manifesto for a fair society 2012

8/2/2019 Manifesto for a Fair Society 2012

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/manifesto-for-a-fair-society-2012 1/32

Maniesto or

a Fair Society

2012



24% o all cuts target the 1.9%o the population with the most

severe impairments. 58% o all cutstarget disabled people, older people

needing support and people livingin poverty. older people who need

support and disabled people are muchmore liKely to live in poverty. whenthe eXtra costs o being a disabled

person are taKen into account, 47.5%o amilies with disabled people in

the household, live in poverty. somepeople have to live on less than

£2,780 per year, less than £54 per weeK.the highest rate o taX is paid bythe poorest 10% o amilies, who pay47% o their income in taX. raud by

taXpayers, together with the beneitsnever received by people who are

entitled to them, is 32 times greaterin size than beneit raud.people

who want to worK cannot access worK (7% o people with a learningdiiculty worK. 65% want to worK).

45% o households with at least onedisabled person are unable to aord

eXpenses or maKe loan repayments.this compares with 29% o households

without any disabled people. disabledpeople are subJect to hate crimes and

abuse. older people are more than10 times more liKely to be abused inresidential care than in their own

home. disabled people are carers too.o the nearly two million people

aged 16-74 in england and wales who were permanently sicK or disabled according to the 2001 census, over aQuarter o a million provided some

unpaid care or other people.



Maniesto or

a Fair Society

2012

p c s..


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/manifesto-for-a-fair-society-2012 5/32c

ContentsThis Maniesto is published by the

Campaign or a Fair Society

t m:

✱ says that the government’s cuts are unair –

they target disabled people and those living

in poverty

✱ explains how the cuts are inecient – they

will create more crises and new costs ✱ shows how the government could do things

dierently

✱ makes eight proposals or a airer society.

The Maniesto is short.

We hope it’s clear.

I you want to read more detail,

go to page 6.

1


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/manifesto-for-a-fair-society-2012 6/32Campaign for a Fair Society

u The government’s cuts are unair.

£23.7 billion o cuts all on disabled andolder people and people living in poverty

– 58% o all the cuts. 24% o all cuts will allon 1.9% o the population, people with themost severe impairments.

We all need help at some time in our livesso these cuts are not about other people.

In the end, they’re about all o us.

The government could do somethingdierent. It doesn’t have to target thesegroups o people.

e k

This Maniesto or a Fair Society describes

eight ways to make a new, airer system.

We want a system that does not punish people or being older, disabled or in poverty. Instead, amilies should get thesupport they need to look ater eachother.

People should get the help theyneed to live a lie that they control.Then, i everyone can make their own

contribution, the world will be a better place or all o us.

t c s

The Campaign or a Fair Society is adiverse, UK-wide alliance o organisationsand individuals campaigning or a societythat values, includes and supports all o itscitizens.

It is independent o all political parties. Itrepresents the interests o disabled people

and everyone who is disadvantaged bythe laws, policies and systems in the UK.

The Campaign or a Fair Society is aederation with equal representation romEngland, Scotland and Wales.

Please join in. We welcome support romeveryone who wants a airer society.

t m –

This Maniesto will change as more people get involved and contribute theirideas to the discussion. We need the helpo organisations and individuals that arecommitted to creating a air society andwill help us develop the Maniesto into abroad programme or real change.

Please get involved and let us knowwhat you think. Visit our website atwww.campaignoraairsociety.org

2

http://www.campaignforafairsociety.org/



http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/manifesto-for-a-fair-society-2012 7/32m s 2012

i

io . d ,

’ . t

, . m ’

.

a

Not only is the system unair, but things aregetting worse.

In the UK, the government is making large

cuts to the income and support availableor disabled people, older people andthose in poverty.[1]

Using the government’s own gures, by

2015:

✱ £23.7 billion o annual cuts will all ondisabled and older people and peopleliving in poverty – 58% o all cuts.

✱ 24% o all cuts will all on 1.9% o the

population – people with the mostsevere impairments.

Our Campaign started when we began tounderstand how bad things would get. Weare opposed to the cuts and especially tothe way these cuts target the very groupsa air society should protect.

Maniesto or aFair Society 2012

c

These cuts are unair and will also be

damaging. They will very quickly lead

to costly problems:

✱ Greater inequalities in income lead to poorer health, increased mental illness,more crime and many other expensive

problems.

✱ Cuts in support to older and disabled people will lead to amily breakdown,more crises, less prevention andincreased institutionalisation.

A air society is better or everyone. Wheneveryone gets the chance to make theirown unique contribution, the world isa better place. The more unair societybecomes, the worse things will get oreveryone.

3



8

p

The Campaign is committed to

independent living or everyone. We

believe:

Everyone is equal, no matter

their age, differences or

disabilities. A fair society sees

each of its members as a full

citizen – a unique person with a

life of their own. A fair society is

organised to support everyone

to live a full life, with meaning and respect.

The ollowing seven principles describe

what this means in practice:

✱ Family – we give amilies andindividuals the support they need tolook ater each other.

✱ Citizenship – we are all o equal

value and we can all make a uniquecontribution.

✱ Community – we are ree and activemembers o inclusive and welcomingcommunities.

✱ Connection – we all get chances tomake riends and build relationships.

✱ Empower – we can all be the best thatwe can be.

✱ Equality – we all share the same

rights and we respect and value ourdierences.

✱ Control – we all get the help we needto make choices and be in control o our own lie.

A air society works to achieve each o these seven principles. In practice, that willmean making signicant changes to howthe current system works.

8

t c s

uK

.

The Campaign calls on governments in

England, Wales and Scotland to create

real reorms:

1. h

A air society is built on a oundation

o human rights. The law and welaresystems should be judged by theirsuccess in upholding these rights.

There are already important agreementsabout welare – The European Convention

on Human Rights and the UN Convention

on the Rights of Disabled People. Theseinternational standards or decency shouldbe built into our own law.

