Just a few weeks until the Independent Living Fund closes: Tories cut disabled people loose

Update 4 June

This post is about the closure of the Independent Living Fund on 30 June.

The ILF was set up over 25 years ago to pay for extra carers for disabled people with very high needs. The ILF pays the wages of the personal assistants who help disabled people wash, dress, eat, go to college, get to work and go out to social events. In a lot of cases, the total cost of people’s care packages are met partly by their local councils and partly by the ILF. A number of ILF recipients require personal assistance around the clock. The government will close the ILF in just a few weeks’ time on 30 June. ILF recipients will rely entirely on their cash-strapped councils to pay for their care. The government insists that ILF money will be devolved to councils to cover the extra costs, but there’s considerable doubt about how long that will last and the money won’t be ringfenced by most councils. The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services is saying today that £1bn will be cut from social care services for older and disabled people in the coming year. You can see why ILF recipients are concerned about their futures.

The DWP insisted to me yesterday that “every effort has been made to ensure a smooth transition to sole local authority care and support for all ILF users by 30 June 2015.” I have serious doubts about this so-called smooth transition as well. As you can see from the interviews in the article that I posted earlier this week (the article is below), there’s nothing smooth about the way things are going for some people. Even at this stage, people are still waiting for their cases (and their eligibility for more council care funding to cover all their care costs) to be reviewed by their councils, or they’re still waiting to hear the outcomes from reviews. Some people have been told their care will be funded at current levels for short periods like six months and then reviewed, or that their care will be funded until their cases are reviewed, whenever that is. A couple of people I’ve spoken have been told that their funding should be met for a year from 30 June, but that they have no idea what will happen after that. People say that they are feeling extremely anxious as they wait to hear what will happen next and for their cases to be reviewed.

I wonder again why the government insists this fund is closed. The ILF hasn’t taken new applicants for five years, so the government and the DWP could simply have left existing applicants to it. There was no need to go after people in this way. Only about 17,000 people receive ILF funding. It’s hard to understand why the coalition government went to such lengths to target that small group, or why the new administration insists on going ahead with the closure and putting people through all of this. The stress that this mess has caused for people in the three years since the last government announced the ILF would close has been unreal – and a human rights violation, I would have thought. The stress goes on as people try to work out what will happen after 30 June and how long any support they’re offered after that date will last.

I’ll add to this blog as things go on this month.

Some more updates from the last few days:

Mark Williams, who lives in Bristol, says that the council hasn’t carried out his review yet. He says he’s been told that his funding support will continue until that review is done. In the meantime, he waits. “I have very little confidence how it will all work,” he says. “Many people are very worried.” (Mark appears in this short video, where he talks about his work and life and the ILF):

We’re all in it together – aren’t we? from Moore Lavan Films on Vimeo.

One recipient in Northeast London has told me that his care needs were assessed by his council just this week. The assessor told him that the council would try to help, but that ILF funding wasn’t ringfenced at his council, that people had to argue for care and that ultimately, council funding decisions are made by a relevant panel. He felt that the assessor was on side, but must now wait for the panel decision.

———————————————————————————————————–

Original post – 2 June:

There is confusion all over with just a few weeks until the Independent Living Fund closes. It’s looking more and more like disabled people who rely on the ILF for care funding are on course for a very bad deal:

In just under a month, this already-rotten government will close the Independent Living Fund.

If you had some idea that the Tories planned to keep a safety net for people who need it, the ILF closure should permanently relieve you of that idea. The ILF is a fund used by profoundly disabled people to pay for the extra carer hours that they need to live as independent adults in their own homes. The fund pays the wages of the personal assistants who help disabled people wash, dress, eat, go to college, get to work, make their way to social events and all the rest – the everyday activities that everyone else expects to takes part in because they want to and they can.

Needless to say, the Tories want to put an end to that independence (and to disabled people altogether, on this evidence). The ILF closes on 30 June 2015. I’ve been speaking to ILF recipients in the last few days. People still have no idea what will happen to their care packages after 30 June. They are not at all sure that their local councils will pick up the costs of the care that the ILF has paid for to date. One ILF recipient, Anne Pridmore, just told me that her council has agreed to meet the cost of her carers at ILF levels until October – but that the council will use the months between July and October to try and wean her off her need for carers and teach her to use assistive technology as a sort of replacement. “No amount of assistive technology is going to help me get on and off the toilet on my own,” Anne said.

