Has the government misled parliament over DLA reform.

gibbsy

Moderator
Has the Tory led government misled parliament over the reforms to Disability Living Allowance? According to a report which I quote below it seems that they have. Tory ideology shining through.

London Mayor Boris Johnson is just one of thousands of individuals and organisations whose overwhelming opposition to axing disability living allowance has been grossly misrepresented by the government in an effort to force through the highly controversial change.

This is the claim made by an ad hoc group of disabled campaigners in a highly detailed report ‘Responsible reform’ released today. If true it could lead to legal challenges to the welfare reform bill and to questions as to whether conservative ministers deliberately misled parliament. The authors of the report are calling for a pause of at least six months before legislation introducing PIP is voted on, in order to allow the views of disabled people to be properly taken into account. They are also calling for help from Benefits and Work readers.

In December 2010 the government began a consultation on reforming DLA by replacing it with PIP. Over 5,000 individuals and more than 500 organisations took part in the consultation.

In April 2011 Iain Duncan Smith, secretary of state for work and pensions, published ‘Government’s response to the consultation on Disability Living Allowance reform’ with an introduction written by Maria Miller, minister for disabled people. The document claimed to outline the responses to the consultation and the coalition’s reaction to them.

However, disabled campaigners who obtained copies of all the organisational responses using the Freedom of Information Act claim that the government document deliberately covered up the overwhelming opposition to most elements of the proposed reforms.

For example, the ‘Responsible reform’ claims that:

“98 per cent of respondents objected to the qualifying period for benefits being raised from 3 months to 6 months.”

However, the government document merely states that:

“Some organisations were in favour of our proposal to extend the Qualifying Period from three months to six months, before benefit would be paid . . . However, many organisations and some individuals were not in favour of this”

If it is true that there were 2% of organisations in favour versus 98% against then the use of the terms ‘some’ versus ‘many’ appears to be a very deliberate attempt to hide the virtually unanimous animosity to this proposal. A fairer picture would have been given by phrases such as ‘very few’ organisations were in favour whilst ‘an absolutely overwhelming majority’ were against.

Boris Johnson was very definitely against this proposal, arguing that:

“The Mayor would call for the Government to retain the three-month qualifying period as the increase to six months will mean that people with fluctuating conditions have increased difficulty meeting the qualifying period. People with fluctuating conditions face the same barriers that all disabled face in relation to higher costs of living and DLA is essential to maintain a decent quality of life.”

In relation to reducing the rates of care from three to two, ‘Responsible reform’ claims that 92% of organisations opposed the idea. However, the government document claims that:

‘The majority of organisations welcomed the move to new, broader definitions of the daily living and mobility components . . . Some organisations commented that, by raising the threshold at which an individual would qualify for benefit, those with some, but not significant, support needs would be disproportionately affected . . .’

Again, Boris Johnson was unequivocally against the idea, pointing out that:

“The Mayor does not support this change, as those on the lower rate care component may have additional costs as a result of their impairment but may lose their access to this benefit as part of the proposed removal under the reforms.”

Disabled campaigners claim that, again and again, throughout their consultation response, the government misrepresents the strength of opposition to their plans and seeks to mislead MPs and peers.

They also claim that the report uses misleading statistics to make it appear as if the number of people receiving DLA is rising uncontrollably.
 
D

Deleted member 13294

Guest
Doesn't make nice reading, but I fail to see how this can be the basis for a legal challenge. They haven't actually lied, have they?
 
D

dovercat

Guest
I think parliament is complicit to the misrepresentation of the legislation and it's expected effect. In my opinion there is a consensus in parliament and in the media and general public opinion for welfare reform. Including reducing welfare for the disabled and ill to redefining them as unemployed. The disabled and ill I think are increasingly viewed as a burden to society rather than as deserving of diginity or quality of life.

I do not believe they want people to starve on the street, but I do think conditional subsistence is all they feel obliged to provide.
 

Cloverleaf

Banned
:boring:

It's a report from a self interested pressure group; it's hardly going to be in favour of the reforms is it :laugh:

A non-story :suicide:
 

gibbsy

Moderator
:boring:

It's a report from a self interested pressure group; it's hardly going to be in favour of the reforms is it :laugh:

A non-story :suicide:

The story is that government ministers are being accused of mis leading parliament to push through an ideological idea, far more draconian that even Labour considered.
 