The current Human Rights Act should bestrengthened, not weakened, and it shouldbecome easier or citizens to hold thesystem to account.

2. c

It is dicult to know what money, care andsupport we can get because the system isconusing.

We need a new system with clear

entitlements. It must be easy or peopleto know what money, care and supportthey can get. They must have enoughmoney to live on and be active citizens.

4


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/manifesto-for-a-fair-society-2012 9/32m s 2012

8

3. e

I we need help rom services we otencan’t get it until we reach crisis point. Thisis a bad way o spending money. It causes

problems like amily breakdown andhealth crises.

People must get help as soon as

possible. It is a better use o moneybecause people can deal with problemswhen they are smaller. People can bemore independent. Families are morelikely to stay together. More people canget help or the same money.

4. eq

Services or older and disabled peopleare oten not the ones everyone else uses.Separate and institutional services cut

people o rom ordinary lie, riends andneighbours.

We want all people to have the same

opportunities – in housing, work,education, leisure and relationships. Then

people will be part o their community.They will get the chance to put somethingin as well as get support.

5. c

Oten, people can only get help i theygive up their independence.

We need a new system that helps

people to keep control – to make theirown choices and control their own lie.

6.

People who are entitled to benets canbe trapped in poverty. It can be dicultto break out and get a job or get involvedin the community – especially i you aredisabled.

We need a new system that gives

everyone a reasonable income. We needa system that makes it worth getting a

job, saving money and getting involved incommunity lie.

7. xThe tax system alls hardest on peoplewho need social care. Complicated ruleshide this act. Local authorities and theIndependent Living Fund charge orservices and, oten, you can’t get help i youhave modest savings. The benet systemalso disguises a series o unair taxes.

We need a air system that doesn’t

have hidden taxes that all on older anddisabled people and people in poverty.Services must be ree to people who usethem. Taxes would und these services –

paid or by everyone equitably.

8.

The banking and nance systems have

not worked in avour o the whole o

society.

A new system must change how banksand nancial institutions work. They mustoer value and benet to everyone andbear responsibility or the common good.

We need a system based on airness –one that is sustainable or all.

5



1. h

1. h w ,

Human

Rights Act ,

UN Convention on Human Rights,

uK . t Human Rights Act

uK uK

.

t

The Campaign believes English, Scottishand Welsh governments should embracethe European Convention on Human

Rights and the UN Convention on the

Rights of Disabled People. [2]

This commitment should involve aundamental review o the obligationso government at every level to ensurecitizenship or all.

Implementation o the right toindependent living or disabled people, asguaranteed by Article 19, UN Convention

on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

should orm the basis o reorm.Independent living means:

‘… disabled people of all ages

having the same freedom, choice,

dignity and control as other

citizens at home, at work, and in

the community. It does not mean

living by yourself, or fending

for yourself. It means rights to

practical assistance and support

to participate in society and live

an ordinary life.’ [3]

I we want to respect these rights then wemust reorm the current welare system,including the current system o socialcare. [4]

w

The United Kingdom’s welare system wasdesigned in the 1930s and implementedater World War II. It was an incrediblyimportant achievement that createdentitlements to income security, healthcareand education or all. However, it relied ona huge contribution to care and supportrom women in the home; it beneted

rom the inormal support o strong andrelatively static local communities; andit did not respect the rights o disabled

More detail onthe ManiestoThe Maniesto is deliberately short. We hope it stands

alone and is clear. For those who want to read more

detail, the sections below explore the Maniesto’s eight

ways to create a air society.

6


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/manifesto-for-a-fair-society-2012 11/32m m

2. c

people or older people needingsupport. [5]

The welare system needs to be reormedto meet the changes in population, circum-stances and expectations o UK citizens.

The Campaign or a Fair Society

believes that the time has come to

redesign the welare system so that it is

built on the oundations o independent

living and human rights:

✱ People want to be treated ascontributing citizens, not as passiverecipients o services.

✱ The rights o disabled people tosupport need to be enshrined in law.

✱ Inclusion in the ordinary lie o communities, in mainstream anduniversal services needs to become thenorm or disabled children and adults.

✱ The dangers o institutional models o care now need to be ully recognisedand the abuse o vulnerable peopleeradicated.

✱ There needs to be more recognitionand support or communities, amiliesand carers to make sure help is timelyand to prevent breakdown and crises.

✱ Support or independent living needsto be dened, designed and purchaseddirectly by the people who need it.

2. c w

j

. t

,

. p

f

f

.

In some parts o the welare system

there are clear guarantees and universalrights (or example, in healthcare and theeducation o children) but in other areas(especially social care) rights are weak.

Any entitlements that do exist are hazy orinadequate.

m

The reason that the current system

o entitlements is poor is political, noteconomic. It refects the low level o attention paid to the needs o disabled

people. The cost o establishing universalentitlement to social care is very modest(c. £5 billion) and is a tiny raction o theadditional unding provided to the NHS bythe last government (c. £50 billion). [6]

In act, the lack o clear entitlements isexpensive. Because they lack support,

many amilies experience breakdown, people’s needs get worse and many end upusing more expensive healthcare services.

There is no undamental diculty in

clariying an entitlement. It should be:

✱ portable – people should be able tond work or move home without losingsupport.

✱ enough or citizenship – people

should be able to live independentlyand contribute to society.

✱ good or amilies – couples should notbe encouraged to split up or amiliesbreak down just to get support.

✱ clear – the system should be easy touse and not require constant complaintssimply to get what is air.

✱ objective – the system should bebased on human rights, open to public

scrutiny and ree rom manipulation ordiscrimination.

7



3. e

✱ timely – people should not have to waituntil they are in crisis in order to getsupport.

Clear individual entitlements will beessential in any reormed system. Theyare aordable and they would put an endto a system that damages the abric o society by impoverishing many older anddisabled people and their amilies.

3. e

w

, k

.

Families and individuals should be giventhe rehabilitation and support necessaryto prevent need, maximise independence,maintain health and strengthen amily andcommunity connections.

