Readers, Paul Maynard, disabled MP, voted with the Government in last night’s food bank debate, in which Labour were attempting to make the Government take measures to reduce dependency on food banks.

The Government won.

Ordinary disabled people are starving and forced to use food banks, and he as a disabled person in a position of power doesn’t care.

When and where will his betrayals end?

And it gets worse readers. Mike Penning, who is not disabled but is our current Minister, also voted with the Government. So, the very group he is representing is starving, and he doesn’t care. He’s in the wrong job. Why did he accept it?

From Twitter:

And some time later from Facebook:

RT @vincentmoss Speaker Bercow says Duncan Smith &McVey walk-out in #foodbankdebate is “unusual” & notes unhappiness is “widely shared”

You’re in the wrong job, Sir, GET LOST.

This might be useful. Via reader Amy Wood.

Readers, I have just been sent something which is of high importance.

The Government insist there are no targets to remove people from disability benefits, but in Committee questions last Wednesday, 11 December, Mike Penning, Minister For Disabled People, was asked:

Q55   Stephen Lloyd: Thank you.  In December 2012, the Department estimated that by the time the reassessment was complete, 55% of the total 1.75 million existing DLA claimants would receive either no award or a decreased award as a result of reassessment for PIP.  Does that still remain the Department’s estimate of the likely outcome of DLA reassessment?  You said in 2012 that 55% of the total 1.75 million existing DLA recipients either were going to receive a decrease, or not be moved on to PIP.  Is that still the sort of percentage you are looking at?

Note his answer:

Mike Penning: Yes.  That is exactly what we will be looking at.  The crucial thing about that—and we will come on to this in a moment, I am sure—is the amount of face-to-face assessments that are done.  They were just not done before, and that is the 10%.

So readers, not only did he confirm Government targets for disability benefits but he also confirmed that face to face assessments, the source of such fear for disabled people and carers, are crucial to cutting 10% of claimants!

Your words, Sir, your words.

I have just received this email from a reader. Can you answer her question? Please leave comments below so that I can pass them on.

Hi there,

Written by Sue Marsh. Cross posted in the interests of viralness.

I can hardly bear it any more. Day after day after day. Terrible stories of suffering, despair and suicide.

I’m know you don’t believe it. I know what you’re told. “It’s getting better, we’re taking action, we’re improving the process, these people don’t try hard enough, they’re not really sick enough.”

People say I shouldn’t beg. But I’m not proud. If getting down on my knees and begging you would make a difference, I’d do it gladly. I promise you now, you’ll be remembered for this. If you’re sitting at home right now, thinking about your legacy, I promise you it will be this. It will be that you turned away from the pain and suffering before your very eyes. I’ll make sure of it if it takes me 20 years.

It will be that you allowed your Department for Work and Pensions to lie and cheat and mislead whilst people – millions of people – suffered.

I know, I don’t usually click on video links either. But you found time to watch Strictly Come Dancing,you said so at the Downing St charity reception. And we know you loved Fruit Ninja. And you have time to take countless holidays.

So even if you’re convinced I’m wrong, absolutely certain I’m just a trouble making leftie, please, I’ll beg you, I’m not proud, find ten minutes – just ten minutes to watch

This film. 

Work Capability Assessments have been found in law to discriminate against people with mental health conditions. Your government appealed but the appeal was overturned. Not only are you on the wrong side of the argument, you’re on the wrong side of the law.

You have to stop this. You can pause the migration of Incapacity Benefit claimants until the process can be made safe. YOU can do it. Today if you chose to. You could stop this dreadful social crisis unravelling before our eyes.

And I’m begging you. For what it’s worth.

Nearly half a million older and disabled people who would have received social care five years ago have been cut completely out of the system, Sky News can reveal.

Nine out of 10 councils have withdrawn funded care from people with an “inability to carry out several personal care or domestic routines”, according to a new study by the London School of Economics.

Academics say it would cost £2.8bn a year to reinstate the care to this group who are judged to have “moderate” needs.

Even to maintain the current situation – in which the vast majority of councils only meet “substantial” and “critical” needs – would cost £1.6bn because of the pressure of an ageing population, they add.

The findings come as MPs prepare to debate the Care Bill in the House of Commons.

