As of yesterday evening, 53 MPs have signed EDM 1332, noting concerns about the consultation on Disability Living Allowance reform. Given that the consultation has been extended by four days, it would be nice to get this figure up to 65 so that 10% of the House of Commons have noted their concerns about DLA reform. As such, writing and/or sending a Valentine's e-card to your MP is still of the utmost importance.
We need 12 more signatures on EDM 1332 to reach 65 signatures - 3 signatures every day for the 4 extra days of the consultation. You can find your MP here.Some MPs may be more responsive than others, so here is a list of "potentials" - if you live in their constituency, an e-mail to them may be key:
Abbott, Diane (Lab) Hackney North and Stoke Newington
Abrahams, Debbie (Lab) Oldham East and Saddleworth
Alexander, Heidi (Lab) Lewisham East
Blunkett, David (Lab) Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough
Creasy, Stella (Lab/Co-op) Walthamstow
Doyle, Gemma (Lab/Co-op) West Dunbartonshire
Evans, Chris (Lab/Co-op) Islwyn
Field, Frank (Lab) Birkenhead
Fovargue, Yvonne (Lab) Makerfield
Godsiff, Roger (Lab) Birmingham, Hall Green
Hosie, Stewart (SNP) Dundee East
McGovern, Alison (Lab) Wirral South
MacNeil, Angus (SNP) Na h-Eileanan an Iar
Nandy, Lisa (Lab) Wigan
Nash, Pamela (Lab) Airdrie and Shotts
Pearce, Teresa (Lab) Erith and Thamesmead
Weir, Mike (SNP) Angus
Whiteford, Eilidh (SNP) Banff and Buchan
Wishart, Pete (SNP) Perth and North Perthshire
Williams, Mark (LD) Ceredigion
Willott, Jenny (LD) Cardiff Central
12 of these 21 'potentials' are all we need, so get writing!
I tried but got a response from my MP's secretary or something ...
ReplyDeleteThank you for contacting me about Disability Living Allowance (DLA) to which Claire has asked me to reply.
Claire believes that the Government owe a duty to disabled people to promote their independence and equality and she also believes that it has a duty to ensure that it has the right governance in place to deliver this support efficiently and sensibly.
The Government is already undertaking large-scale reform of the welfare system, for example the Universal Credit and its flagship Work programme. These welfare reforms are designed to protect people in the most vulnerable situations, including disabled people. The Government has made clear that it is steadfast in its support for the principles of DLA, as a non-means-tested cash benefit contributing to the extra costs incurred by disabled people.
However, DLA is currently a poorly targeted and unsustainable benefit. Almost three million people receive this benefit at a forecast cost of £12 billion per year. We now have a disability benefit which is confusing for individuals to understand, based on unclear criteria and often results in inconsistent awards, and since 1992, both the case load and the cost of DLA have grown to a level that is unsustainable. Changes to DLA are long overdue and must address questions of fairness and value, while supporting disabled people to lead independent lives. We must ensure DLA better reflects the needs of disabled people today, rather than in the 1990s, and that it enables support to be targeted to those with the greatest need.
The Government wants to bring disability benefits into the 21st century by replacing DLA with a new Personal Independence Payment. This is an opportunity to improve the support for disabled people and enable them to lead full, active and independent lives. The Personal Independence Payment will maintain the key principles of DLA, but it will be delivered in a fairer, more consistent and sustainable manner. It is only right that support should be targeted at those disabled people who face the greatest challenges to leading independent lives and this reform is required to enable that, along with a clearer assessment process.
The Government has launched a formal public consultation on DLA and wants the views of disabled people to be fully reflected in any change it makes to DLA and has asked disabled people and their organisations to join the debate on reforming DLA. You may wish to make your views known and you can contribute to the Consultation by visiting the website: http://dwp.gov.uk/consultations/2010/dla-reform.shtml
Claire would like to assure you that those who are genuinely sick, disabled or retired have nothing to fear. This Government does not regard caring for the needy as a burden, but as a proud duty.
You have asked Claire to sign the Early Day Motion. She is very sorry to disappoint you, but she has a general policy of not signing these Motions. They have almost no legislative effect and cost almost £1 million annually in printing and publication costs alone which Claire does not feel represents a good use of public money. She much prefers to contact Ministers directly with the points that constituents raise.
