The Call From Ed Miliband

After a question about the treatment of disabled people feisty enough to bring a wry smile to the face of seasoned political commentator Peter Snow at the recent Labour conference, yesterday, the Labour leader Ed Miliband honoured his public promise to discuss the issues facing sick and disabled people further.

Sue Marsh and myself spent a day spent carefully planning what to say and what we might be able to acheive from this conversation; the pressure was on. We knew that at most the conversation would be scheduled for around 10 minutes and that there was a huge expectation for answers from sick and/or disabled people. We needed two clear objectives we thought we might be able to suceed with in that space of time so we decided to concentrate on the way sick and/or disabled people are being spoken about by politicians and the consequences this has for our lives. We also decided to focus on the particular issues with the Work Capability Assessment as that is affecting so many people already. It was difficult to narrow it down to just two issues but we wanted to be able to acheive measurable results from this phone call and decided these were the initial priority in getting Labour to listen to us.

The first thing Ed had to say when he phoned was an apology for calling me Harriet in the conference hall. Then he said he was ready to listen and to his credit, listen is exactly what he did. I must have done 90% of the talking, with Ed asking questions to clarify. We talked in some depth about the damage the scrounger rhetoric, used by New Labour as well as the Coalition government, is doing to sick and/or disabled people. I was able to explain that disability hate crime has risen sharply and that as sick or disabled people we see a direct correlation between that and the scrounger label. Ed explained that he has concerns around worklessness and disincentives in the benefits system but that he understands now the need to separate out sick or disabled people from discussions about worklessness and welfare dependency.

We also talked about some of the problems with the Work Capability Assessment, acknowledging that the original idea to support disabled people into work was well intentioned but not working in practice. Ed asked for clarification about what was happening, and what we thought the most pressing issues were. I was able to explain that although there are all sorts of issues surrounding the competence of Atos who carry out the assessments, the real problems are being caused by the change in the descriptors intended to ensure less people qualify for the benefits. We discussed how inappropriate it is for sanctions or conditionality to be used against people in the Work Related Activity Group, all of whom have been recognised to be sick or disabled and I was able to explain to Ed how impossible it is, particularly for people with fluctuating conditions to engage with the work programmes as they are currently set up. We also covered the problem of people with long term health conditions being found 'fit for work' and put onto Job Seekers Allowance where they are not able to access the more specialist work support intended for them via the Work Related Activity Group.

We also talked about how for sick and/or disabled people it feels like we are round pegs being forced into square holes, and that for as long as that continues to happen we will fall straight through the holes in the system. I emphasised that sick and disabled people need unconditional support when we can work and for those of us who feel able to participate it isn't that we don't want to work or contribute, but unless we are able to do so on our terms we won't be able to acheive that. For many people contributing to the world of work financially simply isn't possible, but that does not mean they are not contributing to society. We talked about how inaccessible the country still is to us, despite laws surrounding access and that not being able to get onto public transport or into businesses means yet another barrier for people who might want to work. I was able to explain that unless the world of business is ready to offer more flexible working options, part time, from home, small amounts of hours etc any of these work programmes will fail, not because disabled people are lazy or work shy, but because we have to do things in a different way to the 'normal' working week and world. 

Ed promised to set up a meeting between Broken of Britain activists and the new shadow minister for disability Anne McGuire. He also promised that he and Liam Byrne will meet with us all after intial meetings with Anne. We would like to thank Ed Miliband for honouring his promise to speak to us in more depth about these issues, for listening to our views and for making a committment to improving the way Labour speak about sick people, disabled people and worklessness to be clear that we are NOT scroungers.


We could possibly speculate as to the connection between this conversation and the press release late yesterday evening from Anne McGuire, but we welcome this as a hugely positive first step on the long road to improving the Labour party's perception and treatment of people who are sick and/or disabled. 

