Contents
The 14 DWP ministers – past and present – facing ‘punishment’ at the ballot box 1
Coroner’s report describes how disabled woman died after DWP told her she owed £13K 3
Network Rail delays releasing station access funding figures until after election 10
Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week 16
The 14 DWP ministers – past and present – facing ‘punishment’ at the ballot box
Up to 14 current and former disability ministers, employment ministers and work and pensions secretaries could lose their seats at tomorrow’s election, giving disabled voters the chance to “punish” them for 14 years of cuts, misery, and countless deaths.
Of the 11 Conservative MPs who spent time as minister for disabled people between 2010 and 2024, eight will be standing at the general election*.
Of the 11 employment ministers – with many of them responsible for key decisions on the hated work capability assessment – seven will be standing at the election (including Esther McVey and Mims Davies, who were also ministers for disabled people).
And of nine former secretaries of state for work and pensions, six will be standing* (including McVey, who also served as minister for disabled people and employment minister).
This means there will be 18 Conservative candidates who could be punished at the ballot box for actions at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) that have harmed disabled people, with one website – run by consultancy Electoral Calculus – predicting that 14 of them will lose their seats.
Former ministers for disabled people Maria Miller, Esther McVey, Mark Harper, Justin Tomlinson, Penny Mordaunt and Tom Pursglove could all lose their seats, although Claire Coutinho and Mims Davies are likely to retain their seats.
Former employment ministers Julie Marson, Victoria Prentis and Guy Opperman (as well as McVey) could all lose their seats, while Priti Patel and Damian Hinds (and Davies) are likely to retain theirs.
And former DWP secretaries of state Mel Stride, Therese Coffey, Damian Green, Stephen Crabb and Iain Duncan Smith (as well as McVey) are also at risk of defeat.
Electoral Calculus has predicted that not one former work and pensions secretary from the last 14 years of Conservative-led governments will survive the cull, while just two former ministers for disabled people (Davies and Coutinho) and three former employment ministers (Patel, Hinds and Davies) will be re-elected.
Paula Peters is a member of the national steering group of Disabled People Against Cuts, which has fought against cuts implemented by successive Conservative-led governments since 2010.
She said disabled people had “the opportunity to punish” the former ministers at the ballot box after “14 years of brutal Tory austerity, which has and continues to have a catastrophic impact on disabled people’s lives”.
She particularly highlighted Duncan Smith, Stride, Coffey, McVey, Harper and Miller, who was the coalition’s first minister for disabled people in 2010 and is standing for re-election in Basingstoke.
Peters said: “Punish them for benefit sanctions; the horrendous disability assessments, universal credit and human rights abuses.
“There are tens of thousands of disabled people no longer with us today as a result of austerity. We must never forget the tragic human cost.”
But she added: “On 5 July we must continue to campaign to hold the new government’s feet to the fire for an independent benefit deaths inquiry and continue the fight for equality and social justice.”
John McArdle, co-founder of the disabled people’s grassroots group Black Triangle, which has been exposing the damage caused by DWP ministers for 14 years, said: “All of these candidates have caused incalculable harm to disabled people in Britain, whether by their conscious acts, their wilful implementation of policies which have led directly to avoidable harm and countless avoidable deaths of claimants, or by their omissions in presiding over systems and policies that have been explicitly exposed by coroners, civil society organisations and the United Nations without any attempt to safeguard the lives, dignity and human rights of our people.
“The only just outcome of this election will be that all of them are summarily dismissed this Friday.”
But McArdle said disabled activists would “continue to pursue some of them through the courts to bring them to account for what we allege is their criminal behaviour [misconduct in public office].
“Let this be a warning also to any incoming politicians. You will not play fast and loose with our lives and human rights with impunity.
“We will never desist or leave any stone unturned, nor avenue unexplored, with which to hold you to account.
“There may be an end to your term of office but there is no statute of limitations on your guilt.”
Ian Jones, one of the founders of the WOWcampaign, which has been campaigning against successive Conservative-led governments’ “war on welfare” for more than 11 years, said: “Whilst there may be some satisfaction in seeing them lose their seats, they will not have been unseated because of the way they targeted disabled people.
“Until disability discrimination becomes unacceptable, there is every chance they will be replaced by another chancer who sees disabled people as unworthy and an easy target.”
