Inclusion Scotland

Saturday, 28 January 2012

Protesters show anger over Welfare Reform Bill

People in wheelchairs chained themselves together in anger over welfare proposals, blocking traffic in one of London's busiest shopping areas.

Disability campaign groups and members of direct action organisation UK Uncut chanted, held banners and banged drums in the middle of Oxford Circus.

Campaigners say the changes in the Welfare Reform Bill would see half a million people lose their benefits.

The government said it wanted a simpler and fairer welfare system.

The proposals, which are due to come into force in 2013, include introducing a single universal credit.

The bill, currently going through Parliament, also includes a cap on benefits to about £500 a week, or £26,000 a year - the level of the average salary of working families. Last week the government was defeated in the Lords on that and other aspects.

The Disability Living Allowance would be replaced with a new allowance, Personal Independence Payments. This would involve upfront medical tests and regular assessments for working people aged 16 to 64.

UK Uncut said 15 wheelchair users chained themselves together in Oxford Circus at about 12:00 GMT, blocking traffic in part of Regent Street until about 14:30. They were supported by about 250 people, a spokeswoman said.

One of the wheelchair users, referring to himself only as Andy, said the changes could be 'devastating' for disabled people.

The 37-year-old, from Islington, north London, said: 'The whole raft of cuts that are being carried through will affect all of the services that support disabled people - public services, social care, the voluntary sector - all these are being cut and disabled people disproportionately depend on these services.

'To reform one would have a big impact, but reforming them all is going to be devastating for those who depend on them.'

Rosemary Willis, from Disabled People Against Cuts, added: 'Maria Miller, so-called minister for disabled people, has repeatedly stated that we are 'financially unsustainable' and we want to ask this government exactly what they mean by that.

'We will not let this government push through these changes which have already led to disabled people taking their own lives.'

Josie McDermot of UK Uncut said the bill was 'cruel and unnecessary' and added that the protest was an 'essential way to persuade the government to scrap their plans'.

A Department for Work and Pensions spokesman said the government was 'absolutely committed' to supporting disabled people and it was spending more than £40bn per year on disabled people.

'Households where someone receives disability living allowance will be exempt from the benefit cap and we are giving local authorities an additional £190m over four years to ensure vulnerable people are supported through the housing benefit reform, so we are not expecting people to become homeless,' he said.

'The introduction of the universal credit from 2013 will see a simpler and fairer system of support for disabled people.'

He added disabled people in greatest need would receive more support than they do currently.

Other changes in the bill include an under-occupancy penalty for council and housing association tenants with spare bedrooms, means-testing the Employment and Support Allowance (which replaced incapacity benefit) after 12 months and charging single parents to use the Child Support Agency.

BBC News

Thursday, 26 January 2012

Pressure mounts over welfare reform plans

More pressure is being piled on the UK government to drop its controversial welfare reforms after a new report revealed how working families would be affected by the proposed changes.

The government this week has been desperately trying to salvage the Welfare Reform Bill after a number of humiliating defeats in the House of Lords, the latest of which was the rejection of the proposal to cap benefits for families at £26,000.

Now a report jointly produced by the Scottish Local Government Forum Against Poverty and Rights Advice Scotland has heaped more pressure on the government to drop the reforms after it revealed how working families would end up worse off.

The report says government plans to time-limit contributions-based benefits for those receiving sickness benefits will affect thousands of normal taxpayers.

The changes, affecting those in work as well as those already receiving Incapacity Benefit or Employment Support Allowance, will see sickness benefits limited to just one year (or two years if a House of Lords amendment is unchallenged) despite the fact that claimants continue to meet stringent government “unfitness for work” medical tests.

Councillor Matt Kerr, chair of the Scottish Local Government Forum Against Poverty, said that of all the cuts and changes contained within the Welfare Reform Bill, the abandoning of taxpayers when they fall ill is “most abhorrent and crass”.

He said: “It beggars belief that any person could work for 40 years, paying tax and National Insurance yet find themselves stripped of any income as they approach retirement age despite being found by the government to be unfit for work yet this is exactly what the outcome of this change will be.”

It comes on top of news this week predicting that 3,000 families in Scotland would lose out an average of £83 a week if caps on benefits were put in place.

Despite being defeated on the benefit cap after an amendment was put through to exclude child benefit, Tory government ministers say they are determined to push ahead with the proposals, taking it back to the House of Commons if necessary.

Though it would only affect a relatively small number of Scots, Citizens Advice Scotland said it was concerned about the precedent a cap would set.

Policy officer Matt Lancashire said: “It’s another step on the road by which the welfare reform bill is hitting the most vulnerable people and forcing them into greater poverty.

