do. It's degrading, boring, depressing and something I'm hoping won't last much longer otherwise I'll go out of my mind!!
10 January 2012 2:13PM
Iain Duncan Smith says :-
"My Catholic background has certainly affected the way I view life and it has become integral to everything I do. It has given me a belief in things like structure, marriage, family, compassion for the poor, the importance of community - but I don't like to wear religion on my sleeve, I prefer to have it integrated into what I do.”
Does that include him utilising his religion into making the quality of life for the disabled much more miserable than it already is?
Compassion........a strong feeling of sympathy and sadness for the suffering or bad luck of others and a wish to help them.
Compassion my arse.
10 January 2012 2:16PM
How much would raising the 40% band to 41% raise? Is there a reason this isn't considered before taking food from the mouths of the disabled?
10 January 2012 2:16PM
What a terrible idea.
Don't the Tories realise that if this reform proves unpopular with the majority then they will lose the next General Election?
10 January 2012 2:26PM
Funny that banking reform will take 8 years but welfare reform takes less than 2.
Can't think why....................................
10 January 2012 2:28PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2084706/Were-desperate-welfare-reform-Mr-Cameron-hiding-truth-way-achieve-it.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
10 January 2012 2:29PM
I also have a Catholic background, and it has given me structure, and compassion for the poor.
Iain's compassion however is more than jaded, as he says giving extra money to families in poverty is a sin, and would entrench them deeper in poverty. He says giving money to families with children in poverty is a sin, because they would spend that money on alcohol and drugs. He says people with cancer might like to work, and it would be unfair not to include them in Work capability assessments.
I wonder what Iain would be like if he lost his faith in God?
10 January 2012 2:29PM
Hi brian, I really feel your desperation as with others here. think there are a lot of myths around benefits which need disspelling too. The one you point out it that people can work but choose not to. What other ones out there are there?
10 January 2012 2:31PM
Hi gherkingirl - thanks for sharing your experience and also shedding more light on the system and its flaws. Can you explain more about the discrepancy between the proposed allowance in time scale compared to your normal work/health cycles? Would be interested to know which parts of the changes this is.
10 January 2012 2:33PM
The one you point out it that people can work but choose not to. What other ones out there are there?
That there are plenty of jobs out there if you want to work! I work with young people who would do, literally, any job at all. But even those 'part-time end of the line' jobs are in scarce supply here.
It is an utter fabrication that there is work for people that want it. Simply untrue.
10 January 2012 2:35PM
Like you have a clue what it might be like.
10 January 2012 2:40PM
http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2012/01/work-welfare-labour-benefits
"There is only so long the Tories can blame the length of the dole queue on the people standing in it."