Current policy demonstrates a deepconusion about prevention and eligibility.On the one hand local authorities areurged to prevent need, to providerehabilitation services and to buildcommunity capacity. These are good andsensible measures.

However, local authorities are also told thatthey can set the eligibility levels or care

at such high levels that people will only beentitled to help when they have reachedcrisis point. Few people understand howmean-spirited and damaging this systemcan be. [7]

For example, i local authorities set their

eligibility levels to ‘critical’ they can

deny help to people even i they:

✱ have only partial choice and controlover their immediate environment.

✱ have been or will be abused orneglected.

✱ cannot carry out the majority o their personal care or domestic routines.

✱ cannot sustain involvement in manyaspects o work, education or learning.

✱ cannot sustain the majority o theirsocial supports and relationships.

✱ cannot ull the majority o their amilyroles or other social roles. [8]

p

This level o entitlement is too low and isinconsistent with the UN Convention. It

is also entirely inconsistent with a policyo prevention. High eligibility thresholds

promote personal and amily crisis, createadditional needs or help and discourageearly support.

We need to shit to a model o supportwhich prioritises prevention. It is both morerespectul and more ecient to enable

people to maximise their independencerather than to wait or their lie to go into

crisis. We need to pay particular attentionto supporting amilies and carers whocurrently provide ve times more supportthan that given by proessionals. [9]

4. eq w

x

.

t

. a

q

:

, k, , ,

, , .

8



5. c

The welare system tends to und servicesnot people. Usually this means that moneyis locked into segregated and institutionalservices, rather than being used by people

to get work or join in community lie.

For example, the welare system

subsidises specialist options:

✱ residential care, rather than support or people to live at home.

✱ special schools, rather thansupporting people to be educated

together.

✱ residential respite, rather than letting

people choose how they get a breakthat suits them.

✱ sheltered employment, rather thansupporting people to get ordinary

jobs.

✱ specialist housing, rather then enabling people to buy or rent homes.

✱ day centres, rather than supporting people to enjoy all aspects o community lie.

c

This means that people nd they are cuto rom community lie.

In addition, many older and disabled

people also ace other barriers when

they try to access the community:

✱ prejudice and hate crime, which nowseem to be on the increase.

✱ physical barriers such as lack o ramps,changing-places, accessible transport,communication systems.

✱ ignorance and conusion: no eort ismade to teach people about the rightso older and disabled people.

Retreating back into institutional or

segregated provision is not the answer.Institutions are dangerous and lead to

abuse. They are incompatible with humanrights.

We need a welare system designed tosupport independent living and ull andequal access to community lie. Fundingthat is currently spent on segregatedservices should instead be used or asystem o individual entitlements that willincrease community participation.

5. c

w

k

.

o,

,

.

a

k

. c

.

The governments o England, Scotland

and Wales have all accepted in principlethat a modernised system o supportshould be under the direction and controlo older and disabled people.

u

Progress has been patchy and is otenincoherent.

For example, early developmentso what in England is called

9



6.

‘ personalisation’ have been raught with

diculties:

✱ People are being given individualbudgets but there is evidence that thesebudgets are inadequate. [10]

✱ Resource allocation systems arebeing developed but they are hidden rom public view and are not open toscrutiny. [11]

✱ People are told they can use undingfexibly but then have to keep theirmoney in separate bank accounts, keepdetailed accounts and oten nd thatbudgets are actually infexible. [12]

✱ People may be oered support to plan and control their budgets butthis support comes, typically, romproessionals, not rom peers, amily,riends or advocates. [13]

✱ Many people are kept in ignorance o their budget and o their right tochange how it is used.

✱ Some local authorities are stilldetermining that some people must live

in care homes despite their wish not to.

✱ Social workers and others workingwithin the system nd it complex,burdensome and dicult to navigate.

✱ Some local authorities are using themove to personalised services to makecuts in provision.

The Campaign welcomes the act thatgovernments are beginning to understand

the benets that come rom giving olderand disabled people control. However,in order or this to be meaningul andconsistent with independent living andhuman rights, it will be necessary orgovernments to undertake a much moreundamental reorm o the current system.

The right to choice and control should bea undamental eature o the new system.To make this right meaningul, people

need both resource fexibility and anappropriate set o support systems

6. w

.

p f

x

f

. p

k,

.

Public understanding o the benet systemis conused and there are many prejudicesto overcome in order to achieve a airersystem and a more equal society.

For instance it is not well known that:

✱ The poorest 10% o households (withmore than two people living together)

are extremely poor and have to live onan average o about £6,500 per year. [14] Some individuals have to live on lessthan £2,780 per year – under £53.45 perweek. [15]

✱ The poorest 10% o households ace thehighest levels o taxation o any group.They have to pay 47% o their grossincome in taxes. [16]

✱ The poorest, or example those relying

on Income Support, ace marginalbenet reduction rates (that is: tax rates)o 100%. Oten, when benets are linkedtogether, people can become poorer orlose their homes i they start to work. [17]

✱ When the extra costs o being a disabled person are taken into account, 47.4%o amilies with disabled people in thehousehold live in poverty. [18]

✱ Benet raud is very rare indeed.However, £17 billion o benets are not

claimed by people who are entitled

to them. [19]

10



7. x

r q

The current UK government has nowrecognised that the tax rates on the poorare unair and the system conused.

However, the actual welare reorms

being proposed seem likely to increase:

✱ the numbers living in extreme poverty

✱ the poverty traps or disabled people

✱ the level o income inequality in society.

No welare state has been able toeliminate unemployment. A reasonable

level o income should be guaranteed orall individuals and amilies and the tax-benet system should be reormed to giveeveryone a positive incentive to work andto save.

Current means-testing and high benetreduction rates cause hardship anddiscourage community contribution. Nochanges should be made to the benetsystem unless they actually improve real

incomes and incentives or older anddisabled people and people living in

poverty. The current plans or reorm mustbe halted. Instead, the UK governmentmust recognise that any new systemo social security should be built on aoundation o human rights.

