Labour call for assessment of how cuts hit disabled


8:55 am - July 8th 2013

by Newswire    


      Share on Tumblr

Labour is planning to force a vote in the House of Commons this week demanding a full assessment of how the government’s cuts have impacted disabled people.

They will call on the Cumulative Impact Assessment to be finished by October 2013 at the latest.

The party will also be calling on MPs from across the House to support it.

A statement by Liam Byrne sent Friday evening said:

After more than three years in power, it’s time for this Government to finally come clean and tell us exactly what impact their changes will have on the lives of disabled people and their carers.

So on Wednesday 10 July, Labour will drag Ministers to the House of Commons to debate the changes they have made that affect disabled people, and at about 16:00 we will force a vote to demand a Cumulative Impact Assessment by October 2013 at the latest – and we will be calling on MPs from across the House to support it.

I am asking supporters to help build pressure on the government in three ways:

Write to your MP and ask them to back the motion
Write to your local paper and explain why we urgently need a cumulative impact assessment
Tweet your support using #MakeRightsReality – here’s the link to the motion (http://liambyrne.co.uk/?p=4534)
This government is failing to support our disabled people. It’s time for Ministers to come clean, admit where they are getting things wrong and change course.

It’s time to start making rights a reality for disabled people.

The motion will say: “That this House believes that the Government should publish a cumulative impact assessment of the changes made by this Government that affect disabled people (to be published by October 2013).”

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author

· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: News

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


This is a positive move, but is there any non-partisan reason why that motion couldn’t refer to (say) “changes made in the past five years” rather than “changes made by this Government”? That would explicitly bring the introduction of ESA and the WCA within the scope of the impact assessment.

2. Roz Gladden

There’s no reason why you couldn’t ask for changes over the last decade but if you want the report by October 2013 it has to be a reasonable time scale.

Well, I’m prepared to wait another month or two for a report that looks back a further 2 years into the period of time where Labour becomes culpable. I can understand why Labour loyalists might be keener to have the report rushed out though…

4. Shatterface

There’s no reason why you couldn’t ask for changes over the last decade but if you want the report by October 2013 it has to be a reasonable time scale.

It’s like calling for an inquiry into the Afghan war since May 2010.

Any inquiry that ignores the last Government’s role in this – ESA, Atos, etc. – would be a farce.

To put it simply: I don’t trust Bryne and I don’t trust Labour. Their weakness on social security, an argument they could easily win with reason and evidence, has been too entrenched. As gestures go, this is token and they’re likely to screw it up anyway.

Nothing short of confronting their own regressive record on social security will convince me that they are not going to return to the same old plan if they come back in 2015.

6. PottyTraining

Atos
Apply occult word reverse
=SOTA(H) Hebrew word
– derived from verb
SATAH

Meanings “To Turn aside” “Deviate” “Decline”

http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/7847.htm

Perfect explaination of the disabled inquisition Interviews and the falsity of being paid to “DECLINE” and undermine the sick/disabled.

Medics lured to “DEVIATE FROM DUTY” (for cash payments)

(Strongs Concordance)
SATAH

decline, go aside, turn

A primitive root; to deviate from duty — decline, go aside, turn.

To sum up

ATOS is designed “to deviate” from govt disabled responsibilities and “decline”(deprive) disabled/sick plebs of their basic rights!

(cos most aint got the ‘nous’ to fight them back)

More sewer-class hypocrisy from Labour. They (with chancers like Byrne and Purnell) started the whole thing with WCA, ESA and the contract with ATOS. No wonder they don’t want anyone looking back beyond May 2010.

@ PottyTraining

Woah man. Not even out of nappies and already exposing the occult machinations of the Elders of the Zionic Order of Illuminati (Reformed) (Slough Branch). Respect.

Will the assessment include those who have been declared “Fit To Work” by ATOS?

10. PottyTraining

The big joke about being awarded disabled ‘points’ by the veiled satanists is another Biblical-Jewish one.

‘points’ is derived from iota/jot

Jot. Jot [N] [S]. or Iota, the smallest letter of the Greek alphabet, used metaphorically or proverbially for “the smallest thing”

Bible
Mathew 5:18

Remember after wasting your life esp watching old-style telly, switching it off caused the picture to reduce to a phospher dot until it extinguished completely (with left over energy)

Read yer Bible

Hmmm, lots of expected cynicism but the wording closely mirrors a lot of the petitions that disabled groups have been circulating for the past year or so. A bit silly to criticise Labour when they do what disability activists want (even if it doesn’t go all the way).

12. Shatterface

Hmmm, lots of expected cynicism but the wording closely mirrors a lot of the petitions that disabled groups have been circulating for the past year or so. A bit silly to criticise Labour when they do what disability activists want (even if it doesn’t go all the way).

Are there any disability groups calling for an enquiry to start after Labour left office?