Cloverleaf

Banned
The story is that government ministers are being accused of mis leading parliament to push through an ideological idea, far more draconian that even Labour considered.

Good. And about bloody time as well.

This is what people voted for, who cares how much pressure groups don't like it :confused:

People voted for welfare reform, lets see it happen.
 

GAZBEROTTEN

Well-known Member
Good. And about bloody time as well.

This is what people voted for, who cares how much pressure groups don't like it :confused:

People voted for welfare reform, lets see it happen.

Is this the first coalition coverup perhaps if they are guilty of misleading parliament over the reforms to Disability Living Allowance then they are in breach of there contract with the tax payers and as of such need to be disciplined or sack the people responsible.

Fairs fair

By the way clover not all pressure groups operate the same way as each and are a lot more powerful that you think. It wouldn't surprise me if something kicked off over this revelation if its true then im gonna hate to be shopping.
 
Last edited:

Cloverleaf

Banned
Is this the first coalition coverup perhaps if they are guilty of misleading parliament over the reforms to Disability Living Allowance then they are in breach of there contract with the tax payers and as of such need to be disciplined or sack the people responsible.

Fairs fair
:rotfl:

There is no cover up. There can be no cover up. The bill has to be fully scrutinised and debated in open Parliament before it can become law.

Have you got no clue how Government works ? :facepalm:
 

GAZBEROTTEN

Well-known Member
:rotfl:

There is no cover up. There can be no cover up. The bill has to be fully scrutinised and debated in open Parliament before it can become law.

Have you got no clue how Government works ? :facepalm:

Yes i do

But knowing the Tories they will find loopholes round it which will mean it wont have to be scrutinized and debated in parliment
 

GasDad

Remembered (1964-2012)
Is this the first coalition coverup perhaps if they are guilty of misleading parliament over the reforms to Disability Living Allowance then they are in breach of there contract with the tax payers and as of such need to be disciplined or sack the people responsible.

Fairs fair

By the way clover not all pressure groups operate the same way as each and are a lot more powerful that you think. It wouldn't surprise me if something kicked off over this revelation if its true then im gonna hate to be shopping.

Will you make your mind up - you've proposed in the other thread something a lot more draconian.
 

gibbsy

Moderator
:rotfl:

There is no cover up. There can be no cover up. The bill has to be fully scrutinised and debated in open Parliament before it can become law.

Have you got no clue how Government works ? :facepalm:

However, disabled campaigners who obtained copies of all the organisational responses using the Freedom of Information Act claim that the government document deliberately covered up the overwhelming opposition to most elements of the proposed reforms.

For example, the ‘Responsible reform’ claims that:

“98 per cent of respondents objected to the qualifying period for benefits being raised from 3 months to 6 months.”

However, the government document merely states that:

“Some organisations were in favour of our proposal to extend the Qualifying Period from three months to six months, before benefit would be paid . . . However, many organisations and some individuals were not in favour of this”

If it is true that there were 2% of organisations in favour versus 98% against then the use of the terms ‘some’ versus ‘many’ appears to be a very deliberate attempt to hide the virtually unanimous animosity to this proposal. A fairer picture would have been given by phrases such as ‘very few’ organisations were in favour whilst ‘an absolutely overwhelming majority’ were against.


Fair debate? I would say that the government is giving out false information. They are telling porkies.
 

Cloverleaf

Banned
Yes i do

But knowing the Tories they will find loopholes round it which will mean it wont have to be scrutinized and debated in parliment
:rolleyes::rolleyes::facepalm::facepalm::rotfl:

Yes, I'm sure that Her Majesties Opposition would let that happen. Not.
 

Cloverleaf

Banned
However, disabled campaigners who obtained copies of all the organisational responses using the Freedom of Information Act claim that the government document deliberately covered up the overwhelming opposition to most elements of the proposed reforms.

For example, the ‘Responsible reform’ claims that:

“98 per cent of respondents objected to the qualifying period for benefits being raised from 3 months to 6 months.”