The government says it will devolve ILF money to councils in the first instance – but there’s no guarantee that money will be devolved for long and/or at decent rates (I’d personally put my last pound on the exact opposite happening, given this administration). Neither is there any guarantee that councils will ringfence devolved ILF funds for social care. Many disabled people use ILF money to pay for extra carer hours that their already cash-strapped local authorities can’t afford and won’t be able to afford when councils take further funding hits. That leaves disabled people people with two very unsavoury choices (and remember this – if you’re not disabled at the moment, but become disabled, these will be your choices, too, unless you are very rich). People can either continue to live at home and rely on whatever care hours that council care departments can spare, or they can consider living in carehomes – and that’s assuming there are carehome places available, which I absolutely would not assume.

Continue reading

The hell with the Tories: Barnet council workers strike against mass privatisation

From Barnet Unison:

Barnet Unison members who still work for Barnet Council (that is, the people whose jobs that hopeless council hasn’t already cut or outsourced) begin a 48-hour strike on Monday 1 June against council plans to privatise a whole new mass of services.

People whose jobs are threatened by this latest wave of proposed outsourcing include coach escorts, drivers, social workers, occupational therapists, schools catering staff, education welfare officers, library workers, children centre workers and street cleaning and refuse workers. They have all made it very clear that they want to remain Barnet Council employees. They don’t want public services or their jobs outsourced.

“Our members don’t want to work for an employer which will place shareholders’ legal demands before local residents’ needs,” says Unison branch secretary John Burgess, rightly. “Our members don’t want to work for an employer which uses zero hours contracts. Our members don’t want to work for an employer which will not pay the London Living Wage as a basic minimum. That’s why 87% of our members working for the Council voted ‘Yes’ to taking strike action.”

Precisely.

I do like the way that the Tories try to argue that they need to curb the right to strike to protect essential public services. The truth is that people often need to strike to protect public services from Tories and privatisation. Ironic, innit.

Picket line information for tomorrow – get to the pickets if you can:

Monday 1 June

1. North London Business Park—From 7am
2. Mill Hill Depot—From 6am
3. East Finchley Library—From 9am

At 10.30am, strikers will travel to the Phoenix Cinema, 52 High Road, East Finchley, London N2 9PJ for a special screening of the Russell Brand Film “The Emperor’s New Clothes” starting at 12pm.

John McDonnell MP will lead on a Q&A session after the film.

Tuesday 2 June

1. North London Business Park (NLBP)—From 7am
2. Mill Hill Depot—From 6am
3. Edgware Library—Start  am onwards.

At 12pm, the strikers will march from the NLBP to St John’s Church Hall Friern Barnet Lane, N20 for a rally.

Other ways you can help:

Sign the petition to stop the outsourcing plans https://t.co/rMyBAeVDOQ

Follow @barnet_unison and #BarnetStrikes. Share updates!

Follow Barnet Unison on Facebook and like our page and share our posts.

Email messages of solidarity and support to contactus@barnetunison.org.uk

More strike action against useless Barnet council’s privatisation plans…

On 1&2 June, Barnet council workers will take further strike action against Barnet council’s highly unpopular plans to outsource even more council services.

The council is proposing to privatise the Education and Skills and School Meals services, the Library Service, Early Years: Children’s Centres and Street Scene Services. (Here’s a list of services threatened by outsourcing and services that have already been outsourced. You can also sign the petition against further privatisation).

There is a list of proposed picket times for Monday 1 June here.

Follow @barnet_unison for updates this week.

New immigrant to Europe? No worries at all if you’re the right kind of white.

Immigration and racism? I think so:

Let’s start this one with a story.

A few years ago, I visited Athens for about a week with another journalist, Abi Ramanan. Austerity had smacked the Greek infrastructure to rubble even then. We went to Greece to ask people how that felt. They said it didn’t feel too good.

While we were there, we interviewed three young guys – they were all in their 20s – who’d recently made the move to Europe. They were new-ish arrivals. We talked for a while about the reasons they’d made the trip to Greece. They gave the answers that you’d expect from young people on the move in any part of the world: they hoped to further their studies, learn new languages and to find good jobs (you can read transcripts from those conversations here).

“Everybody wants to be the best, to have a good life,” one of the young men said. “I’m here to learn, to know something, to get knowledge.”

“I came here for education. I was studying economics. I wanted to learn Greek and English. I wanted to finish my schooling,” said another.