I’m by no means cynical about this. In fact I’m not even particularly cynical about Labour’s initial introduction of the WCA; quite probably it was part of a well-intentioned attempt to move away from the Thatcher-era use of Incapacity Benefit as a scrapheap for people the government didn’t want inflating the unemployment figures but couldn’t be bothered helping into work. And it’s not as if Labour have rejected criticism of the way the WCA has worked in practice; on the contrary, they’ve taken the Harrington reviews on board and called for reform. So I don’t necessarily think this is about drawing a veil over Labour’s past mistakes. I just struggle to see how an impact assessment can really get to grips with the current issues facing disabled people *without* addressing the WCA – which does not, on the face of it, fall within the scope of the proposed assessment since it is not “a change made by this Government”.

14. Charlieman

A number of commenters have mentioned ATOS. I’d like this assessment (or another one) to consider how/why government passes responsibility for life changing decisions about citizens to commercial organisations. I like to hope that we are not at the point where privatisation of the court system is under consideration. So if we understand that judicial decisions should not be privatised, how does government pass the buck with ATOS?

I’m not looking for a review of how ATOS conducts claimant interviews or of injustice within the system. I want to know why/how government thinks that ATOS is an appropriate body to assess disability.

15. Richard McTaggart

I will watch this debate with interest*
but as always lies will be spread!
god job my,
mind’s made up*
I’m voting UKIP* in 2015
UP-EM!! I say*

16. Dissident

@14
The biggest problem with ATOS is they make bigger profit by denying to those in need. Why do you think they use struck off doctors and nurses as assesors, and assess with a bog standard tick box to boot for often complex problems!

How do you assess most chronic disabilities, whether physical or mental, if they do not fit into each specific tick box?

As for who is most culpable for this, new Labour, Tory, hardly matters as they are interchangeable with ease…

Sunny @11:

“A bit silly to criticise Labour when they do what disability activists want (even if it doesn’t go all the way).”

OK, how about ‘bandwagon-jumping’, then? Why has it taken Labour so long to cotton on to this?

18. Dissident

@17 I thought they jumped onto Rupert’s (astro)turf

19. Charlieman

@16. Dissident: “The biggest problem with ATOS is they make bigger profit by denying to those in need. Why do you think they use struck off doctors and nurses as assesors, and assess with a bog standard tick box to boot for often complex problems!”

That’s too much about how ATOS operates. I’m looking for a review to determine whether it is appropriate for a body like ATOS to perform government functions. Prior to ATOS, it was problematic but necessary that civil servants judged disability benefit claims. State employees made decisions about how much money people received, which determined how those citizens lived their lives.

On a philosophical basis, I reject the idea that government can contract out life changing decisions. If budget cuts mean that some people do not receive benefits (or as many benefits), losers should be determined by the state operating through its own employees. Passing the buck should not be an option. For every decision, there should be a state employee trail which stops at the desk of the elected minister of state.

Are there other government functions which are contracted out, such that citizens’ lives are determined by a commercial company?

20. Dissident

@19 Charlieman

I get you. The biggest problem is the fact that the state decides who gets the contract, on what terms, and the politicians ultimately behind said contract say ‘don’t blame me, Guv, it was ‘Im’ – even though said politician decided it in the first place!

21. Dissident

The American government apparently invented plausible deniability lol

22. Dissident

@15
Are you sure UKIP are any better? Read my comments – imagine Farange where you see your pet hates!!! Can you honestly say he would be any different?

23. Charlieman

@20. Dissident: “The biggest problem is the fact that the state decides who gets the contract…”

The contract should not exist. There are functions of government which should not be subcontracted. If it is acceptable to contract assessment of benefit claims, why not sell off magistracy or management of street order? Oops, I think government has done some of the latter.

@ Charlieman,

Most healthcare is co-ordinated through GP’s, and most of those are in the private sector.

The state employees who used to make the decisions were also paid to do the work under contract.

I sort-of-vaguely-generally agree with what you’re saying, but it’s a bit blurry isn’t it?

Some basic questions might be:

1) What benefit is being offered by ATOS in exchange for the profit opportunity?
2) Are they following the rules laid down by the Government (with whom the buck has to remain)?
3) Are ATOS better incentivised to do a good job than was the case before? (Don’t laugh).

25. Dissident

I forgot to mention the brown paper envelopes at comment 20 Charlieman!
@Jack C that brown paper envelope covers a lot of sins – without accountability…

26. Charlieman

@24. Jack C: “I sort-of-vaguely-generally agree with what you’re saying, but it’s a bit blurry isn’t it?”

Blurry is good. Blurry means that you are not incapacitated by Leninism or the like, that you have the capacity to consider arguments.

Regarding GPs and their relationship with patients: GPs advise and may recommend life style changes, but cannot compel them. Whilst it is true that GPs are government subcontractors, GPs had different power relationships with patients and governments when considering benefit worthiness.

