The campaigner behind the Spartacus Report, Sue Marsh, is seriously ill in hospital. She explains all in this post at her personal blog.

My thoughts are with Sue and her family and friends at this time. I know that the whole team at Disability Voices joins me in sending out our very best wishes and sincere hopes for Sue’s full and speedy recovery.

As I said to Sue, we must fight but we must also sometimes stop to remember why the fight started.

Samedifference1

Report was entirely researched, written, funded and supported by disabled people.

A report published today (9 January) finds that Government misled MPs and Peers over the hostility to disability benefit reform. It finds that Parliament has been given only a partial view of the overwhelming opposition to the Coalition’s planned reforms of a key disability benefit, Disability Living Allowance (DLA). It finds that this opposition was previously not released to public scrutiny by the Government.

It is based on the responses to the government’s own consultation on its planned DLA reforms, which were only made public once disabled people requested them under the Freedom of Information Act. Findings included:

• 98 per cent of respondents objected to the qualifying period for benefits being raised from 3 months to 6 months 
• 99 per cent of respondents objected to Disability Living Allowance no longer being used as a qualification for other benefits 
• 92% opposed removing the lowest rate of support for disabled people

In all three cases, as well as many others, London’s Conservative Mayor, Boris Johnson also objected to the proposed changes. He said in his response

“The Mayor would call for the Government to retain the three-month qualifying period as the increase to six months will mean that people with fluctuating conditions have increased difficulty meeting the qualifying period. People with fluctuating conditions face the same barriers that all disabled face in relation to higher costs of living and DLA is essential to maintain a decent quality of life.”

“We would recommend that the passporting system remains the same as           under DLA as it has worked well when signposting people to additional benefits to which they may be entitled.”

“The Mayor does not support this change, as those on the lower rate care component may have additional costs as a result of their impairment but may lose their access to this benefit as part of the proposed removal under the reforms.”
The Mayor also objected to the government’s strategy for clamping down on disability benefit fraud, arguing:

“The government proposes imposing penalties if disabled people do not inform the government in changes in their circumstances. However, the Department of Work and Pensions statistics give the overall fraud rate for Disability Living Allowance as being less than 0.5%. For those with fluctuating conditions asking them to report every change to their condition would prove very stressful.”

The Mayor’s views were representative of the overwhelming majority of responses to the Government’s consultation..

The new report, Responsible Reform, suggests that the government’s DLA consultation breached the government’s own code of practice and was “highly misleading”.

Researchers have used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain more than 500 responses to the consultation that were submitted by disabled people’s organisations, disability charities and other groups – including the response submitted by Boris Johnson – and have carried out the first detailed, independent analysis of those responses.

The analysis showed overwhelming opposition to replacing DLA with a new Personal Independence Payment (PIP). The government also plans to cut spending on DLA/PIP by 20%.

The new report has been researched, written and funded by sick and disabled people, thousands of whom contributed to the research through their use of social media.

Its authors now hope to use the report to persuade members of the House of Lords to back an adjournment debate calling for a pause of at least 6 months. In that time, plans for PIP should be reconsidered with the views of disabled people properly taken into account.

The report has already been backed by organisations and disability experts including

Disability Alliance

Mind

Papworth Trust

Scope

Bert Massie CBE &

Ekklesia

Disability Alliance  –  ”The Government’s mis-portrayal of the DLA consultation response is truly shocking and could represent a betrayal of the process of consultation and engagement with disabled people. The Government has refused to provide a justification for a 20% cut in DLA expenditure and we fear that the same faulty rationale, misunderstanding of disability and higher costs of living and poor judgement exposed in this report sadly underpin the basis of the entire reform plans.”

Paul Farmer, Chief Executive of the mental health charity Mind, said:

“The ‘Responsible Reform’ report is essential reading for everyone with an interest in Disability Living Allowance (DLA) reform including the Government and Department for Work and Pensions Select Committee. It is a vital contribution to the debate on reform and a huge achievement for the volunteers who have produced it.

“As well as forensically deconstructing many of the arguments offered by the Government for their proposed reform, the report shows that much of the rise in claimants over recent years has been down to better access to the benefit for people with mental health problems, whose needs are often fluctuating and invisible.

“Rather than getting out of control as the Government claims, DLA has been increasingly going to people who really need it. The proposed 20 per cent cut to the budget will have an enormous impact on many people with illnesses and disabilities, and we remain very concerned about the unintended consequences this could lead to.”

Papworth Trust supports this report’s concerns that the decision to reduce DLA by 20% may have been based on incomplete or misleading data about the reasons for growth in DLA. Our recent survey found that almost 9 out of 10 people would have to cut back on essentials such as food or being able to get out and about if their DLA payments were reduced or stopped under PIP. We believe that the proposed 20% cut will push more disabled people into poverty.