The Care and Support Alliance, a group of 75 organisations and charities including Scope, Age UK and the Alzheimer’s Society, say the findings reveal the “true scale of the social care crisis”.

Richard Hawkes, chair of the coalition, said: “Chronic under-funding has left nearly half a million older and disabled people, who need support to do the basics, like getting up or out of the house, cut out of the care system.”

He said the Care Bill had some “strong proposals” that could improve a social care system “on its knees”.

“But it’s becoming clear that a huge number of older and disabled people will not see any of the benefits of the new system,” he added.

Meanwhile, figures obtained under Freedom of Information by Labour show that those who pay for care have seen their charges rise by £50 a month.

The cost of meals-on-wheels have risen by a fifth while community transport prices have almost doubled.

Norman Lamb, the Care Minister, said legislation would help by forcing councils to step into people’s lives earlier.

He said: “What this bill does is very much focus on preventing ill health and preventing a deterioration of condition. And there will be a substantial shift of resources in that direction.”

He said the Government would put in place a national minimum threshold to end the “postcode lottery” in care.

But campaigners are warning that it will be set at a high level – still cutting out anyone with moderate needs.

In West Sussex, a campaign group called Don’t Cut Us Out, warned that the cut-backs were having a serious impact.

It highlighted the case of Julie-Ann Baker who was left disabled after her mother suffered German measles during pregnancy.

She wears a hearing aid in both ears and three years ago her deteriorating sight disappeared completely after she walked into a door.

She received four hours of visits each week from care workers who would bin out of date food, clean up after her guide dog in the garden, vacuum the carpet, change her bed sheets, and take her shopping.

Then suddenly they withdrew the visits – after changing the eligibility criteria.

Ms Baker told Sky News: “I just don’t understand why they’ve done it. Sometimes I sit here and cry. One minute they give you and the next they take away. It can be very lonely.”

She said she wished she could blindfold council staff so they could understand how difficult it was. She had mouldy bread in her kitchen and out of date eggs. And when she places a ready meal in the microwave she has no idea what is in it.

Margaret Guest from the Don’t Cut Us Out campaign helps Ms Baker at times. She says she sees similar cases regularly.

The campaigner used to be a manager in social care at the local council and says workers are also horrified by the cuts.

At one meeting a councillor said people had to “harden their hearts” and not become emotional.

A spokesman for West Sussex Council said: “We don’t comment on individual cases, however we are confident in our assessment of Mrs Baker and others like her and have set up prevention and early intervention services for those no longer eligible for social care support as well as working more closely with our partners in the NHS.

“We have had to make changes to adult social care support because of reductions in local authority budgets brought about by the Government’s determination to reduce the national deficit.”

Liz Kendall, Labour’s shadow care minister, said: “We need to spend money in the right place, helping people to live independently in their own homes.”

I’ve just signed this. Please do the same and let’s see if we can get a Parliament debate. Please share widely as they need 100000 signatures.

Benefit Sanctions – Independent Inquiry

Responsible department: Department for Work and Pensions

Due to the draconian policies of this government in its Social Security reforms and the clear pressure placed on DWP/Job Centre staff, the number of claimants being subjected to benefit sanctions has increased by hundreds of thousands per year.

Benefit sanctions can last from 4 weeks to 3 years causing immense distress to benefit claimants, suicide, homelessness, poverty, hunger and increased use of food banks.

It is widely reported that many claimants facing sanctions have had their benefits stopped when its not even their own fault, with even reports that claimants are set up to fail and have even had their job centre records falsified.

We support the call from Church Action on Poverty, The Trussell Trust and Child Poverty Action Group for the government to set up an independent inquiry into benefit sanctions, processes, the sanctioned, their effects with a view to establishing a fairer system to ensure benefit claimants are treated with compassion.

Cross posted by request of Sue Marsh, who wrote it.

In 2008, Labour introduced a new out of work sickness benefit, Employment and Support Allowance, to replace the old Incapacity Benefit.

The new system of application and assessments was much tougher, and politicians originally hoped that up to a million people could be moved from the benefit.

However, by 2010, it was clear there were significant flaws in the process. People with mental health and fluctuating conditions were not being fairly treated and successful appeals against “fit for work” decisions soared to 40%.