Michelle Maher, another co-founder of the WOWcampaign, said: “I’ll be delighted if any of the ministers who have made our lives unbearable over 14 years lose their seats.
“It will be a great relief to see the Tories losing their seats because of their poisonous ongoing 14 years of demonisation, inhumanity and cruel humiliation over the last 14 years.”
She said disabled benefit claimants had starved to death, there had been numerous suicides, and the government had repeatedly refused to carry out an impact assessment of all the cuts it had made to disability support, while disabled people had been “othered and marginalised”.
Claire Glasman, from WinVisible, said she would be “glad to see the back of all the Tory ministers who have viciously attacked our survival, before, during and after Covid.
“But instead of being punished, they usually move to high-paid jobs, cashing in on their connections from government.”
She said WinVisible would continue to reject any politicians, including those from Labour, “attacking sick, disabled and/or immigrant people, which is inciting heavy harassment and violence against us, including immigrant women of colour in our group”.
*Mims Davies is standing in East Grinstead, Uckfield and villages; Tom Pursglove is standing in Corby and East Northamptonshire; Claire Coutinho is standing in East Surrey; Justin Tomlinson is standing in Swindon North; Penny Mordaunt is standing in Portsmouth North; Mark Harper is standing in Forest of Dean; Esther McVey is standing in Tatton; Maria Miller is standing in Basingstoke; Priti Patel is standing in Witham; Damian Hinds is standing in East Hampshire; Julie Marson is standing in Hertford and Stortford; Victoria Prentis is standing in Banbury; Guy Opperman is standing in Hexham; Mel Stride is standing in Central Devon; Therese Coffey is standing in Suffolk Coastal; Damian Green is standing in Ashford, Hawkinge and The Downs; Stephen Crabb is standing in Mid and South Pembrokeshire; and Iain Duncan Smith is standing in Chingford and Woodford Green
3 July 2024
Coroner’s report describes how disabled woman died after DWP told her she owed £13K
The repeated failures by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) that led to a disabled woman’s death – including telling her she owed nearly £13,000 in back-payments after her husband died – have been described in detail for the first time.
The department’s detailed failings were described in a coroner’s summary of the inquest into her death.
The document reveals how DWP sent three letters in quick succession – despite being repeatedly informed not to contact the woman because of her significant mental distress – that told her she owed £768, then £5,323, and finally £12,762.
Six days after the final letter was sent, she took an overdose that led to her death.
Disability News Service has obtained the summary of evidence put together by assistant coroner Fiona Butler at the end of February’s inquest into the death of Nazerine (known as Naz) Anderson, from Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire.
Three of the document’s 13 pages are taken up by an account of DWP’s multiple failings in the months leading to her death.
They expose the flawed universal credit and safeguarding systems, the repeated failures of DWP staff, and the months of distress caused to Anderson by the department’s actions.
These failings began in September 2022 when her case was randomly selected for a “performance measurement review” of her universal credit claim.
Butler concluded that this review was the “recurrent and predominant cause” of her increased anxiety through the seven months in which her mental health deteriorated before she died.
On 2 November, she was told by DWP that there may have been an overpayment of universal credit that her late husband had received before his death, which she could have to repay.
Before November 2022, her depression and anxiety had been managed by medication and “minimal input” from her GP, but after the DWP contact about the review she began to have significant suicidal thoughts and was referred to specialist mental health services.
She was admitted to a mental health unit for two periods of inpatient treatment in December, and Butler concluded that “the trigger stressor” for this was the DWP performance review and the suggestion that she was facing an overpayment debt.
After her discharge in January, she received months of support from the mental health crisis team.
The coroner’s summary details how DWP was repeatedly told of her mental distress and suicidal ideation, and how her work coach failed to record her “vulnerability” on her profile after a phone conversation with her and her daughter on 28 November.
It also reports how DWP work coaches are not able to see entries made by colleagues on the performance review system, so progress reports on the review were not seen by Anderson’s work coach.
After a meeting on 1 December, the work coach again failed to add information about her mental distress on the “additional support tab” of her profile.
This meant the work coach’s colleagues were not able to see this information “at a glance”.
Anderson’s daughter sent a letter with detailed information about her mother’s mental health – including her suicidal ideation and admission to the mental health unit – to the performance review team on 23 December.
The letter also requested that all correspondence should be sent to her – and not her mother – because further correspondence would be “of serious detriment to her health”.