“I’m delighted to have been appointed as Shadow Minister for Disabled People. There is a responsibility on all of us to care for those in need. However many disabled people feel that they are unfairly being portrayed as scroungers and are feeling very vulnerable"

“Labour will be the voice for those in genuine need, who need extra help live a full life. The introduction of the Universal Credit will see support for disabled children halved, while the Severe Disability Premium is to be scrapped with nothing appropriate put in its place. We believe there can be reforms made to the system, but this is the wrong way to do it, and we will do all we can to stop these changes.”

Thanks also to John Pring of the invaluable Disability News Service who provided us with the press release from Anne McGuire. John is the only full time investigative journalist working on disability issues and without his fantastic service all those involved in grassroots activism would find it much more difficult to source the information we require.

Briefing – Welfare Reform Bill 2011, 10 October 2011 - By WinVisible

Briefing – Welfare Reform Bill 2011, 10 October 2011

by Legal Action for Women, Single Mothers’ Self-Defence and

WinVisible (women with visible and invisible disabilities)

Tel: 020 7482 2496   Replies to: win@winvisible.org

Dear Members of the Lords,

This Bill is being rushed through, cutting basic survival benefits, reducing entitlement without proper scrutiny and leaving out crucial details, such as benefit rates. Yet it will cost £2 billion to change systems.  The implications are frightening.  We are deeply concerned about how little money people will have to live on, and the sweeping sanctions being introduced.  They will lead to increased destitution, homelessness, children in care, illness and early death.  This must be stopped.

Universal Credit continues the phasing out of Income Support (clause 34). 

·      IS recognises that mothers and other carers are not unemployed, but are doing unwaged caring work which is basic to society and the economy.  Mothers reliant on benefits, single or in couples, are demeaned as “workless” and will be forced to become jobseekers as soon as their child becomes five (clause 57).  Before that, they are required to be involved in work-related activity.  Ever-younger children are deprived of their parents’ loving attention as both parents are subjected to jobseeking conditions regardless of the children’s needs.

·      Most single mothers already do waged work.  Getting a waged job is not a route out of poverty --58% of children in poverty live with someone in waged work (CPAG).

·      The whole family will suffer when benefit is stopped for trivial “breaches” of the jobseeking agreement. Already, vulnerable people have been cruelly sanctioned when they simply couldn’t read the jobseeking agreement.  Benefit can be denied for three years if someone refuses three job offers. 

·      Due to women’s raised retirement age, more women near the end of working age will be subjected to harsh jobseeking conditions.  These take no account of employers’ discrimination, including against people of colour and people with disabilities.  Why are jobseekers being victimised for the discrimination they suffer?

Clause 7: The move to pay benefit monthly in arrears must be scrapped. It will leave people, who now receive benefit weekly, without money for longer periods.  Already single mothers and single people report that the benefit runs out before the end of the week. We support the amendments to pay twice a month if chosen, and would prefer weekly. There should be no change until a review of the impact of monthly payments has been done.

Clause 8: We support the Zacchaeus 2000 amendments that the amount must meetindependently-researched minimum income standards, and the minimum for women of childbearing age and for pregnancy.  There must be an irreducible minimum untouched by overpayment recovery, etc.

Clause 10:  Additions for responsibility for children.

·      No amounts are set in the Bill. There must be no reduction on the amounts currently set for the Child Tax Credits and Income Support premiums. 

·      Universal Credit will be paid in a lump to one parent who claimed. Now mothers can directly receive Child Tax Credit regardless of which parent claimed, as it is widely recognised that mothers meet children’s needs first.  Fathers won’t necessarily pass this money to the mother. Provision must be made to pay Universal Credit allowance to mothers and/or fathers on pension credit which is out of the scope of this Bill.

·      Parents are already struggling as the Working Tax Childcare Credit was cut to 70%.   New money for parents doing less than 16 hours waged work a week does not make up for this cut.  We support amendments to increase the childcare subsidy and cover additional costs for a disabled child or higher costs by area.