This part of the conversation struck quite a chord with me. I’m an Antipodean by birth. We leave for other countries and for new starts all the time. You might even say that for some of us, leaving home is a sort of lifelong rite of passage. We never reach the end of it, or grow out of it, or manage to decide whether Here or There is best. The final decision is usually made for you when the money runs out. When we’re Home, we save up our money so that we can get Away, and on the double. When we’re Away, we dream about Home and then very quickly about getting Away again. If I understand anything, it is that desire to move and to keep moving. I left New Zealand for Europe and the UK myself for the second time over a decade ago for the same sorts of reasons that the three young men in Greece talked about – to see Europe, to learn and to push on and out in a part of the world that I’d always found enticing. I have an Irish passport (my mother’s family was/is Irish) and so have the right to live and work in Europe, but if I hadn’t, I would probably have tried to find sponsorship to stay. I grew up in the Antipodes. We leave for other countries all the time.

What we don’t do, though – the white Antipodean family and friends I know, at least – is find ourselves on the receiving end of the dreadful crap that the three guys I met in Greece had flung at them from the moment that they decided to move to Europe. The three men had come from Togo and Nigeria. They’d been violently attacked and abused in Greece. This was 2012, too, if you don’t mind. So much for civilised advance.

For a start, these guys had been ripped off. They had paid shifty agents a large amount of money (€3000 one of the men said) for transport and “help” to make the trip to Greece from Togo and Nigeria. These deals were supposed to include visas for studying and for part-time work. The visas never materialised and the agents disappeared. That left the men stranded in a city that was patrolled by an aggressive police force and the Golden Dawn. Things turned very nasty very fast.

“The police attack us every day,” said Koffi, 25. He’d been subject to a violent assault only a few days earlier. The police had thrown a gas bottle at his head. A large lump on one side of his forehead marked the place where the bottle had hit. “We don’t have [the chance] to work to get money. We don’t have [the chance] to get out to learn the language. They don’t like to see the black [sic]. Why?”

“They don’t like foreigners,” Saheed Aylula, 22, told us. “If I’m on the bus, I cannot get people to sit down with me. If there is two seats there, I cannot get people to sit next to me. You can go to any restaurant or any cafe here and you cannot see blacks working there.” He also told us that a friend of his had been attacked by someone with a machete. “They [the perpetrators] were wearing black. They macheted the guy around nine or 10pm. So, that’s the reason why I don’t feel like walking around at night.” Continue reading

Back soon, comrades

Should be back up to speed by next week. Decided to take a couple of weeks after the election to go through all the transcripts and recordings I have from jobcentres and work capability assessments, and get all that work in order for the next round of fighting.

Go well, all and remember – Labour was never going to give us social security back. As ever, we’ll have to go and get it back ourselves.

See you soon.

The hell with this garbage. Let’s rule ourselves.

 

Let me tell you a bit about waiting:

One day last week, I took myself right across London to attend a jobcentre meeting with a woman who has some support needs. The woman had been told to come in to meet with a so-called work coach. She wasn’t too sure what this meeting was about. The jobcentre had organised the meeting a couple of weeks back and the woman was concerned about it. You could say that the thought of the meeting had been weighing on her mind for some time.

Not that anyone could care less about that. When this woman arrived at the jobcentre, she was told that the work coach wasn’t at work that day (ha ha – yes, the irony) and the meeting was cancelled. The woman told me that nobody rang her to let her know the meeting was off, to save her the trouble of coming in. Another date for a meeting with the work coach was set for a few weeks’ time. That means she has another month to wait and to wonder what the work coach wants with her. You could say that’s now weighing on her mind.

I can’t tell you how often this sort of thing happens to people who must use these barely-functional, so-called services: appointments changed at the last minute, meetings pushed to new times which claimants aren’t told about, work programme sessions cancelled a few hours before the event, or claimants travelling all the way to the jobcentre to find that the person they expected to meet is nowhere to be found. It is no exaggeration to say that these things happen on an amazingly regular basis. There’s a real departmental contempt to it if you ask me: a right old “unemployed people deserve punishment, not the normal courtesies” from the DWP. I suppose we’re also seeing an annihilated sector now: not enough staff, hopeless communications between jobcentres and outsourced work programme and workfare companies, and morale so low that organisations barely have a pulse.