“We are not talking here about people losing a pound or two, but hundreds and hundreds of pounds, due to this bill.”

Meanwhile, a survey by the Scottish Association for Mental Health (SAMH) has challenged the accuracy of the Work Capability Assessment used to determine eligibility for Employment Support Allowance (ESA).

It found that almost three-quarters of 50 respondents in the survey did not feel that the person conducting the assessment understood their condition.

It also found that none of those who had seen the report of their assessment thought it was accurate.

SAMH said the findings suggest the government’s changes to the test, which were intended to address initial criticisms of its accuracy, have not yet had the desired effect.

Billy Watson, SAMH chief executive said: “We support attempts to help people with mental health problems get back to work – but the assessment process must be improved.”

Third Force News

Monday, 23 January 2012

Man angered by Tesco disservice

A disabled customer has spoken of his anger and upset at a supermarket’s failure to explain a “discrim­inatory” incident in which it refused to serve him alcohol.

When Jamie Beddard, who has cerebral palsy, tried to buy some beer at the Newington Green branch of Tesco at 10:30 one December morning at the end of last year, the deputy manager refused to serve him.

Mr Beddard said: “A long queue formed behind me, as I questioned why I was being refused. [The deputy manager] told me the alcohol might not be good for me. I asked if I was not being served because I was disabled. He replied that I was putting words in his mouth, and that that wasn’t what he meant.

“I’m still none the wiser as to what he was trying to say, and what his grounds were for not wanting to serve me.”

Mr Beddard added: “As a 46-year-old, I don't need a Tesco employee telling me what I can and cannot buy.”

Mr Beddard was able to make the purchase after another customer in the queue bought the beer for him, with money supplied by Mr Beddard.

After email exchanges with several members of Tesco’s customer service staff, in which Mr Beddard said Tesco tried to stone-wall his complaint, he was eventually told that the store Area and Operations Manager had investigated the incident and found that the deputy manager had wanted to offer some assistance to carry the beer.

Meanwhile, another customer who complained to customer service about Mr Beddard’s treatment was told that the deputy manager had refused to serve the beer because he believed that Mr Beddard was intoxicated.

Responding to an email in which Mr Beddard vented his anger and frustration at the confused and contra­dictory reasons he’d been given, and in which he asked to see CCTV footage of the incident, Tesco said that no further action could be taken as there was not enough evidence to support either Mr Beddard’s or the deputy manager’s account of the incident.

Commenting on the Tesco investigation, Mr Beddard said: “The suggestion that I misinterpreted an offer of assistance for a refusal to serve is clearly contrived, and blatantly untrue and offensive. Of course the CCTV footage would have cleared this up, but it’s surprisingly unavailable.”

When asked about the circumstances in which a Tesco manager would refuse to serve alcohol to a customer, a spokeswoman said: “Our staff receive extensive training in the selling of alcohol and we take such incidents very seriously. We have investigated fully with the store and it appears that there was a misunderstanding at the till for which we have apologised to Mr Beddard.”

Tesco has offered Mr Beddard £50 compensation, an amount which he says is inadequate given the time, energy and anger the initial incident and subsequent enquiries have caused.

He said that the matter would have been closed had Tesco apologised immediately after the incident.

Disability Now

Thursday, 19 January 2012

Do disability rights cost too much?

The genesis of today's battle over Disability Living Allowance can be traced back to California in 1962.

Ed Roberts had applied to the state's university at Berkeley where one of the deans famously said: 'we've tried cripples before and it doesn't work'.

But Ed won his place and found himself on the front line of the civil rights protest movement. Amid sit-ins and demos, he asserted that disabled students had the right to full access to university life. His campaigning led to the first Center for Independent Living being founded at Berkeley - a project that became a model for disability rights the world over.

The philosophy was that those with physical disabilities should enjoy the same freedom, choice, dignity and control that able-bodied individuals take for granted. And that the state had a duty to ensure those rights were respected.

There were some early wins. One group in Hampshire and another in Derbyshire convinced their local councils that rather than pay an institution to look after them, funds should be made available for them to live in their own homes.

The Independent Living activists had started a movement and, when in 1986 Margaret Thatcher's government withdrew a benefit which had supported disabled people in their own homes, a furious campaign was mobilised.

Unsure how to respond to wheelchair protests, within a year the Department of Social Security had backed down, replacing the old benefit with an Independent Living Fund which became the foundation for the Disability Living Allowance, or DLA.

However, ministers and officials in the Treasury were growing anxious. They could see where this might lead and the potential bill attached. Health Minister Virginia Bottomley sent out a circular saying that council-funded independent living schemes were illegal under the 1948 Social Security Act.