This letter was uploaded to the performance review team’s system, but it was not available to other parts of DWP, including the work coach, and “nothing was done about it”.
Correspondence continued to be directed to Anderson and not her daughter.
On 17 January 2023, following another telephone appointment, the work coach noted Anderson had been “in and out of hospital” because of her mental distress, but they again failed to add information about her mental health to the additional support tab.
In March, Anderson left two messages about the review of her claim on her universal credit online journal, but neither of them was actioned.
It was only on 21 April that her daughter’s letter was finally uploaded onto the main DWP system, four months after she had sent it.
Six days later, a call handler failed to record anything on the additional support tab despite Anderson displaying mental distress during a call, and also failed to alert other staff to the need to communicate with her daughter, despite being told about the letter.
On 3 May, there was yet another DWP call in which Anderson showed mental distress, and which failed to lead to information being added to the additional support tab.
The same day, DWP sent Naz Anderson a letter saying she owed £768, then sent her a second letter the same day saying she owed DWP £5,323.
Eight days later, a third letter was sent, now stating that she owed £12,762.
In the previous four weeks, Anderson had now received six communications from DWP, despite the letter from her daughter.
Six days later, she took an overdose, and was admitted to hospital the following day, but despite treatment she developed multi-organ failure because of the effect of the overdose.
She died on 19 June 2023 at the age of 52, with her family by her side.
Butler found that she had not intended to take her own life.
She concluded: “Those mental health professionals who had worked with Naz throughout 7 months in which her mental health deteriorated gave evidence to me that the recurrent and predominant cause of Naz’s increased anxiety was the DWP performance review.
“I find [on] the basis of the evidence I have heard and read that this was the case.”
She said that Naz Anderson “was dearly loved and is greatly missed” and had “dedicated her life both professionally and at home to caring for others”, as a support worker for people with learning difficulties, as a mother, and as a carer for her late husband.
Following the inquest, Butler sent a prevention of future deaths (PFD) report to DWP, raising serious concerns about its safeguarding failures and calling for action “to prevent future deaths”.
In its response to the PFD report, DWP admitted there were “missed” opportunities to share information about Anderson’s claim, and to consider whether an appointee should act on her behalf.
It also admitted flaws in its systems that meant some staff could not “pin” vital information to claims or use the additional support function on the universal credit system, and claimed it was being redesigned.
It also admitted repeated failings by staff to use the additional support tab that should have alerted those dealing with Naz Anderson’s claim to her support needs.
And it said it was reviewing how it handled cases where a claimant could not manage their own affairs and needed an “appointee” to act on their behalf.
Despite repeated concerns being raised in recent months about safeguarding and the safety of the administration of universal credit and other benefits, none of the main political parties have mentioned the issue in their election manifestos.
The rollout of universal credit to the remaining hundreds of thousands of disabled people still receiving income-related employment and support allowance will begin in September.
3 July 2024
Conservative candidate tells disabled voters: the social model of disability is ‘wokeness gone mad’
A Conservative election candidate was booed by an astonished audience of disabled activists yesterday when he dismissed the social model of disability as “discredited” and “wokeness gone mad”.
Charles Fifield, a disabled former councillor and chartered surveyor, was speaking to the first national disability hustings event, in Manchester, just two days before tomorrow’s general election.
The hustings, organised by DPO Forum England and hosted by Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People at People’s History Museum, featured three disabled parliamentary candidates and a disabled peer.
As well as Fifield, Vicky Foxcroft, Labour’s shadow minister for disabled people; Baroness [Sal] Brinton, former president of the Liberal Democrats; and the Green Party’s disability spokesperson Mags Lewis, who is standing in Leicester East, all answered questions from disabled people’s organisations (DPOs) and disabled voters.
Fifield, standing tomorrow in Mid Cheshire, had mostly kept close to his party’s general election manifesto during the hustings, while attempting to suggest that the government’s much-criticised Disability Action Plan – dismissed by DPOs as “weak”, “grudging” and even “pitiful” – was a sound basis for addressing widespread breaches of disabled people’s rights.
But minutes before the end of the hustings, candidates were asked whether they committed to the social model of disability, which argues that it is the barriers in society – rather than people’s impairments – that cause the disability and oppression disabled people face.
The other three panellists offered their support to the social model, but Fifield told the audience in Manchester, and about 100 people watching and listening online: “No, I don’t agree with the social model of disability.