·      Clause 11: Housing element of Universal Credit: We support Lord Kennedy’s move to delete this, keeping Housing Benefit.  We support amendments to help people keep the roof over their head, protect vulnerable tenants against having to move, and to keep payments to landlords (preventing evictions due to arrears).  Already, the Local Housing Allowance limits rent subsidy for private tenants, who have to use other meagre benefit money intended for food and bills, to pay rent.

Clause 12: Other needs.  We support amendments to include an amount for school meals and health costs. Alternatively all recipients of Universal Credit should be entitled to free school meals and exempted from NHS costs in line with what happens now.

Disability: Having one amount for disability, abolishes the extra Severe Disability Premium (SDP) of Income Support for people living alone.  What are people supposed to do about their high heating bills and other disability expenses which SDP recognised?  Entitlement to disability addition should not be tied to Personal Independence Payment, which will be restricted to thousands fewer people compared to Disability Living Allowance. 

Clauses 19 & 20  The exemptions from work-related requirements do not go far enough.    

Carers with regular and substantial caring responsibilities, and mothers of babies under one, are exempt, reflecting our previous lobbying. In 2009, breastfeeding mothers objected strongly to compulsory “work-focused sessions”.  Full-time disability carers were subject to work-focused interviews. Mothers of young children over one should not be compelled to attend work-focused interviews.   We want the choice to stay at home or to take waged work where manageable.  There is a large body of evidence that mothers with small children who wish to care for them but are forced back to work, have a greatly increased risk of depression, and that children aged under three especially are at increased risk of emotional and behavioural problems as a result of separation from a main carer, whose quality of care is not easily substituted. (Ref: Oliver James, Sue Gerhardt, and other child psychologists, biologists and health professionals)

Those in the equivalent of the Support Group of Employment and Support Allowance will be exempt, but this applies to a tiny proportion of claimants.  Most sick and disabled people are forced into work-related activity or jobseeking after the notorious Atos examinations.  Following concerns we raised, the British Medical Association is asking Atos if their employees act in their patients’ best interests – doctors conducting benefit examinations are bound by this duty.

Delete Clause 51 limiting contributions-based ESA to one year.  Cancer patients and others need time to recover.  Many are not eligible for alternative means-tested benefit.

Clause 52 deprives younger disabled people who were unable to build up NI contributions, of the higher contributions-based ESA, and reneges on the 2009 concession.

Clauses 60-62 take away contributions-based benefits, including maternity allowance from immigrant people who have paid tax, and subjects them to a test of “entitlement to work”.  This racism is abhorrent.

Clause 63 limits entitlement to industrial injuries benefit, ignoring the fact that some diseases take many years to develop.

Delete clause 68.  We oppose the housing benefit cap.  This will cause enormous impoverishment and disruption to families including those with a waged worker(s), and “ethnic cleansing” from wealthy areas.  Blame extortionate rents on landlords, not tenants. 

Delete clause 69.  We oppose abolition of the Social Fund. This is a lifeline to women and children fleeing domestic violence, ill and disabled people leaving hospital including those with mental illness, and prisoners, enabling them to set up a new home.  People increasingly rely on this fund in emergencies.  The government is shedding responsibility for vulnerable people, passing it to local councils with no legal duty to help and no ring-fenced funds. 

Clauses 75-81.  We oppose the abolition of Disability Living Allowance and replacement by Personal Independence Payment.  By abolishing the lowest rates, the government will deprive 78,000 disabled people of benefit, including people who rely on this to continue in waged work.  The longer qualifying period of six months will cause immense hardship.  People in residential care need mobility money to go out.  Tying PIP to working age will again deprive pensioners in need of mobility component.

Clause 93.  We oppose the benefit cap which will harm families with least resources.  ChildBenefit should not be included in the benefit cap – mothers earn it, children need it.  It must remain universal and is often the only money which mothers can call their own.  Carers’ Allowance, which is outside this Bill, should also not be included in the cap.