7. x w

x

.

t x

. v x

x

f . t ‘charge’

. t

x

q.

Taxes are necessary to sustain a decentsystem o social security that benets usall. But taxes need to be air. This meansthat taxes must refect our ability to paythem. It also means that they must beopen, not hidden. They must also beuniversal and not unairly target particulargroups.

The current system, though, is notair. People in poverty pay the highest

percentage o their income in taxes (47%).People who rely on means-tested benetsalso ace marginal tax rates that can exceed100%. This means the highest rates o taxall on those who are least able to pay. [20]

Another hidden tax is ound in thesystem o local authority community care‘charges ’ and the rules o the IndependentLiving Fund. These systems, which areused to partially und social care, target

only older and disabled people. This isunair and it drives people who are otenon very low incomes deeper into poverty.

c, ,

There has been some progress towardsree home care in Wales (and Scotland)or which the Welsh government is to be

commended.

But systems across the UK continue to

be unair, inecient and damaging:

✱ Charges in Scotland raise 4% o the cost o social care, but can costthe individual 75% or more o theirincome. [21]

✱ The Audit Commission in Englandound that between 25-40% o the

charge went on the administration o charging. [22]

11



8.

✱ Many people give away their limitedsavings just to become eligible or vitalsupports. [23]

✱ Although the Welsh government has

now capped charging at £50 per week,this still represents a signicant tax ondisability and ill health.

Government’s approaches to taxation(or ‘charging’ ) are inconsistent. I youhave Down’s Syndrome you will haveto pay this extra tax. I you need help inyour old age you will pay this extra tax.However, i you have a long-term healthcondition and the costs o your support

are paid by the NHS you will not pay thisextra tax.

Comparison with the NHS is useul. InEngland, the NHS costs over £100 billionand services are mostly ree. Socialcare or children and adults is about£20 billion with charges and private

purchasing o social care contributing£5.3 billion (4% o the cost o the healthand social care system). [24] For the sake

o a 4% contribution to the total cost o the system, over 1 million older anddisabled people in the UK ace extremelevels o taxation – targeted only at them.

The Campaign welcomes the eorts in Wales to limit the level o this extra taxon older and disabled people to £50

per week. But this is only a beginning. As Sir Andrew Dilnot recently said o theEnglish system:

‘The current system is confusing,

unfair and unsustainable. People

can’t protect themselves against

the risk of very high care costs

and risk losing all their assets,

including their house. This

problem will only get worse if left

as it is, with the most vulnerable

in our society being the ones to suffer.’ [25]

It is time to end the current system o charging older and disabled people orcare. The right to receive essential on-going support must be put on the same

ooting as our rights to healthcare andeducation. [26]

8.

w

k f

.

t

, q,

.

a

.

Overall the UK is wealthier than any

time in its history but:✱ Our national debt is almost ve times

(492%) our annual economic output,when consumer debt is taken intoaccount. This is second only to Japan. [27]

✱ We are the third most unequaldeveloped economy in the worldand we are becoming increasinglyunequal. [28]

✱ Our government currently spends 48%

o our GDP. [29]

In particular we seem to be in a

grave economic crisis which has

demanded that our leaders use our

taxes to bail out:

✱ commercial banks which havespeculated unwisely and lent too muchmoney to back the house price bubble.

✱ nations that have borrowed too much

money instead o taking more prudentmeasures to balance their books.

12


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/manifesto-for-a-fair-society-2012 17/32c

8.

Partly these problems fow rom the designo the banking system. Commercial bankscontrol the money supply and have the

power to create new money in a way that has

undermined our nancial stability. This hasled to bubbles and nancial disasters. The

pain o this crisis is not being borne airly. [30]

k

Also, politicians o all parties have beenwedded to the notion that creating wealthis something that only a ew people doand the idea that the benets o their pro-

ductivity ‘trickle down’ to the rest o us. [31] But, in practice, inequality has increasedand social problems have become worseor everyone. It is time or resh thinking. [32]

As a society we must regain aith in ourown ability to achieve greater airness andto build a better world.

We need to ocus more on airness and

sustainability. We must:

✱ create a airer welare system thatenables everyone to contribute.

✱ protect the natural world.

✱ support stronger and more vibrantsocial networks.

✱ build wealth and opportunity in localcommunities.

A air society will not be given tous. It will have to be built by all o ustogether – by citizens, communities andgovernment.

Conclusion w

k.

c . ij

x

. t c

k

. w k k

. b

.

Get involved - as an individual or anorganisation. Please share this Maniestowith your riends, amily and colleagues.

Lobby your MP, MSP or AM. Get in touchwith your national campaign co-ordinator.

Attend Campaign meetings. Make yourown unique contribution.

Visit our website page that lists other

ways you can be involved. For example:

✱ Become a subscriber and/orencourage your organisation to

become a listed supporter. ✱ Use our posters and materials.

✱ Donate money. The Campaign isindependent and needs your support.

✱ Follow us on Twitter or join us onFacebook.

Older and disabled people, and peopleliving in poverty do not deserve to betreated as second-class citizens. It’s time tocreate a society in which everybody gets

a chance to play their part. It’s time or aair society.

13



Campaign for a Fair Society

8.

14



ax 1. h

ax 1. h

t uK

k j

f

. i

.

The Campaign or a Fair Society has beendisappointed to nd that many o these

changes target disabled people, older people and people who are living in poverty.This seems unair and unnecessary. Thisappendix helps to explain these cuts and

how they will aect ordinary people.

1. c

Most changes in government unding wereannounced in October 2010. However,some urther benet cuts were outlinedin 2011, which the government calculatedwill lead to a saving in the annual cost o

benets o £18 billion by 2014-15. I wetake these two announcements togetherwe can provide an overview o annualspending by central government in 2011-12 compared with 2014-15. This is set outin Table 1 and is based on gures already

published by the government. [33]

Spending2010-11 (£bn.)

Share of Overall (%)

Spending2014-15 (£bn.)