“I think it is as discredited as critical race theory*.
“It creates a gap that can never be reduced and eliminated because we have lots of different disabilities and what works for one doesn’t work for another.
“I think it is wokeness gone mad.”
Foxcroft, who is standing tomorrow in Lewisham North, told the audience she was “a bit in shock” after hearing Fifield’s response, and she said: “It’s definitely not woke to support the social model of disability, and the Labour Party is absolutely committed to that.”
One of those watching online said they were “disgusted” by Fifield’s responses, including his comments about the social model, while another said that calling the social model “woke” was “disgraceful”.
A third person who had been watching online said: “I am ASTOUNDED by the Conservative’s words,” while another added: “Yes, astounded.”
Disability News Service asked the Conservative party whether it supported Fifield’s views on the social model, but it had failed to respond by 11am today (Wednesday).
For most of the hustings, the panellists had mirrored their party’s election manifestos.
They were asked questions on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; disability poverty; the social care funding crisis; deinstitutionalisation and segregation of disabled people; accessible housing; inclusive education; enforcing the Equality Act; and co-production.
They were also asked about the need for a human rights-based social security system; whether the next government would “upskill” Deaf and disabled people to allow them to deliver their own services (asked by the British Deaf Association); and their support for recent government consultations.
Asked what the Liberal Democrats would do to move towards a humane, rights-based social security system, Baroness Brinton said there needed to be “a major culture change inside the DWP”.
She said: “It almost doesn’t matter which government is in power, there is something about the culture that has absolutely got to change, and I do hope that the next government takes that on.”
Foxcroft said: “You know it, we know it, it needs fixing and that’s the reason why I’m absolutely committed to working with disabled people’s organisations to make sure that we get this right.”
She said the work capability assessment was “inhumane”, that “many people don’t get their decision right the first time”, and that some claimants “are going for reassessments time and time again when they don’t necessarily need to be because their condition isn’t going to improve”.
Lewis, for the Greens, said: “I think the system is bureaucratic, it’s expensive, it’s not fit for purpose.
“I think we’ve all given so much feedback on what needs to happen and how the system needs to be changed and how it could be tweaked and made better.
“So all that needs to happen now is action and it needs to be changed.”
But when Fifield was asked what the Conservatives would do, he pointed instead to the government’s Disability Action Plan, which does not mention the social security system.
He told the audience that “the way forward is the Disability Action Plan… and I hope that the next government, whichever rosette it wears, will pick that up and take it forward because I think it is a good way forward”.
On housing, Baroness Brinton said it was a “disgrace” that the government had failed to implement the recommendation from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry that all owners and managers of high-rise residential buildings should be forced to prepare a personal emergency evacuation plan for disabled residents who might find it difficult to self-evacuate.
And although the measure was not in her party’s election manifesto, she called for new laws to ensure that all new homes are built to stricter accessible housing standards, with a proportion built to be wheelchair-accessible.
Foxcroft and Lewis also backed raising the minimum standards, even though Labour and the Greens also failed to include the measure in their manifestos.
Asked what their parties would do to make it easier for disabled people to enforce the Equality Act, Foxcroft criticised the cuts to funding faced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission under successive Conservative-led governments.
But she also promised that a Labour government would publish an equality impact assessment of all major policy announcements, and “restore enforcement” of the Equality Act “by working with disabled people… to make sure that we get this right”.
Lewis said she was “personally angry” as a disabled activist that when service-providers discriminate against her “they know I’m not going to take them to court, I’m too exhausted, or I haven’t got the funds, so they can just get away with things”.
She said: “I think that lack of enforcement has to change, and has to be addressed, and Green MPs would be able to push for that.”
Asked whether their parties would work with disabled people and DPOs to co-produce policy, Foxcroft said Labour had “already been working on plans together to make sure that we deliver this if we’re lucky enough to form the next government” and that co-production was “absolutely key to me to getting things right”.
She added: “And we know that it will take some time to rebuild capacity in [DPOs], but it’s absolutely imperative that we do this.”
Lewis said disabled people “must be at the table” but she also said they were “not a free resource” and that she was “sick to death” of the attitude that they do not need to be paid “when you would expect to pay any other professional who has that kind of expertise”.
Fifield said that “when you’ve got a good range of disabled people with a range of disabilities in a room, [then] you can discuss things and you can actually come up with better solutions”.