After clause 98.  Prisoners.  We support Lord Ramsbotham’s new clause to help prisoners (many are mothers) to have benefit quickly in place when they come out.

Clause 102 – recovery of benefit overpayments.  We support the amendment to protect claimants who didn’t know they were being overpaid.

New clause after 113.  We support Lord Ramsbotham’s amendment that DWP staff must be fully aware of claimants’ circumstances before imposing sanctions, fines and recovery of overpayments.

Clauses 131-134. Child maintenance.  Mothers will unfairly have to prove that they cannot make a private arrangement before the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission will step in.  This is on top of being charged for maintenance collection. http://www.gingerbread.org.uk/news/98/Welfare-Reform-Bill-proposals-risk-jeopardising-vital-child-maintenance

There is no guarantee that the new untested IT system merging the DWP and Inland Revenue will function to meet the needs of growing numbers of people losing their jobs and current claimants – leaving vulnerable adults and children without money. 

Already, experienced staff who had a public service commitment, have been replaced by call centres and privatised “back-to-work” companies working to targets and for profit.

Tories dishonest to get public onside before plans launched...

 Guest blog from Humanity Before Hatred

The Tories are playing a very clever, but disturbingly immoral game with the benefits system. They plan to make dramatic changes to the system for people claiming DLA in 2013. DLA will be scrapped, and replaced with PIPs: Personal Independence Payments. This has been opposed by many disability charities, but to no avail.
 When the changes begin, many people with serious disabling conditions will find themselves cut off from help. This is likely to cause an initial negative reaction from the general public, as they witness vulnerable people being forced into an even more vulnerable position.

So, what can the government do about this anticipated lack of support for their policies? Well, cleverly, they have chosen to repeatedly downplay the needs of disabled people and to encourage disability discrimination. Ian Duncan Smith is particularly making encouraging progress in turning the public towards disabled people, and, as ever, the Daily Mail are lapping up the opportunity to spread the hate, like overenthusiastic teachers' pets...

The Daily Mail published  THIS article this week. As well as insultingly belittling a condition which can be hugely stressful for many families, the article also printed other grossly innaccurate information.

(...a brief pause to allow you to get over your shock at the last part of that sentence...)


FULL FACT
Full fact stepped in once again, to investigate the Daily Mail's claims, and to help put the record straight HERE. This was their conclusion:
"The Daily Mail's claim that 3,200 people with ADHD have used the Motability Car Scheme is inaccurate. The number eligible for higher rate DLA- and therefore Motability vehicles- is recorded as 100 by the DWP, some way short of the figure given by the Mail.
 However even if we conflate behavioural disorders with ADHD, as the Mail appears to have done, it is likely that the number using the scheme would fail to top the 3,200 claimed, as only 30 per cent of those eligible end up using the scheme. 
To cap it all off, the article also downplays the severity of the disability that is needed to qualify for the Motability Scheme."

ADHD
Other than being aware that many families face enormous stress in dealing with the behavioural problems of ADHD, I know very little about the condition. However, the NHS website states that "Many people with ADHD also have additional problems, such as sleep disorders or learning difficulties", so to make assumptions about their needs by generalisation of the condition is, I believe, unwise. 

Not happy to leave the damage there though, Richard Littlejohn, journalist for the Daily Mail, wrote THIS piece , stating that "Even naughty schoolboys diagnosed with the make-believe disease 'Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder' (ADHD) are classified as disabled." Obviously he has an extensive medical background qualifying him to make such judgements...oh hang on, my mistake...


MOTABILITY SCHEME

An extract from the Mail article..
"To get the motability element, families of sufferers must prove they need 'guidance or supervision most of the time from another person when walking out of doors in unfamiliar places.' They can either spend it themselves on transport, or have it paid directly to Motability to provide a lease car". 
For anyone not aware, the motability element of DLA is split into two parts: lower rate and higher rate. The quote above is directly taken from the descriptors for the lower rate. To be eligible to use the Motability scheme, you MUST be receiving the higher rate.