Growth orCut (£bn.)

Change from2010-11 (%)

Schools & Colleges 60.6 10.4% 61.5 0.9 1.5%

NHS 101.8 17.4% 114.6 12.8 12.6%

Transport 13.1 2.2% 12.2 -0.9 -6.9%

English Local Authorities 38.6 6.6% 27.3 -11.3 -29.3%

Business & Universities 20 3.4% 16.1 -3.9 -19.5%

Policing, Justice & Prisons 22.4 3.8% 19.3 -3.1 -13.8%

Defence 35.7 6.1% 36.8 1.1 3.1%

Foreign Aid et al. 9.6 1.6% 12.8 3.2 33.3%

Energy, Environment &

Culture

14.1 2.4% 12.4 -1.7 -12.1%

Scotland 28.2 4.8% 28.1 -0.1 -0.4%

Wales 14.9 2.5% 14.5 -0.4 -2.7%

Northern Ireland 16 2.7% 16.4 0.4 2.5%

Tax & Benet Administration 10.7 1.8% 11.1 0.4 3.7%

Treasury, Cabinet & Quangos 1.1 0.2% 3.9 2.8 254.5%

Financial Crisis Measures 8.2 1.4% 7.2 -1.0 -12.2%

Pensions 71.6 12.2% 80.6 9 12.6%

Benets & Tax Credits 118.4 20.2% 100.4 -18 -15.2%

T able 1. Summary of Government SpendinG ChanGe (2010-15)

15



ax 1. h

Figure 1 below shows these changes(growth and cuts) measured in billions o

pounds. The gure demonstrates that, interms o cash, many services are growing

while many services and benets areshrinking.

By ar and away the biggest cuts are to:

✱ benets (£18 billion) or poor ordisabled people

✱ local authorities (£11.3 billion), o whichabout 50% will be in care or disabledchildren and adults, or others withsignicant needs (£5.7 billion). [34]

It can also be argued that the government’s plans involve a signicantly lower level o public spending overall as a percentageo real growth. [35] This means both that the

planned increases are less signicant thanthey may appear and that the planned cutswill be even more severe than they appear.

However, the level o growth we willexperience by 2015 is uncertain and our

primary concern is with the airness o thechanges rather than with the overall level o

public spending. However, this means thatour description o the changes errs towardsthe conservative.

Another striking wayo examining thesegures is to identiythe percentagechange between2010 and 2015.This is describedin Figure 2 (bottomlet).

In terms o severityo cuts, this showsboth that localgovernment (atleast in England) isthe most severelycut (29.3%) despitethe act that the

primary role o localgovernment is to

provide support

to people with themost signicantneeds. In addition,it seems that thegreatest spendingincrease will take

place in centralgovernment – in

Whitehall.

Fig 1. ChanGeS in publiC SpendinG (2010-2015)

Fig 2. perCentaGe ChanGe in publiC SpendinG (2010-15)

16



ax 1. h

2. h

Changes in public spending aectdierent people in dierent ways.However, the biggest cuts are clearlytargeted at specic groups and, strangely,these are the very groups that should be

protected.

These groups include:

✱ People living in poverty:

approximately 13.5 million people livebelow the government’s ocial povertyline, which is 21.8% o the population.Some o these people are very poorindeed. They survive on less than£3,000 per year. The UK is the thirdmost unequal developed country in theworld. [36]

✱ Disabled people: among disabled people are signicant numbers whohave become rail in old age or whoare managing chronic conditions.

At least ve million people haveimpairments which are so signicantthat they are currently entitled to

Attendance Allowance or DisabilityLiving Allowance. This is 8.1% o the

population.

✱ People with severe impairments:there are also approximately 1.2 millionchildren or adults whose needs areso signicant that they are eligible

or additional support rom localgovernment – social care. 1.2 million isequivalent to 1.9% o the population.

The two most signicant cuts that willall on disadvantaged groups are the£18 billion o benet cuts and the £5.7billion o social care cuts. Added together,this is a combined cut o £23.7 billion.This means that 58% o all cuts target

disabled people and the poor.

Moreover, it seems that many o the planned cuts in benets will target the

incomes o disabled people throughchanges to DLA, indexation, housing ben-et and employment-related benets. [37] I we make the modest assumption that

50% o the benet cuts will all on disabled people (£9 billion) then this means thatdisabled people will ace a combined cuto £14.7 billion. This means 36% o all the

cuts target disabled people.

I we make the conservative assumptionthat about £4 billion o the planned £18 bil-lion cuts (i.e. 22%) will all on the 1.2 mil-lion individuals and amilies that have themost severe impairments, then this group

will suer a combined total o £9.7 billionin cuts. This means that 24% o all cuts

will all on 1.9% o the population, peo-

ple with the most severe impairments.

3. w ?

The government did not declare anyintention to target disabled people or the

poor. In act it claimed the contrary – thatit aimed to impose cuts in a air way. So itis impossible to be sure why the cuts dotarget the very groups one would expectsociety to protect.

However, here are some possible

explanations:

✱ The government may be conused.

Oten senior politicians and civil

servants are surprisingly ignorant o theconsequences o their actions. It maybe, or example, that they simply do notknow that about 50% o local authorityexpenditure is or care or children andadults.

✱ Disabled people and the poor are not

important electoral groups. Politicianso all parties ocus their primaryattention on swing-voters and the mediaissues that gain a lot o attention. It isnoticeable that the NHS, which is otentreated as a point o vulnerability or

17



ax 1. h

politicians by the media, does not acethe same cuts.

✱ It is possible to demonise the poor

and disabled people. Worryingly, it

may be that politicians welcome theopportunity to target groups which areeared or disliked by some in the mediaand the general public.

✱ Some cuts can be blamed on local

government. I the public does notunderstand the degree to which localspending is determined by central gov-ernment they may blame local politi-cians or decisions made in Whitehall. [38]

✱ Some cuts can be hidden within othercomplex reorms. Many o the cuts inbenets are hidden within technicalchanges as taxes and benets arebeing reormed. This means it maymake it easier to justiy a cut in terms o a technical reorm.