At the end of the hustings, Rick Burgess, from GMCDP, told the panellists: “Over the last decade and a half, we’ve had two United Nations reports that have found grave and systemic human rights abuses of disabled people.
“We still face institutionalisation, poverty and avoidable deaths.
“We have a chance to turn this decline around, to regain and extend our rights and remove the disabling barriers in our society, so the next time the UN report comes around, the UK will no longer be notorious for its abuse of disabled people.
“We are ready for this challenge. Will the next government work with us to make an inclusive and non-disabling society a reality?
“Whoever that government may be, we’re ready. We hope you are. We’re not taking no for an answer.”
*Critical race theory argues that systemic racism is part of American society and that it is “embedded in laws, policies and institutions”
3 July 2024
Network Rail delays releasing station access funding figures until after election
Network Rail has delayed releasing figures until after the general election that would have shown how much funding the government has allocated to improve access at train stations.
The delay means it will not be possible to hold the government to account if it emerges – as some campaigners believe likely – that spending on the Access for All scheme, which improves access at railway stations, has been cut.
Disability News Service (DNS) submitted a freedom of information request on 31 May for figures that would show how much funding the government has allocated to the Access for All programme in every year since 2017-18, and how much ended up being spent on the programme.
Freedom of information requests should be answered within 20 working days, but public bodies are allowed to seek extensions in certain circumstances.
The request* was submitted to both the Department for Transport (DfT) and Network Rail, but DfT left it to the public body – which owns and runs most of the country’s rail infrastructure – to respond.
DNS had asked for the annual funding allocated to Access for All for every financial year from 2017-18 to 2028-29, and how much was actually spent on the Access for All programme from 2016-17 to 2023-24.
But Network Rail said last Friday that it would need another 20 working days to respond, because of “the complexity and volume of the information requested”.
One disabled campaigner suggested it was “astounding” that Network Rail did not have such key information easily available.
DNS secured figures in 2018 through a freedom of information request that showed spending on Access for All fell from as much as £81.1 million in 2013-14 to just £14.6 million in 2017-18.
Spending in 2009-10, the last year of the last Labour government, was £53.9 million, with £41.2 million in 2010-11, £50.7 million in 2011-12, £39.7 million in 2012-13, and £81.1 million in 2013-14.
But spending then plunged over the next four years – in the first five-year planning period to begin under the coalition – with just £22.9 million in 2014-15, £24.6 million in 2015-16, £32.1 million in 2016-17 and only £14.6 million in 2017-18.
In 2019, the government announced it would spend “up to £300 million” over the next five years on Access for All, and the following year added another £50 million.
But it is not yet clear how much was actually spent from 2018-19 onwards, although the government is believed to have allocated up to another £350 million in potential funding for the five years from 2024-25.
If these are the correct figures, it will mean a significant real terms cut in funding.
Julian Vaughan, chair of Bedfordshire Rail Access Network, and a Labour parliamentary candidate in 2017 and 2019, said: “It’s very disappointing that Network Rail has been unable to provide this very basic information within a reasonable timescale and an example of the lack of clarity in the government’s approach to the railways.
“What is clear is that the current level of Access for All funding is woefully inadequate to fix the thousands of railway platforms across the UK that remain inaccessible to disabled people.”
He said the “fragmented governance structure of the UK railways” was failing disabled people.
He added: “An accessible rail network isn’t just morally the right thing to do, reducing social isolation and enabling equal access to work and leisure, it makes economic sense too.
“A future government must commit to long-term investment in an accessible rail network and involve disabled people at every stage of the process.
“The railway network will be a vital part of our drive to combat climate change.
“It’s time we set equally stringent targets for railway accessibility as we do for Net Zero.”
Tony Jennings, co-chair of a rail accessibility panel and co-founder of the Campaign for Level Boarding, said he was “astounded” that Network Rail did not have the figures “readily available”, as they were “essential for Access for All performance management and monitoring project delivery timescales”.
He also said it was vital for the next government to “significantly increase Access for All funding, as at the current rate of investment, it will take 100 years for train stations to be step-free”.
He referred to a 2022 report, by the government’s own advisers on accessible transport, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC), which concluded: “At current annual rates of investment spend on station accessibility, it will take around 100 years to make the entirety of the station estate step-free to new-build standards.”