I've previously written a post about the Motability Scheme, but given the utter tosh that is circulating in the media on the topic lately, I think a few points of fact are worth repeating...

• Only people receiving the higher rate of DLA are eligible to use the Motability scheme.
• The DLA forms are over 50 pages long, and requires medical evidence to support each claim.
• DLA is not about your ability to work. It is about your care needs, and your mobility needs. Many people receiving DLA are working, and without the funds to cover the extra costs incurred through being a disabled person in the workplace, would have to give up their job.
• The Motability scheme allows you to nominate up to two people to drive the car for you. You do not have to be in the car when it is being driven, but the trips must for your needs.
• Motability cars ARE NOT FREE. It is a lease, the car must be returned within three years, and is paid for with the higher mobility element of the DLA, should you choose to spend your benefit to which you have been found to qualify for, in that way.

• Very few people using Motability have 'luxury cars', due to the four figure sum needed to be paid as an extra fee, which most people on benefits simply can't afford (...and that's not because all of their money has gone on plasma tv's and holidays... that is a Daily Mail myth too!)

The government, and some of the media, are relying on the general public to not check out the facts before believing everything that they are spoon-feeding them.
Luckily for them, government and media aren't being disappointed...

Am I Benefit Scrounging Scum? Part 2 There Are No Rainbows

 By Eclectic_Jax First posted here

 

I'm sat on the big brown sofa with a cup of tea in the cat & fish cup.  The sun is streaming through the window, casting rainbows all over the walls as it passes through the crystals hanging from the curtain pole.  The dog is sunbathing/sleeping in her bed and the only audible sounds are the gulls and the roar of the ferry as it passes by. 

That's a lie actually.  That was the state of play when I started writing this post first thing this morning.  It's now dark outside, the cream curtains are drawn and there are no rainbows on the walls anymore.  The only sound apart from my fingers on the keyboard is the occasional sniff as the tears take over my normally strong self.  I've had a few hours where I've had a word with myself, but then a blog post by a friend set me off again.  The floodgates have been well and truly opened by a text message, from someone I care a lot for, being "nice" to me.  These were the catalyst for this outpouring of salty nastiness.  

The original reason for this "wibble" was a letter I received this morning telling me that because I have somewhat adapted to my situation and can walk with the aid of morphine, the brace & crutches, I'm not entitled to any extra benefits.  The phrase used was "using suitable aids, although your walking is limited, you are not unable or virtually unable to walk".  Then came the rest of the reasons:

"because, at your own speed, you can safely manage your toilet needs, use a bath OR shower, get up and down stairs.........using suitable aids and don't need help from someone for about an hour a day....you are not at risk of falling and can take reasonable precautions to prevent any dangers...substantial danger, to you or to others.....you are not entitled to any rate of care"

Now, I have a raised toilet seat because otherwise, my kneecap tends to pop out of place or the knee will lock.  To have a shower, I have a seat to sit on.  This replaced me going into the shower with the crutches!  Getting up and down stairs is generally done on my arse as, as previously stated, I've already fallen down the stairs and damaged my shoulder once and I don't want to risk harming myself any further.  I don't have any help during the day because I'm too proud, not because I don't need it.  As for the falling - I think the chunks of flesh that are missing from my head and the shoulder injury will put pay to that statement.  What is "substantial damage" anyway?  If not at risk of falls, I would not have been assessed and granted a system that recognises if I have fallen and calls either a nominated person or a local warden if I speak to them on the phone but can't get up unaided or, if I don't respond at all in a certain time frame, 999.  