I hope that this reassures you and thank you again for taking the time to contact Claire.
Yours sincerely,
Edward Nurick
Office of Claire Perry
MP for the Devizes Constituency
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
01672519198 (Constituency Office)
02072197050 (London Office)
Maybe she'd like to address how cutting 20-25% of people who claim DLA is protecting the vulnerable...
ReplyDeleteugh. My MP is equally worthless, we had protests here yesterday and he made a grand statement of how such concern was noted but cuts needed to happen for the good of Britain blah blah blah...
Basically every reply to an MP is the same. They tell us how they are ''helping'' us.
ReplyDeleteThey talk the biggest load of bollox and expect us to believe them - They assume that if they deem us ''not disabled'' that we will suddenly think we aren't and all of a sudden we will be well again - I WISH!!
It is all a measure to juggle the numbers and disabled people are the fodder that will pay the price.
This 'consultation' is a complete farce as they have already made up their minds what will happen no matter what happens and who says this is a waste of money.
They do not care that they will be throwing away money on appeals and medicals of people who will NOT get better!!
They are too big of an idiot to understand the principles of disability and are too arrogant to care about the people they are about to stamp on and the lives that will be lost because of them!
SHAME ON YOU CAMERON
And shame on you Clegg for even contemplating supporting that man when you KNOW (or you would if you werent too bisy brown nosing) it is stupid and wrong!
Wrote to my MP - a tory. No reply. To be fair, that is unusual for him, as he does respond, customarily. But still...
ReplyDeleteWrote to my MP but he's ignoring me as usual. He'll start to get interested come election time as he always does.
ReplyDeleteI'm in Godsiff's constituency. I can email him, but I know already what his response will be. He's a good constituency MP when it comes to sorting out individual problems, but his attitude towards disabled people hasn't been at all favourable in his letters to me over the years.
ReplyDeleteI wrote to my MP Jessica Lee (Conservative) and got an amazingly same response back. Almost word for word! She didn't answer any of my questions either!
ReplyDeleteDear Miss *****
Thank you for contacting me about Disability Living Allowance (DLA).
I believe that the Government owe a duty to disabled people to promote their independence and equality and I also believe that it has a duty to ensure that it has the right governance in place to deliver this support efficiently and sensibly.
The Government is already undertaking large-scale reform of the welfare system, for example the Universal Credit and its flagship Work programme. These welfare reforms are designed to protect people in the most vulnerable situations, including disabled people. The Government has made clear that it is steadfast in its support for the principles of DLA, as a non-means-tested cash benefit contributing to the extra costs incurred by disabled people.
However, DLA is currently a poorly targeted and unsustainable benefit. Almost three million people receive this benefit at a forecast of £12 billion per year. We now have a disability benefit which is confusing for individuals to understand, based on unclear criteria and often results in inconsistent awards, and since 1992, both the case load and the cost of DLA have grown to a level that is unsustainable. Changes to DLA are long overdue and must address questions of fairness and value, whilst supporting disabled people to lead independent lives. We must ensure DLA better reflects the needs of disabled people today, rather than in the 1990s, and that it enables support to be targeted to those with the greatest need.
The Government wants to bring disability benefits in to the 21st century by replacing DLA with a new Personal Independence Payment. This is an opportunity to improve the support for disabled people and enable them to lead full, active and independent lives. The Personal Independence Payment will maintain the key principles of DLA, but it will be delivered in a fairer, more consistent and sustainable manner. It is only right that support should be targeted at those disabled people who face the greatest challenges to leading independent lives and this reform is required to enable that, along with a clearer assessment process.
The Government has launched a formal public consultation on DLA and wants the views of disabled people to be fully reflected in any change it makes to DLA and has asked disabled people and their organisations to join the debate on reforming DLA. You may wish to make your views known and you can contribute to the Consultation by visiting the website: http://dwp.gov/consultations/2010/dla-reform.shtml
I want to assure you that those who are genuinely sick, disabled or retired have nothing to fear. This Government does not regard caring for the needy as a burden, but as a proud duty.
I hope this reassures you and thank you again for taking the time to contact me.
Yours sincerely,
Jessica Lee MP
I just got the same response - I think that they literally just created these form letters and send them out to anyone who has contacted them about disability. Previously the letters I received back were done in a much less obviously-mass-produced way.
ReplyDelete