Professor Harrington was asked to review the new benefit and make recommendations for improving it. As the election took place in 2010, crucially, only new claimants were being assessed. ESA was yet to be rolled out to the more complicated, and often longer term, Incapacity Benefit claimants, though trials were underway in Burnley and Aberdeen.

Most people claim out of work sickness benefits for short periods – perhaps to get through a sports injury, accident or one off surgery – and stop their claims within 2 years. However, this will always leave a few people with serious, life limiting conditions who will need to claim the benefit for longer periods. Over the years, those claims build up, increasing the proportion who need long term support.

When the coalition came to power in May 2010, they immediately announced that they would go ahead and start to reassess those already claiming Incapacity Benefit.

I could never understand this decision. Why would you take a failing benefit and roll it out to almost 2 million of the most vulnerable claimants? Not only that, but at first, just 25,000 people per month were being assessed, but the government constantly increased and increased the numbers until today, nearly 130,000 assessments are carried out every month.

Why? Why would you rush this group through failing assessments, ever faster, when backlogs kept on increasing, tribunals were overturning 40% of decisions that went to appeal and even legally, courts were starting to judge that the test discriminates against certain groups?

Unless of course you don’t want the tests to be fair. If your aim is to remove a million people from the benefit, perhaps it suits you to make sure that as many of those existing claimants don’t face a fair test? Since 2010, the government have repeatedly delayed improvements to ESA. Out of 25 recommendations made by Professor Harrington in his Yr1 Review, almost two thirds have not been fully and successfully implemented. An “Evidence Based Review” using new descriptors designed by mental health charities and those charities representing people with fluctuating conditions was initially rejected, then taken on, but although results were due in June, still, tests use the old descriptors to decide who qualifies for support. *

The government repeatedly claimed that Professor Harrington had supported the national rollout of incapacity benefit claimants

“Professor Harrington went away and made his recommendations to us, which we accepted in full and have implemented. He told me, “I believe the system is in sufficient shape for you to proceed with incapacity benefit reassessment.” We set ourselves a goal to put his recommendations in place, improve the quality of the process and address many of the issues to which hon. Members have referred today by the end of last May, when the assessments in the incapacity benefit reassessment were to start alongside the existing process of assessing ESA new claimants. We did that, and we started.”

1 Feb 2012 : Column 289WH Hansard Chris Grayling
However, Harrington was clearly an intelligent man who had made thoughtful and intelligent suggestions for improving the assessments. I could never understand why he agreed to put the most vulnerable claimants through a failing test.

So I decided to ask him.

It took me a while to track down his email address, but after pulling lots of strings, I was able to ask him outright.

This was Professor Harrington’s reply :

“To your question:

Malcolm”

I’d say it was fairly clear, wouldn’t you?

Ian Duncan-Smith and others took the decision to push nearly 2 million people through a failing test as quickly as they could. Why? Was it so that they could remove as many people as possible from the benefit whether they needed it or not? Surely any failures to improve the test as recommended by Harrington, charities and campaigners couldn’t have been deliberate? Delaying improvements until the IB cohort had been rushed through, the cohort this government and others are convinced are simply “scroungers” and “skivers”?

Instead, as we now see, delays have increased, successful appeals have risen, lives have been lost to the sheer inaccuracy and flawed design of the assessments and the human suffering is now clear for all to see.

To have taken the decision through incompetence is bad enough, but if it was taken deliberately and cynically, I can only hope the responsible ministers will be held to account. Over 200,000 incorrect decisions have since been overturned in law and appeals are taking up to a year to be heard in some areas.

When David Cameron came to power he said :

“The test of a good society is how do you protect the poorest, the most vulnerable, the elderly, the frail.

That’s important in good times, it’s even more important in difficult times. People need to know that if they have me as their Prime Minister and they have a Conservative government, it will be that sort of Prime Minister

Iain Duncan-Smith said :

“I say to those watching today and who are genuinely sick, disabled or are retired. You have nothing to fear.

This government and this party don’t regard caring for the needy as a burden. It is a proud duty to provide financial security to the most vulnerable members of our society and this will not change. This is our contract with the most vulnerable.”

I look forward to them explaining what made them change their minds.

Today, we must be our own media. Please RT on twitter, share on Facebook and help me to make sure that as many people as possible see this news. 