Now I can appeal this decision apparently - as long as none of the changes that have happened, happened after I got the letter today.  If that had been the case, I'd have to go through the whole process again from scratch!  It's taken from 14th June for them to get to this point!  Thankfully, they have based their decision on information dated 13/09/2011.  Since then, I have had my test results back and as covered in a previous blog post, I've signed a consent form for more surgery in the next week or 2 and a further major surgery after that.  I'm hoping that this will make them see that I do need help.  I've done myself no favours really by adapting and being proud.  The problem now is that I can see my strength and determination waning.  I've cried for hours today and that isn't like me.  I'm a strong and positive person, but the prospect of losing my leg is pushing me to the limit.  Not because I think it will be the end of the world, because it won't be, but more because I'm scared of having to cope on my own.  If I'm struggling now, what the hell am I going to do when I come out of hospital to a 2nd floor flat, 28 stairs and doors that cannot accommodate a wheelchair?

I've paid into the system for over 20 years, I'm not asking for anything I don't need.  All I'm asking for is a little bit of help until I get back to my job and for someone to bring the rainbows back...

Am I Benefit Scrounging Scum? Part 1

 By Eclectic_Jax First posted here

 

I'm sat on the big brown leather sofa, my pint cup of tea to my left and the dog asleep in her bed to my right.  The window is open and the air is heavy with birdsong - it's a truly beautiful sound.  There is a strange tap tap tapping noise, which by straining, I can see is being caused by a blackbird trying to smash a snail shell on the bay window roof below.  There is a faint sound of a passenger plane overhead and the cries of gulls drifting in from the sea.  It's not dark, but not quite light.  It's that sort of inbetween haze.  And that pretty much sums it up.

When I first had my accident, I didn't bother claiming any benefits as I had a very well paid job but after a couple of weeks, I was told that it was best I stayed off for Health & Safety reasons.  There was 2 flights of stairs up to my desk, 1 to the nearest toilet and 3 down if I wanted a drink, my lunch or a smoke (I don't smoke anymore thankfully).  I was immobilised from ankle to hip and on crutches, so was deemed a bit of a liability.  Unfortunately, there was no sick pay as it was only a small Firm so I had to go through the rigmarole of applying for Sick Pay.  Little did I know that 6 weeks later, I'd be made redundant.  Thankfully, I got my normal wage as final payment.  It was a bitter blow, but I was not the only one.  Approximately 200 were made redundant that week.  I spent my redundancy wisely and paid off debts that had built up due to being on a greatly reduced income, filled the freezer and cupboards and made sure that the bills were all up to date.  It didn't leave much, but  I had a holiday booked and thought sod it, I'm still going to enjoy it.  And I did! 

Applying for benefits was a killer.  I'm a proud bird, some would say stubborn (they're right but don't tell them I said so) and to ask for help does not come easy.  Since then, my circumstances have got worse, and I find myself in rather unpleasant territory.  I've admitted that I need help and that I can't cope with the way things are.  Little did I realise just how hard it would be!  Now for those that think life on benefits is easy and you get everything paid for, you're wrong.  Out of my benefit, I still have to pay £25 towards my rent, £8 towards my Council Tax and the usual bills, as well as find the money to get to physio and hospital appointments.  It doesn't sound like a lot, but when your income is only a small amount it's a bloody big dent!  I still don't understand how those who have never worked and are on benefits manage to go out and get drunk & smoke or do drugs (Yes I know not all do before someone picks up on it).  I guess some just know how to screw the system.

It has taken the best part of 16 months to get decent analgesia so that I can be relatively pain free and 6 weeks to get an Occupational Therapy Assessment so that I can finally have a shower safely (I'll come back to this in a moment), sit on the toilet without my kneecap popping out and wash a dish or 2 without worrying about falling over.  I've applied for DLA (Disability Living Allowance), and more recently been made to apply for ESA (I can't remember what it stands for, but it's essentially the same form as for the DLA - this is a blog post on its own so I'll come back to this at a later date, suffice to say, Google is your friend).  I'm still waiting for a decision on DLA.  They have to get a report from my Surgeon and GP, which I don't mind as I have nothing to hide.  