Whatever the explanation, it is certainlytrue that, to date, the ull impact o thesecuts – their severity and their targeting

– is not widely understood. The cuts willincrease in severity year on year until2014-15 and the long-term damagecaused by income inequality, deepening

poverty and social exclusion will onlyemerge in the next ew years.

4. h x

In practice the cuts will be experiencedin many dierent orms, oten as part o changes to the rules o local and nationalsystems.

The £18 billion cut in benets will be

achieved through:

✱ creating a new benet, Universal Credit,and closing down several old benets

✱ creating a new benet, the Personal

Independence Payment, while endingthe Disability Living Allowance

✱ many changes to Housing Benet rules

✱ changing the way benets relate toinfation so that they lose value overtime

✱ abolition o the Independent LivingFund

✱ reductions in ‘Access to Work’ unding.

The £5.7 billion cut in social care will be

experienced as:

✱ reductions in local services or olderand disabled people

✱ a reduction in the size o individualbudgets (personal budgets)

✱ raised eligibility thresholds or socialcare

✱ increased charges (special taxes) ordisabled and older people eligible orsupport.

The impact o these cuts will also be eltdierently in distinct geographic areas andit is encouraging to see some eorts inScotland and Wales to reduce the impact

o the cuts on local government. However,in many areas within England (particularlythe north and parts o London) the cuts areeven more severe.

5. w ?

The government has made manyassumptions about the positive impact o

its decit reduction plans and its reorm o the welare system.

However, even i we are optimistic and

assume that economic growth will be

restored and incentives or work will

increase earnings or some, there can

still be no doubt that:

✱ poverty will deepen or many, andincome inequality will increase overall

✱ lack o care and support or peoplewith moderate needs will increase

18



ax 2. t c

the number o crises and the cost o support or the smaller number o

people eligible or support.

The consequence o these changeswill be elt in increased social unrestand increased costs and pressures inother parts o society and the welare

system. Creating savings in the wrongway will oten lead to increased costselsewhere. [39]

I the government is wrong and growth isnot restored and unemployment continuesto grow, then these problems will groweven more quickly.

accss ds

ac acc

ac hsg S

a

ag ts

az Sc

a asscs

ac f

a accss G

ak hsg assc

assc Slg

as rgs Gb ts

C C-s CSc

C C

C-Cg

t C Wr

Ccs C

Cc S

Ccs nwk

CCpS – C C S C lg

ps Sc

Cc f - s w sc

C lg

Csg C

C S l

C ics fs

dc ics Ces

ds ms

dw’s Sassc

dw’s S Sc

eg dG

ew

enable Sc

eq fs

ec e

eg is eg

foCuS, (trfS)

t f fs

G os l

G m Cc

Gsgw C icslg

Gsgw ds ac

Gs Cs

Gw dc psf

hc (p) l

k s

is Wg Csf - as w lg ds

h S Scw d p

h l

hsg os

hs Sc Sc

i C Sc

ics Gsgw

ics Sc

i lg Sc

isg ics

iwk

ax 2.t ct c s 8 2011.

t c 1,000 100

. i

e, s w. [40]

m ..

Organisational supporters include:

19



ax 3. u

Krg

l’ac Sc

l Sc

lg ds acSc

lk lg

lsgfs

ls u

lc a Csnwk Sc

lg t Csac Sc (ltCaS)

l C icslg

mg bckwhsg assc

mCCh Sc l

ng nwks

n Ws tg d t

pamiS

pkw ex C

ps ics

ps acc

pws asscs CiC

p Gcs

pg

pks ds acc

p fs (Sc)

pss f G

pss ps l

p lg

S m as m

pgss C hsgassc ( pgss hsg G)

r dcsrws accss p

rc mc

rs C tg

u rss

Scs Cs lg ds

Scs h rgsCss (s)

S dc

Ss Sc

S Js ts

Sks p

Sw hsgassc

S u l

S o lg

t d C

ts f

t Cs

update

vs i ac ScvamW C

vca

J Ws asscs

Ws lcs p SG

ax 3. ut ’ i

l f

‘the social, institutional,

environmental and attitudinal barriers

that prevent people who have

impairments or health conditions

from being able to fully participate

in society on an equal basis ’.

i l

.

There are many dierent people whochoose to describe themselves as disabled

and some people with impairments maychoose not to use that term. For example,

many older people who need somesupport do not use the term ‘disabled

people’ to describe themselves. Somedea people do not see their use o signlanguage as an impairment but describethemselves as part o a linguistic minority,who nevertheless ace societal barriers. Itis or this reason that we sometimes reer toolder and disabled people in the Maniesto.

A longer list o disabled people would

include:

✱ older people who need help andsupport

✱ people with long-term health conditions

✱ people with learning diculties

✱ people with mental health issues

✱ people with physical impairments

✱ people with neurological impairments

✱ people on the autism spectrum

who may describe themselves as‘neurodiverse’

20





ax 3. u

✱ people with sensory impairments

✱ people who are dea

✱ many other groups o people whoseimpairments, when combined with

social structures, ace barriers toindependent living.

Some progress has been made in tacklingthe barriers that conront disabled people.There is widespread recognition o thesocial model o disability. This modelexplains how disability results rom thebarriers (in the broadest sense) that society

puts in the way o those who have someimpairment.

Both the Welsh government and theScottish government have adopted thesocial model and it has been the required

paradigm across the UK under the Equality Act o 2010. However, the UK government’sclaim that its own reorms are inormed bythe social model are largely rhetorical.