Jennings said: “A legislative deadline is required to remove the barriers and deliver an inclusive railway that is fit for purpose in a reasonable timescale.”
The Department for Transport (DfT) declined to say if ministers had placed any pressure on Network Rail to delay the release of the figures until after the election.
A Network Rail spokesperson said: “We endeavour to respond to freedom of information requests within the statutory 20 working days.
“However, in cases where the request is particularly detailed or complex, we may request an additional 20 working days under the Environmental Information Regulations, as we have done so in this case.”
She added: “The DfT has no involvement in our usual freedom of information process, which includes this case.
“Such information, as that requested, is no longer held centrally since Network Rail devolved its operating business into 14 routes contained within five regional businesses.
“This makes gathering some types of information much more complicated than was once the case.”
It is not the first time that Network Rail has found it difficult to provide prompt and accurate information about access on the railways.
Last year, it was forced into the “deeply troubling” admission that it had no idea how many inaccessible footbridges it was planning to build across Britain, while claiming it was too time-consuming and expensive to find out.
Two years ago, rail operators told a research organisation that only “major” government funding would solve the accessibility problems at stations across the country.
*Because it related to access improvements, the request was dealt with under the Environmental Information Regulations and not the Freedom of Information Act
3 July 2024
Sample of disabled people forced onto universal credit shows every one of them now receives less in benefits
Every one of a sample of about 100 disabled people forced onto universal credit is now receiving less in benefits than when they were transferred from so-called legacy benefits, analysis of their claims by lawyers has revealed.
Many of the sample, who were “migrated” onto universal credit in the years leading to 2019, are struggling with monthly income that no longer covers their essential bills, solicitors responsible for the group legal action have told Disability News Service (DNS).
Law firm Leigh Day has so far looked at about 100 cases as part of the claim against the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).
Every one of those disabled people is now receiving less in benefits than when they received legacy benefits.
DWP has always insisted that many disabled people would be better off on universal credit and that anyone who would otherwise lose out when transferring from benefits such as employment and support allowance (ESA) would receive “transitional protection”.
In 2016, DWP said that people “moving from the current system to universal credit in the future will receive transitional protection and have their benefit level maintained”.
But the department failed to highlight in that statement how that transitional protection would gradually be eroded over time.
The new analysis from Leigh Day now shows how many disabled people are being forced into poverty by the move to universal credit.
The transitional protection meant that everyone who was moved onto universal credit when their circumstances changed, in the years up to 2019, was initially no worse off than under their previous “legacy” benefits.
But Leigh Day is representing more than 200 disabled people who previously received severe disability payment (SDP), enhanced disability premium (EDP), or both SDP and EDP, in addition to benefits such as ESA.
These claimants were all forced to transfer onto universal credit in 2016, 2017 and 2018, before DWP changed the migration rules in January 2019.
Because SDP and EDP no longer exist under universal credit, many claimants had to rely on transitional protection to prevent their benefits being cut after the migration.
Ryan Bradshaw, a partner at Leigh Day, says he has been through about 100 cases and every one of those claimants is now receiving less in benefits than they were six, seven or eight years ago, after moving across to universal credit.
He said: “All of the ones I have looked at so far are now on less than they were before, when they were on legacy benefits.
“We have seen a decrease in incomes. Some of them have been on universal credit for eight years.”
And, he said, most of those affected are now “running deficit budgets”, which means their income does not cover their monthly bills.
A key reason for their payments being lower is that transitional protection does not take account of “erosion”, which reduces the transitional protection by the amount of any increase in benefit income until – eventually – it is reduced to £0.
One of the reasons for this erosion is that when benefits are increased – uprated – every April to take account of inflation, the transitional protection is reduced by the same amount*.
Bradshaw said the deficit budget issue had become “particularly acute” in the last 12 months, probably because of the impact of soaring inflation.
Another reason for payments being lower for some of the claims Bradshaw has examined is that it is much easier for DWP to automatically reclaim past benefit overpayments and other debts through the universal credit system than it was under ESA and other legacy benefits.
A parliamentary briefing published last year (PDF) found that of 4.96 million households in Britain on universal credit in February 2023, 2.25 million (45 per cent) had a deduction – such as advance repayments to DWP and third-party deductions for money owed for electricity bills, council tax, rent or other debts – with the average deduction of £61 that month.