Now, as already stated, things have got worse and so I found myself requiring more help.  Having been told that it was a long wait for an OT Assessment, I was advised to "use baby wipes" to wash myself as it was unsafe to use the shower (I was taking the crutches in with me for stability which wasn't the best of ideas) or stand to have a strip wash, and had I got into the bath I'd have either needed Trumpton or Prince William and his colleagues from RAF Valley to winch me out.  Housework had become all but impossible - the simple act of hoovering generally results in me falling over as I can't hold the hoover and the crutches, so something has to give...it's usually my knee.  Doing the dishes and cooking a meal is the same.  Because of this, I asked for a "Home Help" (not sure what it's called these days, I'm sure it's some daft acronym).  The problem is, because I have used my nouse and adapted to a small extent, I appear to have shot myself in the foot.  

When I make a meal, I put it in a tupperware dish and poke it into the living room with the crutches as this saves me from either dropping the plate/bowl and burning myself or ending up face first in it.  The same with a cup of tea or coffee - I put it in a flask and roll it into the living room.  To collect my post, put the bin bag out, let the dog out, go to the hospital etc, I go down the 28 stairs on my arrse (I've already fell down them and ended up rugby tackling the wall, resulting in a damaged shoulder.  Martin Johnson would have been impressed had I been in a scrum though).  I have a wheelchair for when things are extremely bad, but it's outside my front door - 2 flights of stairs up!  Thankfully, they are aware of the need for more surgery, and know that my needs will increase in the next few weeks, but I will still have to wait a few days for everything to be put into place.  I wait with bated breath for their decision.

I intend for this to be a temporary blip in my life.  No matter what the outcome surgically, I intend to be back at work as soon as possible, paying all the money back in that I've taken out so far.  I'd like to think that I'll get the help I need, but I won't hold my breath.  Maybe in the meantime I should develop a drink or drug problem (well I'm already on morphine so surely it's just a step up...scrap that, I have more self respect), I'd get much more money and help then!  I'll just have to continue to adapt and overcome. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is, don't tar all that are on benefits with the same brush.  Some of us have worked a day in our lives (over 20 years in my case) and will continue to do so, with or without the help that is supposed to be in place for such circumstances.

Baroness Jane Campbell Wants Our Views On PIP

Here is a copy of a mesage we just received from Baroness Campbell. I'm too tired to tweak and make this shiny, so if you can just leave your opinions in the comments thread, it would be much appreciated :

"As you will see from yesterday we talked about the importance of language. So I'm thinking of challenging the title PIP. I think it should remain Disability Living Allowance, after all that's what it's about, disabled People's extra cost of living. It shouldn't not based on independence (defined by professionals) conditionality. 


The condition that one should become "personally independent", which is likely to be defined in a medical model way, will not result in the independence disabled People have demanded over the years (i.e. independent living is about having choice and control over your life like that of non disabled people. 


It includes all things in your life like work, education, raising your family, leisure, personal mobility etc) If the government want to continue encouraging us take responsibility over our lives, then they must give us the right to make our own decisions as to how DLA money should be spent.


 It must not be measured by able-bodied people's assumptions as to what it is to be independent. Could you ask your networks what they think. I believe disabled people want to keep disability living allowance as a universal allowance. 


We want to continue the principle that once you become eligible it is left up to you (personal responsibility) as to how you spend it to minimising the extra costs of being a disabled person, therefore we shouldn't be constantly reassessed as to how our so called independence is going. I'm thinking of demanding we keep the language that means disability living. And as we know, living must be defined by the person whose life it is. (Disabled people are the experts in their own situation)


I could put this down as an amendment, but I need support from the outside world, to make it important and powerful.

Comments please ASAP please"

URGENT APPEAL FOR ACTION NOW!

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

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


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


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


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


What you can do to help is this;


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


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

UPDATE 13.30
The email addresses to contact are;

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

bassams@parliament.uk – opposition chief whip

freudd@parliament.uk –