The problem right now is that the political and media classes care even less about deteriorating public services than they did before the runup to the election. I didn’t actually know that was possible, but it is. There’s nobody around to take any of these problems to – in an official sense, at least. There never was, of course – social security has been destroyed in equal parts by a vicious coalition government and a fantastically weak Labour opposition, and neither was ever inclined to race to the aid of people who attend jobcentres – but at least you could see what you were up against when parliament was formed and abuse someone for it. Occasionally, you’d even find a mainstream media editor who understood that there was a world outside warped political cycles. Now, commentators are cheerfully foretelling an age of instability while we’re exposed to a post-election, months-long and extremely rubbish game of thrones. That concept sets my teeth on edge – not because I want a government particularly, but because it shows that the ruling class is arrogant enough to believe that it can take its sweet time to bash out deals to its own advantage. There’s absolutely no sense of urgency there. It must be great to live in a world where you can destroy other people’s much-needed public services, then let those services deteriorate even further while you haggle for the power to destroy more. Little wonder that people are taking future planning into their own hands.

All of which is a long way of saying that blogging here will probably be light until next week. I aim to fully re-engage when we reach that post-election point (we usually reach it pretty fast) when our political heroes are wiping their butts on their current manifestos and waving at us in their rearview mirrors. That’s the time for political engagement in my view – when you see the real agendas.

Will still be available on twitter, although probably not much. I actually can’t take the bullshit. There is no doubt I will kick the screen in if someone else tries to suggest to me that Labour is the only answer. Labour can’t even bring itself to agree to keep the Independent Living Fund. With or without government, we’re still nowhere on social security. At all.

Solidarity to Barnet council workers on strike against ridiculous privatisation plans

 

Barnet council workers are on strike today and tomorrow against that hopeless council’s plans to outsource even more services.

Not content with the disastrous privatisation of services for disabled adults – those services were placed in the failed Your Choice Barnet trading company several years ago – the council now has plans to privatise the Education and Skills and School Meals services, the Library Service, Early Years: Children’s Centres and Street Scene Services. (Here’s a list of services threatened by outsourcing and a list of services that have already been outsourced. You can also sign the petition against further privatisation).

There is a full list of pickets for today and tomorrow and contact information for picket co-ordinators here.

Some tweets and pictures from the strikes that are underway today:

Follow @barnet_unison and #BarnetStrikes for updates today and tomorrow.

All prospective MPs should have to use or work in the services that they want to trash

A few more thoughts about the trashed earth left by a political class currently seeking election to parliament:

I’ve just been listening to a recording I took at a northwest London jobcentre meeting a couple of months ago. I was there with an older man who has learning difficulties and who is claiming JSA.

It wasn’t the greatest jobcentre meeting I’d ever attended. The jobcentre adviser and the man I was with had an angry, if one-sided, confrontation – raised voices, exasperation, sarcasm, accusations, the works.

The man complained that the work choice providers at a course he’d taken had done little to find him work. The adviser said that the fault was his. She said the work choice provider had suggested several jobs for him and that it was not the provider’s fault if the man didn’t get the work. “It’s not up to them,” the jobcentre adviser said testily. “It’s up to you and what you bring to the job.” The jobcentre adviser accused the man of exaggerating his concerns about the work choice provider. At one point, she said to the man: “What is it that you want them to do? Do you want them to take you by the hand and take you to the job and get you the job?” No mention was made of the problems that make things difficult for this man – his deteriorating health, his literacy problems, the fact that he can’t use email, or computers, or that he finds change extremely difficult to handle and to navigate. He is sometimes defensive and can resist when told to make a change. His first response is often No, but there are reasons for that. You’d think that those reasons would be recognised and understood. They weren’t that day. Things were a little one-sided, as I say. Continue reading

Not much sign of Maximus at Maximus assessment…

I attended a Maximus work capability assessment with someone this week and was intrigued to note that there was no Maximus branding that I could see outside the building, or in it. Maybe all the branding was lost, or still on the printer (there wasn’t any branding on the callup letter the person I went with to the assessment received either, now that I look at it). Outside the building, there was just a line on the listings boards which said Assessment Centre (I’ll put a photo up shortly when I can get it off my phone). Inside the building, there were a few notices with references to the Centre for Health and Disability Assessments, which I think is the official euphemism for “Place Where Maximus Carries Out Loathed ESA Work Capability Assessments.” Intruiging, as I say. Made me wonder if Maximus is trying to distance itself brandwise from this extremely unpopular aspect of its offering and/or to make its assessment centres hard to spot. Who can really say.