Much more needs to be done:

✱ Older people who need support anddisabled people are much more likelyto live in poverty. When the extra costso being a disabled person are takeninto account, 47.5% o amilies withdisabled people in the household, live in

poverty. [41]

✱ People who want to work cannot accesswork (7% o people with a learningdiculty work. 65% want to work). Only50% o disabled people o working age

are in work, compared with 80% o non-disabled people o working age. [42]

✱ Disabled people make up only 6% o ormal volunteers and around 4.3% o

public appointments across Britain. Thisis compared to 20% o the population asa whole. [43]

✱ 17% o disabled adults experiencerestrictions in their learningopportunities compared with 9% o

non-disabled adults. 23% o disabled people have no qualications,

compared to 9% o non-disabled people. [44]

✱ 45% o households with at least onedisabled person are unable to aord

expenses or make loan repayments.This compares with 29% o householdswithout any disabled people.

✱ 74% o disabled adults experiencerestrictions in using transportcompared with 58% o non-disabledadults.

✱ 12% o disabled adults experiencediculty in accessing rooms withintheir home or diculty getting in or out

o their home, compared with 1% o non-disabled adults.

✱ 29% o disabled adults experiencerestrictions to accessing buildingsoutside their home (including thehomes o riends or amily) comparedwith 7% o adults without impairments.

✱ Disabled people oten lose their homesor cannot access real homes o theirown.

✱ Disabled people are subject to hatecrimes and abuse. Older people aremore than 10 times more likely to beabused in residential care than in theirown home. [45]

✱ 92% o unborn children with Down’sSyndrome are aborted in the UK. [46]

✱ By the age o 26, young disabled people are three times more likely thanother young people to agree with the

statement ‘Whatever I do has no real effect on what happens to me.’ [47]

✱ Disabled people are carers too. O the nearly two million people aged16-74 in England and Wales whowere permanently sick or disabledaccording to the 2001 Census, overa quarter o a million provided someunpaid care or other people. [48]

✱ Disabled people are almost ten timesmore likely to report poor health thannon-disabled people. [49]

21



r

r Baumberg, B. (2011) Cuts to UK Benets

www.centreforwelfarereform.org .

Brown, M. (2011) Context for charging – FinancialChallenges, CoSLA Community Care Charging ListeningEvent (ADSW Resources Committee).

Burchardt, T. (2005) The Education and Employment of Disabled Young People: Frustrated Ambition, York, JosephRowntree Foundation.

Carpenter, M. (2000) Charging with care: how councilscharge for home care, London, The Audit Commission.

Citizen Advice Bureau (2010) Charities challenge government over £16bn unclaimed benets

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/press_ofce201022Clements, L. (2011) Social Care Law Developments: A

Sideways Look at Personalisation and TighteningEligibility Criteria, Elder Law volume 1, pp47-52.

Corning, P. (2011) The Fair Society – The Science of HumanNature and the Pursuit of Social Justice, London, TheUniversity of Chicago Press

Counsel and Care (2010) Care Home Fees: Paying Them inEngland, London, Counsel and Care

Cowen A. (2010) Personalised Transition. Shefeld, TheCentre for Welfare Reform.

Crisp, Nigel. (2009) Turning the World Upside Down,

London, RSM Press.Commission for Social Care Inspection (2008) State of

Social Care 2007-08, London , CSCI.

Department of Health (2010) Prioritising need in thecontext of Putting People First: A whole system approachto eligibility for social care. Guidance on Eligibility Criteria for Adult Social Care, England 2010, London, DH.

Disability Rights Commission (2006) Disability Agenda: Increasing Participation and Active Citizenship.

Department for Work and Pensions (2011) Social Security Benet Up-rating London, DWP.

Department for Work and Pensions (2010) 21st Century Welfare, London, DWP

Duffy, S. (2010) Safety for Citizens: Personalisation &Safeguarding. Shefeld, The Centre for Welfare Reform.

Duffy, S. & Fulton, K. (2010) Architecture for Personalisation. Shefeld, The Centre for WelfareReform.

Duffy S (2011a) Personalisation in social care – what does it really mean? Social Care and Neurodisability, Vol. 2 No.4 pp. 186-195.

Duffy, S. (2011b) A Fair Income. Shefeld, The Centre forWelfare Reform.

Dyson, B. (Tuesday 15 November 2011) Guardian: Money has been privatised by stealth Department for Work and

Pensions.

Equality and Human Rights Commission (2011) How Fair isWales? London, EHRC.

Ferguson, I. (2008) Reclaiming Social Work: ChallengingNeoliberalism and Promoting Social Justice, London,Sage.

Harker, R. (2011) NHS funding and expenditure (SN/SG/724)London, House of Commons Library.

Hatton C. & Waters J. (2011) The National Personal Budget Survey , London, Think Local Act Personal.

Hutton, W. (2010) Them and Us – Changing Britain – Why We Need a Fair Society , London, Abacus.

Independent Living in Scotland (2009) The EssentialGuide to Independent Living in Scotland, Glasgow,Independent Living in Scotland Project.

Law Commission (2008) Adult Social Care Scoping Report ,London, Law Commission.

Morris, J. K. and Alberman, E. (2009) Trends in Down’s

syndrome live births and antenatal diagnoses in Englandand Wales from 1989 to 2008: analysis of data from theNational Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register , BritishMedical Journal (BMJ 2009;339:bmj.b3794).

Murray, P. (2011) A Fair Start . Shefeld, The Centre forWelfare Reform.

National Audit Ofce (2010) Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General of Fraud and Error in Benets, London,NAO.

National Fraud Authority (2011) Annual Fraud Indicator, London, National Fraud Authority.

Naysmith, Stephen (12.04.2011) Glasgow Herald: This timeit’s personal.

New Economics Foundation (2011) Vickers CommissionResponse: Ring-fencing doesn’t solve the “too-big-to-fail”

problem.

Ofce for National Statistics (2009) Labour Force Survey, January to March 2009 London, ONS.

Roxburgh et al. (2010) Debt and Deleveraging: The GlobalCredit Bubble and its Economic Consequences, McKinseyGlobal Institute.

Ryan-Collins et al. (2011) Where Does Money Come From? AGuide to the UK Monetary and Banking System, London,New Economics Foundation.