However, the government document merely states that:

“Some organisations were in favour of our proposal to extend the Qualifying Period from three months to six months, before benefit would be paid . . . However, many organisations and some individuals were not in favour of this”

If it is true that there were 2% of organisations in favour versus 98% against then the use of the terms ‘some’ versus ‘many’ appears to be a very deliberate attempt to hide the virtually unanimous animosity to this proposal. A fairer picture would have been given by phrases such as ‘very few’ organisations were in favour whilst ‘an absolutely overwhelming majority’ were against.

Fair debate? I would say that the government is giving out false information. They are telling porkies.

You don't get it, do you :confused:

I don't care. No one else cares. Whether it is 2%, 98% or 100% of "organisations" are against it. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

So we stuff 'em.

Bring on the legislation, and let 'em squeal.
 

gibbsy

Moderator
You don't get it, do you :confused:

I don't care. No one else cares. Whether it is 2%, 98% or 100% of "organisations" are against it. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

So we stuff 'em.

Bring on the legislation, and let 'em squeal.

I'm disabled through helping selfish ***** like you.
 
D

dovercat

Guest
Good. And about bloody time as well.

This is what people voted for, who cares how much pressure groups don't like it :confused:

People voted for welfare reform, lets see it happen.

They voted for welfare reform that was detailed in the Conservative manifesto. In the manifesto it states
"we have made a pledge to pensioners to re-link the basic state pension to earnings, and protect:....
disability living allowance and attendance allowance"

The reform of disability benefits that was in the manifesto was
"create a single Work Programme for everyone who is unemployed, including the 2.6 million people claiming incapacity Benefit who do not get enough help from existing programmes. We will reassess all current claimants of Incapacity Benefit. Those found fit for work will be transferred onto jobseeker's allowance. recipients of Incapacity Benefit who are genuinely disabled will continue to receive the financial support to which they are entitled"

This thread is about the change from DLA to PIP with longer wait period, new assessment system and reassessment under the new system for all existing claimants, a reduction in levels of impairment recognized and the scrapping of the lower level of the benefit and a cut in the DLA budget of 20%. None of that was in the manifesto. So how did the electorate vote for it.

If anything the pledge to protect DLA in the manifesto would imply they voted for DLA to not be changed. The statement that the genuinely disabled would continue to receive the financial support to which they are entitled to, would imply no reduction in entitlement to the genuinely disabled.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cloverleaf

Banned
They voted for welfare reform that was detailed in the Conservative manifesto. In the manifesto it states
"we have made a pledge to pensioners to re-link the basic state pension to earnings, and protect:....
disability living allowance and attendance allowance"

The reform of disability benefits that was in the manifesto was
"create a single Work Programme for everyone who is unemployed, including the 2.6 million people claiming incapacity Benefit who do not get enough help from existing programmes. We will reassess all current claimants of Incapacity Benefit. Those found fit for work will be transferred onto jobseeker’s allowance. recipients of Incapacity Benefit who are genuinely disabled will continue to receive the financial support to which they are entitled"

This thread is about the change from DLA to PIP with longer wait period, new assessment system and reassessment under the new system for all existing claimants, a reduction in levels of impairment recognized and the scrapping of the lower level of the benefit and a cut in the DLA budget of 20%. None of that was in the manifesto. So how did the electorate vote for it.

If anything the pledge to protect DLA in the manifesto would imply they voted for DLA to not be changed. The statement that the genuinely disabled would continue to receive the financial support to which they are entitled to, would imply no reduction in entitlement to the genuinely disabled.

Exactly how many people read Manifestos before deciding how to vote ? :laugh:

Most people with half a brain cell recognise the welfare system has to be reformed. That means making it more affordable.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that some people will be able to claim less, or not claim at all.

Get over it.
 
D

dovercat

Guest
Exactly how many people read Manifestos before deciding how to vote ?

You may vote with out knowing or caring what you are voting for. Some people actually consider what they are voting for.

Most people with half a brain cell recognise the welfare system has to be reformed. That means making it more affordable.

The people with half a brain cell know this how because the tabloid newspaper or the TV told them so.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that some people will be able to claim less, or not claim at all.

The pertinent issue being who the some people are. What welfare changes the manifesto says they will implement if elected.

Get over it.