Anyway – have started to attend these Maximus face-to-face work capability assessments now. I’ll be publishing in detail on them after the election, when I know which MPs to pressure with the evidence I have.

Suffice to say for now that I remain amazed by the utter pointlessness of the whole WCA process and of the face-to-face assessments in particular (pointless for the person going through the assessment, that is. There’s plenty of point to it for Maximus – between £590m and £650m over three years and a presence in the UK, as the Guardian reported earlier this year). The people on the receiving end of it don’t do so well. The person I went with this week has very serious mental health problems – so serious that he really has hardly left his house this year. For this week’s face-to-face assessment, he had to drag himself miles across town to the assessment centre (a family member set aside the afternoon to do the driving) to attend an appointment where he was asked to talk about his mental health for a time and then told to briefly lift his arms and legs. Regarding the possibility of a home visit for assessment – I’ll get into the topic of home visits another time, I think. I’d make the general observation now that home visits can present people with a whole new set of concerns. A number of people have raised this point with me over the years. Not everyone wants government or government-funded officials poking around at their place. I sure as hell don’t.

And anyway – the key point here is that this guy’s GP and usual medical consultants could easily have carried out this assessment. Maximus at home or at an assessment centre is entirely unnecessary. The WCA is outsourcing for the hell of it, like privatisation usually is. We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again – this outsourcing of disability benefit assessments to private companies like Maximus is for the benefit of private companies like Maximus and for governments that are desperate to show they’re tough on benefit claimants. Millions of pounds are being pissed away to those ends. Whoever gets into government will be made to answer to that. In a big way.

More jobcentre recordings: Another lost fight to accompany someone to their JSA signon…

A few thoughts on the extraordinary efforts that our punitive state now makes to isolate people who need state help:

Not long ago, I had ANOTHER altercation with a G4S security guard – this time at one of the East London jobcentres. You can hear some of that argument here (there’s a bit in it about a bicycle that you’ll need to read on to understand):

The dispute was about people’s right to bring a friend or supporter along to their jobcentre appointments. I was there to accompany a young woman to her first jobseekers’ allowance signon meeting. She had all sorts of complicated problems with her benefits, so I went along to take any notes that she needed. She also wanted someone along as a witness.

You’d think that was fair enough, especially at the moment. People need witnessess to their interactions with jobcentre advisers. That is because the whole jobcentre system is a fiasco. People get their benefits sanctioned for reasons that nobody understands, or they’re told to attend meetings that end up being on another day entirely, or they get in trouble for not turning up to appointments that another adviser has cancelled (I’ve seen endless variations on all three over the last year or so). Taking a witness along so that at least one other person understands what jobsearch activities and meetings are agreed is pretty important to survival. The DWP’s own responses to FOI requests about bringing a supporter along to JSA appointments seem to imply that accompaniment is perfectly fine. Other people have argued the toss about representation with the DWP and apparently won. Feel free to leave a comment, or email me, if you have any further insight into the rules. I’d ask the DWP myself, except that asking the DWP anything these days is so utterly pointless that I can’t actually find the motivation to lift my finger and dial the DWP’s number. I ring the DWP and I email the DWP and the DWP simply refuses to respond to my questions.

Which isn’t necessarily a huge loss in the greater scheme. The point is that people should be entitled to take a witness along to their jobcentre signon meetings. The other point is that nobody on the ground seems to know what the rules are anyway. People just say whatever suits them at the time. Some guards (they’re generally in the minority now) have said to me Yes, You Can Go In. The rest say No. That means that the majority of jobcentre security guards I see now are very quick to put a stop to someone’s right to any sort of representation. Their first response shouldn’t be No, but it is. It’s No for the hell of it. It’s No, just because guards can say No. I’ve probably attended around ten jobcentre appointments with people this year and reckon that security guards have said No to my going in at the start of more than half of them. One guy I just totally ignored. I pretended I couldn’t hear him telling me to stop and just kept walking. The rest generally backed down after debates about procedures and/or previous agreements which I largely made up on the spot, but fortunately convinced people existed. This says to me that nobody is very clear on the facts. Things sometimes seem to go better when guards think that I’m a claimant’s mother. I don’t know what it is about mothers. The problem is that I can’t be everyone’s Mum, especially when I turn up at the same jobcentre with different people. It is also a tricky call when claimants and I are around the same age. Continue reading