Taylor-Gooby, P. and Stoker, G. (2011) The Coalition

Programme: A New Vision for Britain or Politics as Usual? The Political Quarterly, Vol. 82, No. 1, January–March2011.

The Treasury (2010) Spending Review 2010 London, TheTreasury .

The Treasury (2011) Spending Review 2011 London, TheTreasury.

University of Leeds (2007) Valuing Carers – calculating thevalue of unpaid care, London, Carers UK.

Wilkinson, R. & Pickett, K. (2010) The Spirit Level, London,Penguin.

Wood, C and Grant, E. (2010) Destination Unknown,

London, Demos.

22

http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/press_office201022

http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/press_office201022



n

nNote

1 a w cs x w g s g s ax 1.

2t ‘s ’ s c w sc s s. S ax 3 x .

3 f t ess G i lg (ilS, 2009).

4as lw Css c , sc c w s ‘cs cwk’ ss. (lwCss, 2008).

5 i 2007, us ls s c £87 , s cs sc c (us ls, 2007). m, c s s g s s s, s gs s c. f

x, 1980 c g c w g s sss s cc ‘b & lgg’. f 1979 1990 s sg s sc j 12,000 199,000 w sc c g ss s c (d, 2011).

6 accg Css Sc C isc, cgg s £1.8 s £3.5 (CSCi, 2008), c sg nhS eg wc s £47.5 £102 ( s g s js 2010/11 cs) (hk, 2011).

7 S Cs, 2011.

8 S d h, 2010.

9 S n 5 us ls, 2007.

10 S Cs, 2011.

11 S ns, 2011.

12 S h & Ws, 2011.

13 S d & f, 2010.

14 S d, 2011.

15 S d Wk pss, 2011.

16 S d, 2011.

17 S d Wk pss, 2010.

18 S W G, 2010.

19

t a oc s s £1 , 0.7% s . i scc, sg g sscs, s £16.7 s x cs gsc (Cz ac b, 2010). ts s ss s s gczs 17 s wc czs g . tx f ss £15 (n f a, 2011).

20 S d (2011) a f ic.

21 S bw, 2011.

22 S C, 2000.

23



n

Note

23 S Cs C, 2010.

24 S n 6.

25 aw d, c Css fg C S eg.

26

i c s cc g nhS c ss. ng Cs – x-Ceo nhS – g ss cs g s c s: ‘ g sc s ’, (Cs, 2009). t scs c s c, wk c’s scs. (m, 2011; Cw, 2010).

27 S rxg . . 2010.

28 S Wks & pck, 2010.

29 S t ts, 2010.

30 S r-Cs ., 2011.

31 S fgs, 2008.

32

isg gs s w ssc cgs q gw c sss cg gss k ps m nw eccsf. S ds, 2011 nef, 2011.

33

t j cc s oc 2010 Cs Sg rw ssgs w g sss gw cs . hw, g’s s £18 sg s s s cg x wc w c s wc s sss cc gw wc ss c oc

2010 gs. t, cc c s cgs w £18 sg c 2010-15 s ts. ts ss s gs s g g (del r, del C ame). S t ts,2010 2011.

34

as 2010 Sg rw g c x sg sc c s s cs s . hw, s x sg. t sc s w ( a ps Sc Scs G pSS G) s w. i s s ws sc 2007 dc G Sc C wcs c g s. ts pSS G s wg sc c; c s s (wc s 5% w sc c g) s w g g c g. tss s d h c g c s c Cc

tx s s. i s s s .

35 S t-G Sk, 2011.

36 S Wks pck, 2010.

37 S bg, 2011.

38 S n 34.

39

Wks pck g ss g s q c w-g s w s cs sc s wc g s ‘cs’ c sg (Wks pck, 2010).

40

t cg s g n i. i s gg s cc uK Sg G.

24



ak

Note

41 S W G, 2010.

42 S onS, 2009.

43 S drC, 2006.

44 S onS, 2009.

45 S d, 2010.

46 S ms & a, 2009.

47 S bc, 2005.

48 S ehrC, 2011.

49 S ehrC, 2011.

akThis Maniesto was edited by Simon Duy and Carl Poll, designed by Henry Iles and

photos provided by Hugh Reynolds.

Special thanks must go to Jo Clare, Norma Curran, John Dalrymple, Jim Elder-Woodward,Eddie Gorman, Bill Scott, Bob Tindall and other members o the English and Scottishsteering groups or their comments and suggestions.

Special thanks are due to Jim or making this all possible at the beginning.

This work has been done voluntarily and without payment.

p Maniesto or a Fair Society 2012

Published by The Centre or Welare Reorm(www.centreorwelarereorm.org)

on behal o the Campaign or a Fair Society

© Campaign or a Fair Society 2012

ISBN or Printed Version - 978-1-907790-27-0

ISBN or electronic PDF - 978-1907790-28-7

Design: henryiles.com

Printed by HPE Print, Pickering.

25



..



disabled people are almost ten timesmore liKely to report poor healththan non-disabled people.the auditcommission ound that the cost ocharging people or social care can

be as much as 40% o the money raised.the largest percentage increasein public spending was or undingor the cabinet oice, treasuryand centrally managed Quangos.the largest percentage cut was toenglish local government, whose

largest service is care or childrenand adults.the uK is the third mostuneQual developed country in theworld, 21.8% o the population livebelow the poverty line.the uK is themost centralised welare state in the

world. 92% o unborn children withdown’s syndrome are aborted in theuK. by the age o 26, young disabledpeople are three times more liKelythan other young people to agreewith the statement ‘whatever i dohas no real eect on what happens

to me.’ 24% o all cuts target the 1.9%o the populations with the mostsevere impairments. 58% o all cutstarget disabled people, older peopleneeding support and people living inpoverty. disabled people are almostten times more liKely to report poorhealth than non-disabled people.older people who need support anddisabled people are much more liKelyto live in poverty than other people.



Download the maniesto

www.campaignoraairsociety.org/maniesto

manifesto for a fair society 2012

Documents