Given that this report was entirely researched, written, funded and supported by the people that these changes will affect, we believe that the questions it raises should be answered by the Government.

Richard Hawkes, Chief Executive of disability charity Scope said:

“This report once again reveals the very real concerns disabled people have about the government’s reform of Disability Living Allowance.

“We know that this benefit is a lifeline for millions of people and families.

“It gives them the opportunity to meet the extra living costs they incur as a result of living with a condition or impairment and we know that people are genuinely worried about the impact these reforms will have on their quality of life.

“We urge the government to listen and act on these concerns and to ensure its replacement takes into consideration all the barriers disabled people face in everyday life so they can live independently and play an active role in their local community.”

Sir Bert Massie CBE said

“The Government’s proposed changes to the system of financial support for disabled people, from Disability Living Allowance to Personal Independence Payment, has caused anxiety to many disabled people. I have always found the explanations offered by the Government to be unconvincing and I therefore welcome this report which analyses the evidence on which the decisions were based.  It shows that rather than being broadly welcomed by disabled people and disability organisations the new proposals were subject to widespread criticism and alarm. I hope this report will result in the Government reviewing its proposals so they enhance rather than damage the lives of disabled people.

Simon Barrow, Co-Director of the beliefs and values thinktank Ekklesia, said :

“This is an excellent piece of research. There remains a gaping chasm between the government’s rhetoric about maintaining support for disabled people and the actual evidence about the impact of the changes and cuts it is imposing. The voices of those at the sharp end are not being listened to in a way that shapes policy. The concepts of justice dignity and social solidarity are being eroded and replaced with a piecemeal approach to provision which sees care as essentially voluntary.”

Sue Marsh, the disabled blogger and activist who led the research, alongside Dr Sarah J Campbell, said:

“For some years now, poorly designed Social Security reforms have created a “trust deficit” among disabled people towards government.

“We believe that reform must be measured, responsible and transparent, based on available evidence and designed with disabled people at the very heart of decision-making. Currently, we do not believe this to be the case.

“While disabled people welcome reform of DLA where it will simplify the system and better support their needs, they do not want a new benefit. They believe it is a costly irrelevance during a time of austerity.

“We urge members of the House of Lords – across party political boundaries – to take note of this research and the strength of opposition to the proposals. It is not too late for them to halt these deeply damaging reforms.”

Another contributor to the report, Kaliya Franklin, said :

“Cutting spending on DLA will increase the burden on local authorities, the NHS and community services at the very time they are seeking to find savings by reducing eligibility, particularly for social care support.

“Sick and disabled people have voluntarily combined our skills, experience and talent to produce this report, demonstrating that if we are able to work in the way our conditions demand we can participate in the world of employment, but only if it is willing to receive us on our terms, with more flexible ways of working and participating.”

Among the report’s conclusions:

• Only 7% of organisations that took part in the consultation were fully in support of plans to replace DLA with PIP
• There was overwhelming opposition in the consultation responses to nearly all of the government’s proposals for DLA reform
• The government has consistently used inaccurate figures to exaggerate the rise in DLA claimants
• The report shows that nearly all of the recent increase in working-age claimants of DLA has been associated with mental health conditions and learning difficulties. Between 2002 and 2010, the number of working-age DLA claimants – excluding those with mental health conditions and learning difficulties remained remarkably stable
• 98% of those who responded opposed plans to change the qualifying period for PIP from three months (as it is with DLA) to six months
• 90% opposed plans for a new assessment, which disabled people fear will be far too similar to the much-criticised work capability assessment used to test eligibility for employment and support allowance (ESA)
• Respondents to the consultation repeatedly warned that the government’s plans could breach the Equality Act, the Human Rights Act and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Contact details:

Sue Marsh, email: suey2yblog@hotmail.co.uk ; mobile: 07851 547217

Kaliya Franklin, contributor and co-ordinator : 0151 345 1495

PAs :    07896 562110

07972 611782

If you would like to read the full report, you can do so here: Responsible Reform

Breaking news! Pls Share everywhere….
BORIS JOHNSON SLAMS COALITION PLANS FOR DLA REFORM!!!!!!!… fb.me/1dyTs9whQ—
  (@BendyGirl) January 06, 2012

Season’s Greetings from Disability Voices!

Denial of campaigners benefit claim fuels DLA fears – disabilitylib.org.uk/blog/denial-of…—
Sid Baility (@sidbaility) December 23, 2011

I’ve always said that mainstream press attention means we’re being noticed, so in my eyes, this is a small piece of progress for Sue. As one of her many online friends and supporters, I am pleased about it.

As I’ve been saying since yesterday, however, I really wish there was more that could be done.

I wish there was more we could do than just spread the word. But I am spreading the word because the word must be spread.