*Coincidentally, the evidence based review was released yesterday, as I was writing this article. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/265471/wca-evidence-based-review.pdf

This is a must read. I don’t want to copy and paste it, because I don’t know if that’s legal. Anyway, it was submitted yesterday by jimmy3.

There is a facility for people to leave annotations, in case anyone wants to use it. It might ‘help the requester.’

From Facebook:

Thanks to Johnny Void. I have seen suggestions that we should all do this to all organisations that use workfare. I have to agree with these suggestions!

Readers, look at this table:

The Spectator Coffeehouse site says it was leaked to them by a whistleblower. They go on to say that it has been produced by ATOS:

“to keep tabs on the centres that carry out the assessments (the DWP makes the final fitness-to-work decision based on the scores from these tests). It marks the centres against ‘statistical norms’ – a national average of the percentage of applicants for Employment and Support Allowance whose scores fit them into certain groups, such as the Support Group which entails the highest level of benefit.

Centres scoring above average are highlighted in pink for each group, while blue cells denote an unacceptably low number of allocations.”

They continue that while there is nothing wrong with a company keeping tabs on how its centres are performing, “the norms could start to influence the scores that are awarded to claimants, rather than scores being awarded on the basis of the condition of the applicant who arrives at the test centre.

They acknowledge that “centres that are above average could still be awarding the correct test results.”

ATOS, naturally, denies using these norms as targets. A spokesperson told the Spectator:

“ATOS Healthcare does not have targets. Norms are used solely as a management and quality assurance tool and are not used to drive individual outcomes.

‘Audits will only ever be conducted by ATOS Healthcare on the WCA report itself, never the outcome of a benefit claim. Audits are always conducted by experienced clinicians. Reports are never changed in order to achieve an expected norm. Changes may be made following an audit if there are inconsistencies in the report, if the advice is not clinically reasonable or there is a lack of clinical justification.’

A DWP spokesperson told the Spectator:

‘This is an “exception report” and not a set of targets. It helps to show where sites are above or below normal range on different indicators and in spotting trends so that we can better understand any variations.

‘Sites are not made to change their practice based on the information but instead, where relevant, report on reasons for the variation.

‘ATOS Healthcare does not have performance targets or incentives around the number of people qualifying for benefit and does not make decisions on benefit entitlement.’

Readers, given our experiences and knowledge of WCAs and the way they are carried out, given all the problems we have had with them up to this point, it would be very easy to see why disabled people and carers would find it very difficult to believe that these ‘norms’ are not being used as targets.

In fact you don’t have to look much further than this to see that there is evidence that they are.

Cross posted with the permission of the brilliant campaigner Kaliya Franklin, who wrote the report.

Why are so many sick and disabled people being failed by the Work Capability Assessment and who is to blame?

1. The contract between DWP and Atos Healthcare specifies all costs and solutions MUST be based around an artificially imposed ‘statistical norm’ for the Support Group of 11% (which has since been allowed to rise slightly). This ‘gears’ the whole WCA system to deliver that ‘desired result’.
2. The manner in which the audit system is used within Atos Healthcare, including whistle-blower evidence of ‘punitive auditing’, means there is insufficient latitude for assessors to freely use their professional judgement about an individual’s true fitness for work.

The Work Capability Assessment (WCA), used to determine eligibility for Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), which replaces Incapacity Benefit, has been dogged with problems since its inception. Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) ministers and Atos have always denied the existence of ‘targets’ for the WCA. Now, for the first time, evidence is presented that the WCA operates to a norm-referenced system. This is a de facto target system, since when ‘statistical norms’ are applied to a process such as the WCA they deliver the same outcome as targets. As Lord Boswell predicted in 2007, this use of statistical norms means “the test will, in effect, be geared to deliver that [desired] result”. Being able to consistently deny the existence of any targets has been crucial both for the Labour government who introduced the WCA, and the Conservative/Liberal Democrat Coalition government who have continued with its use despite evidence of significant faults in the process.

The media regularly feature stories of people even the Daily Mail would consider deserving of ESA who have been refused the benefit – people with sickness or disabilities as diverse as Huntington’s Disease, uncontrolled epilepsy, kidney failure or brittle bone disease – but until now there has been no completely satisfactory explanation for this misery and hardship.