GPs, of course, did not determine whether an individual deserved benefit. Civil servants made that decision. Direct contract, direct chain of responsibility.

“1) What benefit is being offered by ATOS in exchange for the profit opportunity?”

It permits government to act unfairly and to construct obstacles which deny claimants their rights. The benefit of ATOS is that, as a commercial company, it has no responsibility. As an intermediary, ATOS prevents disgruntled claimants from pursuing their claims.

“2) Are they following the rules laid down by the Government (with whom the buck has to remain)?”

I bet that ATOS is legally untouchable. I believe that ATOS interpreted every rule in a way that suited the company. T’was the lawyers’ jobs.

I do not believe that ATOS correctly judged every claimant.

“3) Are ATOS better incentivised to do a good job than was the case before? (Don’t laugh).”

Incentivised? How the fuck do you incentivise between what is morally right and morally wrong? It is a binary decision.

27. Dissident

“Blurry is good. Blurry means that you are not incapacitated by Leninism or the like, that you have the capacity to consider arguments.”

What if you never get enough information? What if there is always a bit of mist draping the parapets? What do you do then? Especially if you can see the glow of yet more fiery catapults? (sorry for the medieval imagery there, but I hope you get the analogy)

@Charlieman – You ask a very good question, regarding how/why the government thinks ATOS is an appropriate body to assess disability.

The clue is in the details of how ATOS is rewarded – companies ought to be thought of as amoral, as in provide them the financial incentive to do good things, then they’ll do good things, provide them the incentive to do bad things…
And there’s the rub, ATOS is paid out on the basis of finding people ‘fit to work’. In that light the answer becomes obvious, they wanted to deliberately deny disability benefits to the actually disabled, and needed a third party bagman to keep the scandal at arms length and take the heat.

29. justin thyme

Liam Byrne is no better than IDS – he doesn’t speak for any disabled people I know of!!!

The Labour Party in this country has no interest at all in its history, the population of disabled, unemployed, poor or poorly paid people. The Labour Party stands toe-2-toe with the elites and the right-wing mercenaries in banking and finance.

Dear God you know something Byrne asking for this, why has he decided to the building of concentration camps would be a better idea.

I cannot believe for one minute Labour who caused this mess with the WCA and ATOS now see me as a human who may be struggling.

I got ESA, for the sole reason I had money saved up for a rainy day which I spent getting doctors reports and medical reports from the consultants I spent £1000 on these reports which many people cannot do.

Then when I had the ATOS doctors report it stated unable to work yet the DWP placed me onto the WRAG which means after a year I’d go to JSA, I appealed the decision which then went back to ATOS and means they were paid to do the appeal, lucky a review was carried out and I was put into the care unable to work group.

I see many many people unable to pay the money to get reports, in the old days the DWP wrote to consultants got the medical reports them selves, they phoned GPs asked about the patients, and you were given a medical now we have to pay for these and the DWP know many people cannot afford it.

Who did this well Freud Purenll and Byrne.

Charlieman @26:

“Incentivised? How the fuck do you incentivise between what is morally right and morally wrong? It is a binary decision.”

Can you be that specific with moral questions?

Why were state employess more likely to make the correct moral choice? It’s easy to say that they were because there wasn’t a profit imperative, but we know it’s not that simple in real life.

If the contract favours ATOS as much as you think, then that’s very poor planning on behalf of the government. The buck, of course, should remain with the minister.

The WCA is not about disability. Never has been.

This DOGS BREAKFAST is NuLabours responsibility. It should be hung round their necks so they will never forget their incompetence. They were incompetent in just about any area of government you care to note. I will name the Rt Hon and Hon members if you wish.

Now Ed M wants to redefine the relationship between NuLabour and the Trade Unions. I’m not making this up.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Monday feminist roundup (8th July 2013) | feimineach.com

    […] Labour to call for an assessment of how cuts have hit disabled people (liberalconspiracy). I’m not naive enough to think that any austerity measures will be reversed […]

  2. Disabled People’s Lives Will Be Ruined By Sweeping Cuts To Services

    […] Wednesday, politicians will meet in parliament to debate and vote on an issue their constituents have actually asked them to. This in itself might seem remarkable, […]

  3. Disabled people’s lives will be ruined by sweeping cuts to services | Sue Marsh | PCS Croydon (Home Office)

    […] Wednesday, politicians will meet in parliament to debate and vote on an issue their constituents have actually asked them to. This in itself might seem remarkable, […]

  4. Disabled people’s lives will be ruined by sweeping cuts to services | Benefit tales

    […] Wednesday, politicians will meet in parliament to debate and vote on an issue their constituents have actually asked them to. This in itself might seem remarkable, […]

  5. Disabled people’s lives will be ruined by sweeping cuts to services « About Handicapped Aids

    […] Wednesday, politicians will meet in parliament to debate and vote on an issue their constituents have actually asked them to. This in itself might seem remarkable, […]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.