Leigh Day is taking a group action – which focuses on the same arguments as the long-running series of TP and AR cases against DWP – which involves about 200 disabled people seeking compensation from the department over the loss of their EDP, SDP or both EDP and SDP.
Ken Butler, welfare rights and policy adviser for Disability Rights UK, said: “Transitional protection is a puny fig leaf failing to disguise the fact that many disabled people are worse off under universal credit in the longer term.”
He said transitional protection for the loss of SDP and EDP was only won after the long TP and AR campaign in the courts.
But he added: “While an important legal victory, financially benefiting thousands of disabled claimants, it’s inevitably been a transitory one.”
He called on the next government to add SDP and EDP to the universal credit system, and to provide an “essentials guarantee” that would ensure disabled people “can afford not just the basics but meet too their extra disability-related costs”.
He said: “This is the only way existing and new claimants in the future will not be penalised.”
Finn Keaney, welfare rights manager for Mind in the City, Hackney and Waltham Forest, told DNS: “For a decade, we have been told that universal credit was introduced as a fairer and simpler new replacement to legacy benefits.
“But in the East End of London, our service is still receiving calls almost daily from disabled adults who don’t understand how they are expected to survive on less under universal credit than they were on ESA.
“It is ironic that due to transitional protection being eroded over time, the longer a disabled adult has been on universal credit, the worse off they are likely to be: people are essentially being punished for having been amongst the first to benefit from the new, ‘fairer’ system.”
He also called for the reintroduction of disability premiums under universal credit and for an end to “the confusing and unfair system of erosion”.
Bradshaw stressed to DNS that his figures are based only on the small sample of about 100 cases he has examined.
But he fears that most, if not all, of the estimated 15,000 claimants who were forced onto UC in 2016, 2017 and 2018 because their circumstances had changed will be in similar situations.
He points to a study published last month (PDF) by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which showed that an out-of-work single disabled adult who also received the daily living component of personal independence payment would, on average, be £2,826 a year worse off – in the long-run, once transitional protection has completely eroded – when transferred onto universal credit.
The rollout of universal credit to the remaining hundreds of thousands of disabled people still receiving income-related ESA will begin in September.
DWP said yesterday (Tuesday) that it was unable to comment on ongoing court cases, but it said that transitional protection was not intended to permanently replicate legacy benefit awards.
It said transitional protection was based instead on the principles of protection at the point of moving from legacy benefits and ensuring equality among those claiming universal credit with no previous legacy entitlement.
But Ayla Ozmen, director of policy and campaigns at anti-poverty charity Z2K, said that ministers had often not been clear that, over time, the move to universal credit would make many people on low incomes worse off.
She said Z2K was also “really concerned” that many claimants were missing out on the transitional protection they were entitled to when moving to universal credit.
She said: “Those who miss their deadline and claim too late risk having their benefits cut off altogether and not receiving any transitional protection.”
She said it was “really critical” that the next government gets the managed migration of people on universal credit right and “stops cutting off vital income”.
She said: “We’re calling for whoever forms the next government to stop putting the responsibility on people to make a new claim for universal credit, even if there’s been no change in their circumstances.
“But until that happens, anyone who gets a migration notice should act on it, to make sure they get what they’re entitled to.”
*Leigh Day provides the following example to highlight the impact of erosion: if transitional protection was £120 in March 2024, and the disabled person was moved onto the universal credit limited capability for work-related activity group, when benefits were uprated by £51.02 in April 2024 the transitional protection would have reduced to £68.98 and the annual uprating would not have increased their benefits. Their total benefit income would not have changed, despite the impact of inflation.
3 July 2024
Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week
A summer Covid wave is growing and it is fuelled by a new variant. Rates are highest among those who are oldest as the “FLiRT” – Fresh Lineage of Rapid Transmission – variants take hold and hospital rates suggest infections are on the rise. The number of people hospitalised with Covid was 3.31 per 100,000 in the week ending 16 June, up from 2.67 the week before, and was even higher among older people, peaking at 34.70 in the over-85s: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/health/new-summer-wave-covid-vulnerable-33146732
More than 1,000 people watched an election debate that allowed the deaf and disabled community to be heard by key political candidates. The event, hosted by Cambridgeshire Deaf Association in Peterborough, was live-streamed and featured British Sign Language interpreters and captions: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce580l3pngno
3 July 2024
News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com