Ministers, MPs, the DWP and campaigners point the finger at Atos, the company contracted to carry out these tests on behalf of the DWP. The DWP say Atos are at fault and that they will improve the system by breaking their monopoly and allowing other companies to bid for the contract.  Labour have also announced that they will “sack Atos”. DWP ministers blame the civil servants and the civil servants seethe. It is a classic case of political, “it wasn’t me Miss, it was them”.

To explain what all this really means education analogies are helpful. Exams can be either ‘norm-referenced’, ‘criterion-referenced’ or a mix of both. A criterion-referenced exam system means students receive an objective grade based on their performance against a pre-defined marking scheme. A norm-referenced exam system sets ‘quotas’ which limit the overall proportion of students able to achieve each grade.

Originally ‘A’ levels were simply pass or fail, but in 1963 guidance was issued which limited the overall proportion of students allowed to receive each grade. This was a norm-referenced system which ensured that only a small proportion of students could achieve ‘A’ grades. This was widely perceived as unfair to students and during the 1980’s ‘A’ level marking systems were changed to remove quotas.

The audit system as controlled by the DWP can be seen as a teacher, and Atos the poorly performing pupil. The teacher punishes the pupil, focusing on reprimanding him when he smudges his ink (deviates from the ‘norms’ imposed in the contract) whilst ignoring the content of his answers or his behaviour. The teacher blames the pupil for not learning and the pupil blames the teacher for everything. Before anyone should feel too sorry for the pupil, it’s important to note, this pupil is more Harry Flashman than Harry Potter; the real victims are those affected by their combined bad behaviour.

The test for the old Incapacity Benefit – the Personal Capability Assessment – was a criterion-based system. People were awarded points based upon how they scored against certain criteria – for example, those who could walk less than 50 metres were awarded more points than those who could walk less than 200 metres. If the person scored the number of points, across all the criteria, necessary for benefit receipt, they would be entitled to the benefit.

However, the WCA is a norm-referenced system. People must both score the number of points required for benefit receipt and fall within the proportion of people the norms system will allow to receive the benefit. In practice this means there is a finite number of claimants the assessment system will allow to be awarded the benefit, regardless of the number of people who objectively meet the criteria for benefit eligibility.

New evidence gleaned from the original contract between Atos and DWP, testimony from Atos employees and Freedom of Information requests, clearly indicates that the outcomes for individual sick and disabled ESA claimants are not driven solely by the severity of their condition or the nature of their disability. On the contrary, as Lord Boswell warned in 2007, the imposition of statistical norms onto the WCA gears the outcome of the whole system to achieve the desired result: in effect a cap on the overall number of people the system will permit to be granted eligibility for ESA.

Evidence shows that Atos uses a ‘management information tool’,  based on the ‘statistical norms’, to ‘manage’  the behaviour of individual assessors. Although officially the audit of assessments is not supposed to be punitive, it’s clear from whistle-blowers that in many regions there are negative consequences for assessors if they do not restrict the number of points they award to claimants to comply with the norms. This makes it difficult, for example, for them to award a high point score to every claimant who, in their clinical judgement, has a serious condition affecting their ability to work.
 
There is therefore a serious risk that the overall outcome for the claimant  – whether they are placed in the Support Group and given unconditional support because they are unable to work, placed in the Work Related Activity Group on the basis that they are likely to be able to return to work in the future, or denied ESA altogether and expected to actively seek employment – may be driven as much by the severity of other claimants’ conditions as their own, particularly those claimants assessed on the same day by the same assessor!

So is removing Atos actually a solution to the problems with the WCA? The answer is no. As long as the WCA remains a norm-referenced system of assessment, removing Atos is the political equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns.

It is clear, and in the light of this evidence totally unsurprising, that this iniquitous system is causing immense distress, hardship and increased ill-health for the very people who most need support, whilst at the same time costing the taxpayer many millions of pounds in unnecessary assessments and appeals.

This evidence and analysis must be understood by politicians of all parties, since only a cross party solution can fix this cruel, wasteful, immoral system and prevent more unnecessary suffering. If sick and disabled people are to receive the support they need – and which a civilised, compassionate Western society is expected to provide – this new report, published by The Centre for Welfare Reform, “Investigating the real reason for the misery of ‘fit for work’ assessments”, is essential reading for both Parliamentarians and the public alike.