A now well-organised disability rights campaign swung into action and managed to get the law changed allowing direct payment.

A new millennium and New Labour saw a further shift - rather than merely permitting English councils to fund independent living, it became mandatory based on individual need. Disability Living Allowance was not means tested or only for the unemployed - the crowning achievement of the Independent Living Movement.

Britain is also a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities which states that disabled people should live where they wish and with whom they wish. Taxpayers pick up the tab.

All of this was largely uncontentious in years of plenty, but austerity has brought with it demands that the welfare state be cut back. DLA costs billions and the Treasury is committed to finding an alternative that will see the rising bill reduced by a whopping 20%.

No wonder there is such concern among disability campaigners. A struggle for rights which began half a century ago is threatening to go into reverse.

BBC News

Wednesday, 18 January 2012

Spared jail

Three pals walked free from court after admitting tying a man with learning difficulties to a lamppost and torturing him in a terrifying four-hour ordeal.

Maggie Bowden, Rebecca Willis and Anthony Connolly were given suspended prison sentences for the ‘appalling’ incident which they claimed was a prank.

Their victim, Sean Ruddeforth, 31, was covered with paint, food and nail varnish.

Worried witnesses twice alerted police, including in a 999 call, but no help came – causing the judge in the case to slam their reaction.

Manchester Crown Court heard that one caller was told it was an environmental health issue and given a number to contact.

Judge Peter Lakin said: 'I have to say that reflects very badly on GMP that they failed to respond to two calls, including a 999 call.'

Lisa Boocock, prosecuting, said the incident happened during the early hours of August 31 on Whiteacre Street in Ashton-under-Lyne. She told the court that, according to neighbours, up to 15 people could have been involved.

On the night, Bowden and Connolly and Mr Ruddeforth, who was described as a vulnerable man who suffered from learning and mental health difficulties, had drunk a considerable amount of alcohol.

Bowden and Willis admitted being involved in taping Mr Ruddeforth to the lamppost outside Willis’s then home.

Willis, 24, admitted helping to fasten him and poured food over him, which included spaghetti, sauce, chicken nuggets and cereal. One person was taking pictures on a mobile phone.

One of the trio was heard to say: 'Look, he’s going snap, crackle and pop.'

Bowden, 38, in addition to admitting helping tie him up, confessed that she had scrawled the word ‘terrorised’ on his upper leg.

Connolly, 25, claimed it had been Willis’s idea to take him outside. He said Mr Ruddeforth had been conscious at the time.

On arrival at hospital, medics found Mr Ruddeforth to be suffering from low blood pressure and body temperature.

His partly-clothed body was covered in gold paint, writing and drawings including an obscene image on his back.

The court was told the incident had completely changed his life, and he could not believe he had been treated in such a way by friends. Mr Ruddeforth, 31, was eventually cut free by Willis – but so carelessly that the then unconscious man fell heavily to the ground, risking a serious head injury. He was taken to hospital by ambulance and it was only then that police responded to an alert.

The trio, who Mr Ruddeforth counted as friends, pleaded guilty to assault.

Mark Shepherd, for Bowden, said his client accepted that she could have done something to help him, but had suffered a difficult upbringing and perhaps did not react in the way others may have done.

Robert Sastry, for Willis, said she was a doting mother and she had no excuse for leaving the victim tied up.

He said she had never been in trouble before, and it had been an ‘extremely traumatic experience’.

Mark Fireman, for Connolly, said his client, who works for Asda, also suffered from learning difficulties. He described him as a man easily led, particularly when he had been drinking.

Bowden, of Albion Court, Ashton, and Willis of Curzon Road, Ashton, were both sentenced to 12 months custody, suspended for two years.

Connolly, of Broadoak Road, Ashton, was given a 10-month sentence suspended for two years, and all three were ordered to pay compensation of £300 to their victim.

In addition, all were made subject to a three-month nightly curfew. The two mothers were told they had only escaped an immediate prison sentence because of the impact on their young children. Connolly was also spared jail because it was said he played a lesser role in what was described as an ‘appalling’ incident of public humiliation.

Judge Lakin said: 'All three of you cynically took advantage of this man, and you seriously breached the trust he placed in you as friends. This may have started as a prank, but it quickly developed into the deliberate humiliation of Sean Ruddeforth. You deliberately bullied and degraded him in a sustained attack.'

A spokesman for GMP, speaking after the hearing, said: 'Greater Manchester Police notes the comments made by the judge when sentencing defendants Bowden, Willis and Connolly. We will review the full circumstances surrounding this case.'

Manchester Evening News