In 2012, many of us sat aghast during the progress of the Welfare Reform Act through the Parliament.
In 2012, many of us sat aghast during the progress of the Welfare Reform Act through the Parliament. It was a bad bill from the outset, presuming, as it did, that the country is full of benefit cheats who are costing the public purse. And it was filled with appalling measures such as the the change from Disability Living Allowance to Personal Independence Payments (critiqued at the time by the disabled people who wrote the ‘Spartacus Report‘, Responsible Reform), the ‘bedroom tax’, limitations on Employment Support Allowance, sanctions on job seekers and many more.
Not surprisingly, the act was subject to intense lobbying from disability groups and campaigners. Detailed evidence was repeatedly provided to Ministers and MPs about the likely impact of the changes but these were repeatedly ignored by the House of Commons. Ironically, it was the unelected House of Lords who proved more receptive, sending the bill back with amendment after amendment in response to the concerns raised. In normal circumstances, most governments would pay attention to the second chamber, accept the amendments and move on. Not the Coalition government. Despite the outcry from advocacy organisations they resisted any attempt to alleviate the worst aspects of the Bill, eventually forcing it through on an obsure legal finance rule that showed a remarkable contempt for democracy.
The effects of the Act have been as devastating as predicted. As we have frequently shown on this website since 2012 we have seen sick and disabled people suffer from increased stress, deteriorating health and rising death rates. The use of food banks have increased on a huge scale, and many families have been forced to move due to the ‘bedroom tax’, housing benefit changes and the cap on benefits. And all this from a Parliament that tacitly acknowledges disabled people incur more costs, by providing disabled MPs with additional allowances.
And yet, Iain Duncan Smith is ‘proud’ of his achievements and George Osborne’s first budget in the new Conservative Government promised further welfare cuts. So, with a sinking sense of deja vu, we’ve watched the same pantomime unfold again with the 2016 Bill. The evidence is presented and ignored in the Commons, the Lords defend the rights of sick and disabled people and are defeated by the Commons in a game of ping pong that only ends when the government applies the same financial rule they used last time.
However, there’s been one crucial difference on this occasion. In 2012, the main opponents to the Bill were sick and disabled people, campaigners, advocacy groups, policy organisations and think tanks like ourselves – generally people who were steeped in an understanding of the subject and could see its implications. As the impacts of that Act have affected more and more people, the awareness of what the government is doing to our welfare safety net has risen. So too has the public horror at the MPs earning £74,000 a year, laughing as they voted through a £30 per week cut to people on disability benefits. Ever since that vote, my social media timelines have been filled with images of Conservatives who have voted for that cut, whilst claiming every expense they can. And whilst I recognise that social media is an echo chamber, it is noticeable that I am getting these memes from a variety of sources and not just from long term activists or policy wonks.
Disabled People Against the Cuts have also highlighted something else. It seems that large numbers of Conservative MPs sit on disability charities as patrons or in honorary roles, despite many of those charities being opposed to the cuts. Kim Malthouse MP has already been asked to stand down from his role as patron of his local MS Society and Zac Goldsmith is being questioned about his role as patron of Richmond Advice and Information on Disability. Whilst the knowledge that Iain Duncan Smith and David Cameron are both patrons of Motability (whose members are losing cars left right and centre thanks to loss of PIP funding) has already led to a petition calling for them to resign. It seems unbelievable that they can see nothing wrong in supporting a charity whose very raison d’etre is being attacked by their policies. The fact that David Cameron is also Vice President of the Epilepsy Society who opposed the latest round of welfare cuts simply beggars belief.
I’m not usually one for naming and shaming, but after five years of writing articles, challenging politicians, and attending demonstrations only to watch things get increasingly worse for the people who require the most support, I’m not really in the mood for being polite. Particularly not to MPs who seem to have no regards to the consequences of their actions.
And I agree with DPAC. Every charity who has any link with a Conservative MP who supported the welfare bill should sever them immediately. If we can’t persuade people to change their minds on compassionate grounds, self-interest will have to do. MPs cannot have it both ways. If they insist on voting through cuts that harm disabled people, they cannot possibly expect disabled charities to have anything to do with them. Being a charity patron is a nice, fluffy way for an MP to maintain a presence in their local community. When charities start severing those links because of the way an MP votes, it might make some of them stop and think about whether to vote for such cuts in the future.
And with any luck, when George Osborne tries to cut welfare a third time – as he is promising to do in tomorrow’s budget – he will find the way blocked, not from opponents on the outside of his party, but from the stalwarts within.
*More details on DPAC’s campaign for disabled charities to sever links with Conservative MPs here
—-
© Virginia Moffatt. Virginia Moffatt is Chief Operating Officer of Ekklesia and has been writing about welfare since 2011.