This article includes the full transcript of the letter that leading charities have written to the PM about Bedroom Tax.

Charities have accused the Prime Minister of giving “inaccurate” statements and raising “false hopes” by suggesting that disabled people who need an extra room are exempt from the so-called “bedroom tax”.

Eighteen chief executives of leading disabled charities have written to David Cameron criticising comments he made during Prime Minister’s Questions last Wednesday.

Mr Cameron was asked about calls to exempt disabled people form the Spare Room Subsidy and responded: “Obviously, what we have done is to exempt disabled people who need an extra room.”

The charities, which include Carers UK, the RNIB and and Sense, say he has made similar remarks twice this year.

The letter states: “None of these situations reflect the reality of the Government’s policy. We are now even more concerned that the effects the policy is having on disabled people and their families are not understood in Government.”

It continues: “When senior Government figures state that these families are exempt when they are not, our organisations have to respond to the false hope this generates. We receive the relieved calls and messages from families who are struggling to pay their rent shortfall, and it falls to us to tell those families that they are, in fact, subject to these cuts and are not exempt.”

Although there are some exemptions for disabled children, many disabled people do not qualify.

They may be eligible for money from a discretionary fund but charities say the fund isn’t available to all and as a consequence the policy is having a “devastating” impact on many people who needed the extra room for carers or equipment.

In the letter to the PM they list the types of people affected, which include “families of disabled children who need overnight care workers to stay to give them a break” and “people whose extra room is needed for home adaptations or equipment, including dialysis machines, oxygen tanks, hoists and wheelchairs”.

Last week Sky News revealed that a consortium of 50 charities had written to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) calling for disabled people to be exempt from the Spare Room Subsidy.

The DWP responded: “We are determined to support those who might need extra help through these necessary reforms. That is why we set aside £190m this year to do precisely this, with £25m specifically for disabled people living in specially adapted properties.

“The courts have ruled we are meeting our equality duties to disabled people who are affected by the policy.

“The removal of the Spare Room Subsidy means we still pay the majority of most claimants’ rent, but the taxpayer can no longer afford to pay the £500m cost of claimants’ extra bedrooms.”

A WOMAN who depends upon carers to help her in every aspect of her daily life has fallen into arrears because of the bedroom tax.

Quadriplegic Claire Hilton, aged 32, has a team of six carers dedicated to her, with two on shift at any one time to help her move about, eat and sleep.

For 12 years she has lived in a bungalow in Prodesse Court, Hindley and, although the two carers stay overnight seven days a week, she falls into the ‘under occupied’ category of the tax because the legislation only allows for one carer to stay.

Claire now has £50 a month taken out of her housing benefit and her parents, Margaret and Nigel, are outraged and frustrated no one will listen to them.

Margaret said: “Claire had leukaemia when she was three and contracted encephalitis, which just took everything apart from hearing, when she was seven.

“She is not ‘under-occupied’. The bungalow is three bedrooms and there are three people sleeping there every night. We don’t blame the council because it is law, but it just seems the Government has overlooked a whole category of people when they created it.

“Others seem to have won court cases against the tax but it is a long process and Claire is now in arrears because I refuse to pay the shortfall.

“I won’t pay because we have to make a stand.”

Claire’s bungalow has been specially adapted to cater to her needs so moving is not an option and the safety aspect of the care she requires means two carers are essential, especially overnight.

The family applied for a discretionary payment but were rejected.

Nigel said: “Claire is a happy and caring person and very considerate, especially with family and friends.

“I would defy anybody to manage Claire on their own, it is just not possible and it wouldn’t be safe.

“We are adamant that an injustice is occurring and we want to highlight this.”

As you all know, he always encourages shares.

Nothing new there. Many thanks Political Scrapbook.

Thousands of disabled people are cutting back on food and heating to pay for the so-called “bedroom tax”, according to a group of leading charities.

The chief executives of leading groups including Disability Rights UK, Scope, Carers UK, The Royal National Institute of Blind People and the Council For Disabled Children say the policy is having a “devastating impact” on people with disabilities.

More than 50 organisations have signed a letter to Iain Duncan Smith calling for immediate action to exempt disabled people from the Spare Room Subsidy.

They claim that it is harder for people in adapted housing to move and that “it is hitting disabled people who need an extra room for essential home adaptations or equipment which enable them to live independently”.

The letter to the Department of Work and Pensions states: “We have been deeply frustrated at reports that disabled people and their families are protected from this policy.

“The stark evidence since the policy was implemented in April clearly shows they are not.

“None of these groups are exempt and our organisations are seeing the devastating impact it is having on those who now face a shortfall in their rent as a result of the changes.”

The Government does offer help with extra discretionary housing payments (DHPs) for disabled social housing tenants.

However, the letter points to research conducted by the Papworth Trust which showed that one in three disabled people applying for DHPs are refused, the same number as non-disabled people, and that 90% of disabled people refused a DHP are already cutting back on food, drink, household bills and medication or therapies.

The letter claims that carers and families of disabled children are “being forced deeper and deeper into debt and falling behind on their rent, putting them at risk of eviction”.

Sky News spoke to 47-year-old Heather Simpson from Battersea who suffers from a degenerative disease and needs an adapted property with wheelchair access and a stair-lift.

She has been told by her local housing association that it is unable to find her an appropriate smaller home. 

Come December she is worried she may have to find an additional £80 a month to cover her spare room.

She told Sky News: “I’m stuck basically, there’s nowhere for me to go.

“I understand there’s overcrowding, but there’s nowhere for me to go. So I’ll just get into debt.”

In a letter sent to Heather last week, her Housing Association, Peabody, said it had 1,600 applicants for rehousing and only 145 places.

In a statement, Peabody told Sky News: “The Government’s under-occupancy charge has a significant impact on vulnerable people, and we are working with other housing associations and councils to try and increase the options for people needing to move …

“We would like to see the Government take action to mitigate the impact of this policy particularly for the most vulnerable residents in our homes.”  

A Department of Work and Pensions spokesperson told Sky News: “We are determined to support those who might need extra help through these necessary reforms.

“That is why we set aside £190m this year to do precisely this, with £25m specifically for disabled people living in specially adapted properties.

“The courts have ruled we are meeting our equality duties to disabled people who are affected by the policy.

“The removal of the spare room subsidy means we still pay the majority of most claimants’ rent, but the taxpayer can no longer afford to pay the £500m cost of claimants’ extra bedrooms.”

Spotted on Facebook. Please share, Retweet, etc.

From DPAC :Please email your MP on Independent Living event on 26th Nov

Urgent Action – disabled people’s independent living in the UK!

We are calling on all our DPAC members and supporters to contact your MPs and ask them to attend an Emergency Meeting on the Future of Disabled People’s Independent Living in the UK.

Contact your MP now at https://www.writetothem.com/

Please let us know if you get any responses at mail@dpac.uk.net

Dear (insert name of MP),

I am inviting you to attend an Emergency Meeting on the Future of Disabled People’s Independent Living in the UK taking place in Parliament this Tuesday.

House of Commons, Committee Room 8
4 – 5pm, Tuesday 26th November 2013

We are at a pivotal moment for the future of independent living for disabled people in the UK. Disabled people have come together to record and express their testimonies about the reality of life for disabled people under austerity. These will be shown to the UN disability rapporteur but first disabled people would like to share them with our own Parliamentarians and politicians.

In the wake of the Court of Appeal judgment on the closure of the Independent Living Fund, with the Care bill going through Parliament and as funding cuts result in ever diminishing support packages the question of how we fulfil disabled people’s right to independent living is sharply relevant.

Independent living for disabled people is important to me because… (add something about your personal situation and why independent living is important to you)
The Emergency meeting hosted by Kate Green, shadow Minister for Disabled People, will include a drama created especially for this event to enable disabled people with a range of experiences to express their stories in an accessible and inclusive way. It will also preview a powerful film by journalists Ros Wynne Jones and Kate Belgrave showing a day in a life without the Independent Living Fund of ILF recipient Mary Laver.

There will also be a chance to speak to disabled people and hear our ideas for how to support disabled people’s independent living.

Yours sincerely,

Will they stop at no one? If David Cameron meant what he said about her last May, he should personally step in to her case now.