My brother is disabled so these changes will directly effect my family. So forgive me if I express distaste and frustration at underhand attacks on benefits to the genuinely disabled who are incapable of working.
If the government was upfront and simply declared they are cutting the DLA budget by 20% to save money. I would disagree with the policy but at least it would be upfront and honest.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cloverleaf

Banned
You may vote with out knowing or caring what you are voting for. Some people actually consider what they are voting for.

Tell me that you read all 3 partys manfiestos cover to cover prior to voting at the last election, and if so I'll agree with you.

The people with half a brain cell know this how because the tabloid newspaper or the TV told them so.

Because even the labour party accept that we have a stonking great budget deficit that needs to be reduced. Doh !

The pertinent issue being who the some people are. What welfare changes the manifesto says they will implement if elected.



My brother is disabled so these changes will directly effect my family. So forgive me if I express distaste and frustration at underhand attacks on benefits to the genuinely disabled who are incapable of working.
If the government was upfront and simply declared they are cutting the DLA budget by 20% to save money. I would disagree with the policy but at least it would be upfront and honest.

I'm sorry for your brother, but if he is genuinely unable to work then he will still be able to claim benefit.

The DLA budget is being cut by 20%. There, I have told you. Vote Labour at the next election if you don't like it.
 

GAZBEROTTEN

Well-known Member
I'm sorry for your brother, but if he is genuinely unable to work then he will still be able to claim benefit.

The DLA budget is being cut by 20%. There, I have told you. Vote Labour at the next election if you don't like it.

Don't worry many people will be including the coalitions own peers to which i will be laughing at there down fall since the clock has been ticking from October 2010

We are now in January 2012 so that gives them less than 3 years 9 months left and getting shorter.:laugh::laugh::laugh::smashin:

By the time all the new reforms kick in it will be 2-3 years left for them tops and with it being near the elections they won't be popular then. And buy the time the damage from the cuts and reforms is done come the next elections they are as good as screwed. With the tories past history from the Thacher era that will give reminders to people which just reduces the coalitions chances of staying in even further.
 
Last edited:

GasDad

Remembered (1964-2012)
By the time all the new reforms kick in it will be 2-3 years left for them tops and with it being near the elections they won't be popular then. And buy the time the damage from the cuts and reforms is done come the next elections they are as good as screwed. With the tories past history from the Thacher era that will give reminders to people which just reduces the coalitions chances of staying in even further.

Well given you want to cut NHS pay, close schools, close businesses, stop DLA for everyone etc etc what exactly are you complaining about. ?
 

Cloverleaf

Banned
Don't worry many people will be including the coalitions own peers to which i will be laughing at there down fall since the clock has been ticking from October 2010

We are now in January 2012 so that gives them less than 3 years 9 months left and getting shorter.:laugh::laugh::laugh::smashin:

By the time all the new reforms kick in it will be 2-3 years left for them tops and with it being near the elections they won't be popular then. And buy the time the damage from the cuts and reforms is done come the next elections they are as good as screwed. With the tories past history from the Thacher era that will give reminders to people which just reduces the coalitions chances of staying in even further.

Errr....Ed Milliband had his latest relaunch today, in case you didn't notice. In his speech, he acknowledged that a future Labour Gov wouldn't have money to spend.

Good luck with that :)
 

sidicks

Banned
Cloverleaf said:
Errr....Ed Milliband had his latest relaunch today, in case you didn't notice. In his speech, he acknowledged that a future Labour Gov wouldn't have money to spend.

I think that just leaves LGS as the only person in the country not to recognise this!
:)
Sidicks
 

Cloverleaf

Banned
I think that just leaves LGS as the only person in the country not to recognise this!
:)
Sidicks

:laugh:

Is he for real :confused: The last person I heard talk so much guff must have been, err, Michael Foot ? Bob Crow maybe ? ;)
 

The latest video from AVForums

Panasonic LZ2000, LZ1500 & LZ980 Hands-on Launch Event | No QD-OLED for 2022, new 77-inch for LZ2000
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

What's new on Netflix UK for June 2022
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Triangle announces new wireless Borea Active bookshelf speakers
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Cleer Audio announces Arc earbuds
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
iFi Audio launches new Go bar portable DAC/headphone amp
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Sony adds LinkBuds S to its earphone series
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom