a fair society?

7/30/2019 A Fair Society?

1/44

A fair society?How the cuts target disabled people

by Dr Simon Du y on behal o the Campaign or a Fair Society


2/44


3/44

A fair society?How the cuts target disabled people

by Dr Simon Du y

Published by The Centre or Wel are Re orm

On behal o the Campaign or a Fair Society


4/44

About the AuthorDr Simon Dufy is Director o The Centre or Wel are Re orm. Simon is a philosopherand social innovator who has worked or over 22 years to nd practical ways to try andimprove the wel are system.

Publishing InformationA Fair Society? Simon Dufy 20 3Figures , 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 Simon Dufy 20 3

All rights reserved.

First published January 20 3No part o this book may be reproduced in any orm without permission rom thepublisher except or the quotation o brie passages in reviews.

A Fair Society? is published by The Centre or Wel are Re ormwww.centre orwel arere orm.org

Designed by Henry Iles: www.henryiles.com

44 pp.ISBN download: 978- -907790-44-7

The Campaign for a Fair Society is a diverse UK-wide alliance o organisations andindividuals campaigning or a society that values, includes and supports all o itscitizens. It is independent o all political parties. It represents the interests o disabledpeople and everyone who is disadvantaged by the laws, policies and systems in the UK.The Campaign or a Fair Society is a ederation with equal representation rom England,Scotland and Northern Ireland.

www.campaignforafairsociety.org

The Centre for Welfare Reform is an independent research and developmentorganisation that works to redesign the wel are state in order to promote citizenship,

amily, community and social justice. It is based in She eld and has an internationalnetwork o over 70 Fellows.

www.centreforwelfarereform.org
http://www.campaignforafairsociety.org/http://www.campaignforafairsociety.org/http://www.campaignforafairsociety.org/http://www.campaignforafairsociety.org/


5/44

A R RT FR TH C TR F R W FAR R F R HA F F TH CA A F R A FA R S C T

3

Acknowledgements

This report was produced, pro bono, by Dr SimonDufy o The Centre for Welfare Reform on behal o the Campaign for a Fair Society .

Grate ul thanks to all those who helped with ideasand additional in ormation. In particular Simonthanks Dr Ben Baumberg, Pro essor Peter Taylor-Gooby (especially or giving access to a dra t o his

orthcoming book), Rosemary Trustam, Sue Livett,Jim Elder-Woodward, Simon Cramp, Jane Young,Rosemary O'Neill, Frances Kelly and Ivanka Antova.

Thanks also to ats etition or all their tireless workin advocating or the need or a Cumulative ImpactAssessment o the cuts on disabled people.


6/44


7/44

Contents

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1. The cuts programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2. Targeted cuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3. Cuts implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153.1 Cuts in social care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153.2 Cuts in personal income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4. Who is targeted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194.1 People In Poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204.2 Disabled people . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214.3 People with severe impairments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

5. The damage done . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255.1 These cuts wont solve the real problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255.2 Taking rom people in poverty doesnt work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255.3 Increased inequality is expensive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265.4 Cutting social care is costly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265.5 Cutting social care is contradictory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275.6 The human cost is dread ul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

6. Why the cuts target . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286.1 The government may be con used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286.2 Pandering to electoral interests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286.3 Demonisation o disabled people . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286.4 Pinning the blame elsewhere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

6.5 Disguising the cuts in 're orms' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296.6 Design aws in the wel are state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

7. What we should do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

ackground information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

References & readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

otes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38


8/44

A FA R S C T ?|


6

Summary

The current UK Government aims to signifcantly reduce thelevel o public expenditure in the UK by an overall cut o 63.billion by 2015, a reduction o 10.8%.

However, not everything is being cut. Te NHS and Pensions are protected. No 10 andNo. 11 have increased their own budgets by over 240% and the level o cuts to otherservices varies considerably. I we exclude the areas o growth and protected servicesthere are in act cuts o 75.2 billion . And o these cuts over 50% all on just two areas,benefts and local government, despite the act that together they make up only 26.8%o central government expenditure. Most people do not realise that local governments

primary unction (over 60%) is to provide social care to children and adults.

In other words, the cuts are not air but targeted , and they target people in poverty,disabled people and their amilies.

Te government seems to have made no e ort to understand the cumulative impactof its cuts on minority groups, especially those with the greatest needs. It has rejectedcalls for a Cumulative Impact Assessment of the cuts despite the obvious fact thatthose with the most severe disabilities now face the combined impact of:

Social care cuts

Bene t cutsHousing cutsRegressive tax increases

For this reason Te Centre or Wel are Re orm, on behal o the Campaign or a FairSociety, has done its own analysis - A Fair Society? - how the cuts target disabled people.

Using the governments own fgures, it is clear that by 2015, in England alone, localgovernment and housing will be cut by 16.2 billion . Tis is a cut in real terms o 41.9%.Social care or children and adults makes up 60% o all spending over which localauthorities have any control. Data collected over the past two years indicates that socialcare has already been cut by nearly 4 billion , and will be cut by 8 billion by 2015, a cuto about 33%.

Benefts or disabled people and the poorest will also have been cut by 18 billion , a cuto about 20%.

When we look at the combined impact of all the cuts we nd:

People in poverty ( 21% o the population) bear 39% o all cuts.Disabled people ( 8% o the population) bear 29% o all cuts.People with severest disabilities ( 2% o the whole population) bear 15% o all cuts.


9/44

H W TH C TS TAR T D SA D | SU AR


7

Te extreme un airness o this is policy is even clearer i we compare the burden perperson with the cuts born by most other citizens (467 per person).

People in poverty will lose an average o 2,195 per person, per year - this is 5 times more than the burden placed on most other citizens.Disabled people will lose an average o , 10 per person - this is 9 times more thanthe burden placed on most other citizens.

Te combination of cuts in bene ts and services means that:

People with severe disabilities will lose an average o 8,832 per person - this is 19times more than the burden placed on most other citizens.

Tese facts are represented graphically below:

Share of cuts

Share of population

39% 29% 15%

2%8%21%

People inpoverty

DisabledPeople

People withseverest disabilites

5

919

Social Care Cuts

Bene t Cuts

Housing Cuts

Tax Increases

Burden on people in poverty: 5 x rest of population

Burden on disabled people: 9 x rest of populationBurden on people with severest disabilities: 19 x rest of population

How cuts target disabled people


10/44

A FA R S C T ?| SU AR


8

Tis means that one person in 50 (2% o the population) has to ace a loss o incomeand vital support o nearly 9,000 per year. But this one person will also be somebody'sbrother, sister, mother, ather or child. Te impact on over 1 million amilies in the UKwill be devastating.

Not only do these cuts target disabled people un airly, their reality has been covered upwith alsehoods, distortions and ugly rhetoric.

Te truth is:

Disabled people and people in poverty did not cause the current debt crisis, andtargeting them or cuts will not solve the crisis.Social care is not being protected, it will be severely cut, or it is the major activity o local authorities.Bene t raud is rare and disabled people and people in poverty commit much less

raud than other citizens.

Te overall impact o these cuts, and other so called re orms is going to be expensive anddeeply damaging. Increased inequality will worsen society or everyone and will lead toincreased spending pressures in other areas. Reducing social care will create more crises,more institutional, abusive and ine cient services and will increase the pressure on theNHS and other public services. It will lead to more amily breakdowns and reduce theability o citizens and amilies to partipate in their communities and in the economy.

Te Campaign for a Fair Society calls for:

1. A halt to the current programme o cuts

2. An independent assessment o the cumulative impact o the cuts on disabled peopleand other vulnerable groups

3. The development o a airer and more sustainable wel are system that recognises theequal worth o all human beings and the protection o human rights or all


11/44

H W TH C TS TAR T D SA D | F REW RD


9

Foreword

Sir Winston Churchill, that staunch Conservative Prime inister o the mid-20th Century, is reputed to have said: ou measure the degree o civilizationo a society by how it treats its weakest members. I just wonder how hewould measure up this Con-Lib Governments attack on the weakest memberso todays British civilised state.

When millionaires are getting tax rebates and international companies gowithout paying any tax whatsoever, the poorest in society are getting lessand less support, whether or not they are on low pay inside the labourmarket or even lower bene ts outside the market. This situation is made evenworse by this Con-Lib Government vili ying and stigmatising those outside

the labour market, or no ault o their own, as lazy scroungers, who have nosense o responsibility or sel -worth.

This report by Simon Dufy counteracts this purpose ul 984 rwellianNewspeak. It shows how disabled people, particularly those who are themost impaired, have been hit the hardest by the present wel are cuts.

Disabled people want to work, i they can; they want to participate asequal members o society; but even i they do work, they still live inmultidimensional poverty and disadvantage. They are not just disadvantagedby their impairment, but by the housing they live in, the education andtransportation rom which they are excluded, the limitations in shopping

or ood and the additional costs o heating, laundry etc. Finally, they areorced to remain in poverty, even i they have worked hard and saved or their

retirement, by a system o community care charging which leaves them withan income and savings just above that o those on jobseekers allowance, inreturn or minimum levels o social care support.

The Campaign or a Fair Society is a group o people who want to show thepublic just how un air our present society is towards its weakest members.Epidemiologists, like Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, have shown thatsocieties with a narrow band between rich and power experience betterquality o li e than those with a much wider divide. I we, as a British societywish our lives, all o our lives, to be quality lives then we must tackle thisgrowing divide between us.

n behal o the Campaign or a Fair Society, I would wish to thank SimonDufy or writing and producing this paper; and to those who read it, I hopeit will give us the eyes not just to see the Grand Canyon which is between therichest and the poorest in our society, but to nd a way to bridge it.

Jim Elder-Woodward, OBEChair o the UK steering committee o the Campaign or a Fair Society


12/44

A FA R S C T ?| 1. THE CUTS PR GRA E


10

. The cuts programme

The current UK government is committed to making a signifcantreduction in the size o public expenditure relative to theoverall economy. Table 1 describes the governments spendingplans in 2010 and their ambitions or what they will haveachieved by 201 -15. These fgures are taken directly rom the Comprehensive Spending Review 2010 (CSR).[1]

Tese fgures are represented in 2010/11 prices, discounting in ation, but in theexpectation o a certain level o growth. Benefts, pension and tax credit data has been

added rom other government sources ( or it is not included within the CSR). Tecalculation o the cut to benefts and tax credits is based on the governments declaredintention to make a 22 billion annual saving in real terms by 2015. [2]

Te governments own plans include a commitment to ensure that pensions and theNHS would be protected in order to keep pace, not just with in ation, but also withoverall economic growth. Tis commitment provides a use ul starting point or ouranalysis, because it means that we can treat the cash growth o these two major items asequivalent to no change in real terms. Te CSR plans to increase the cash expenditure onthe NHS and Pensions by 12.6% by 2014-15 (equivalent to no real growth). Tis meansany increase over and above 12.6% this can be treated as real growth, and any increaselower than this as a real cut.

Tese fgures suggest that, in real terms, i the governments plans were success ul, thenpublic expenditure would be 10.8% lower .[3]

For the purpose o our analysis we are going to take, to treat the overall cut to publicexpenditure, the aggregate real-term annual cut by 2015, as 63.4 billion . Tis is theoverall cut which will have been achieved by the government i its 2010 plans aresuccess ul. However, because there are some areas o growth the actual level o cutsis greater than that, so by 2015 there will be an annual real-term cut o 75.2 billion .Although, as we will see, these cuts only all hard on some services and on a raction o the UK population.


13/44

H W TH C TS TAR T D SA D | 1. THE CUTS PR GRA E


11

Spending

Spending4

AnnualChange

Change i protected

Changein realterms

Changerom

-

Schools &colleges

60.6 61.5 0.9 68.2 -6.7 -11.1%

NHS 101.8 114.6 12.8 114.6 0 0

Transport 13.1 12.2 -0.9 14.8 -2.6 -19.5%

English localauthorities

38.6 27.3 -11.3 43.5 -16.2 -41.9%

Business &universities

20 16.1 -3.9 22.5 -6.4 -32.1%

Policing,justice &prisons

22.4 19.3 -3.1 25.2 -5.9 -26.4%

De ence 35.7 36.8 1.1 40.2 -3.4 -9.5%

Foreign aidet al

9.6 12.8 3.2 10.8 2.0 20.7%

Energy,environment& culture

14.1 12.4 -1.7 15.9 -3.5 -24.7%

Scotland 28.2 28.1 -0.1 31.8 -3.7 -13.0%

Wales 14.9 14.5 -0.4 16.8 -2.3 -15.3%

Northernireland

16 16.4 0.4 18.0 -1.6 -10.1%

Tax & beneftadministration 10.7 11.1 0.4 12.0 -0.9 -8.9%

Treasure,cabinet& quangos

1.1 3.9 2.8 1.2 2.7 241.9%

Financial crisismeasures

8.2 7.2 1 n/a n/a n/a

Pensions 71.6 80.6 9 80.6 0 0

Benefts & taxcredits

118.4 111.3 -7.1 133.3 -22.0 -18.6%

TOTAL . . 649.5 - .4 - . %

TA . overnment spending plans for 2014-15 (in billions)


14/44

A FA R S C T ?| . TARGETED CUTS


12

. Targeted cuts

Not everything is being cut and some things are even growing.As can be seen in Figure 1.

F R . Cut in annual real term funding by 2015

Te largest cut in terms o cash is to benefts (that is, minimal income protection ordisabled people and people in poverty). Te second biggest cuts is to English localgovernment (whose main unction is to provide support to disabled people and amilies).

able 2 shows both how government expenditure is distributed in percentage terms, andhow the cuts are also distributed. Figure 2 shows that in percentage terms, English localgovernment aces the deepest cuts.

When we examine able 2 it is also striking that:

Some expenditure is growing in cash and real terms: Foreign Aid (20.7%) and Cabinetce, Treasury and associated quangos (24 .9%).

The NHS and pensions are protected and do not change, and together they representover 30% o all government expenditure.There are many areas where there are important cuts, cuts in real terms, but not incash terms (e.g. De ence, Education, Administration o Tax & Bene ts)The cuts to English local government (4 .9%) bene ts ( 8.6%) universities (32. %)and criminal justice (26.4%) are staggeringly large and together make-up about 7 0% of all cuts . This is despite only representing 33% o all government expenditure. SeeFigure 3.Together the cuts on English local government (whose main unction is social care)and on Bene ts (whose main unction is to reduce poverty) make up 50.8% of all

cuts , despite the act they represent only 26.8% o central government expenditure.

-25 bn. -20 bn. -15 bn. -10 bn. -5 bn. 0 bn. 5 bn.Bene ts & tax credits

Local gov (England)Schools

University & businessPolicing, justice etc.

ScotlandEnergy, environment, cultureDefence

TransportWales

N. Ireland Tax & bene ts admin

PensionsNHS

Foreign aidNo 10, No 11, quangos


15/44

H W TH C TS TAR T D SA D | . TARGETED CUTS


13

Spending-

Share o spending

Annualreal change

by

Change by Wherecuts aretargeted

Schools &colleges

60.6 10.4% -6.7 -11.1% 9.0%

NHS 101.8 17.4% 0 0% n/a

Transport 13.1 2.2% -2.6 -19.5% 3.4%

English localauthorities

38.6 6.6% -16.2 -41.9% 21.5%

Business &universities

20 3.4% -6.4 -32.1% 8.5%

Policing, justice& prisons

22.4 3.8% -5.9 -26.4% 7.9%

De ence 35.7 6.1% -3.4 -9.5% 4.5%

Foreign aidet al. 9.6 1.6% 2.0 20.7% n/a

Energy,environment&culture

14.1 2.4% -3.5 -24.7% 4.6%

Scotland 28.2 4.8% -3.7 -13.0% 4.9%

Wales 14.9 2.5% -2.3 -15.3% 3.0%

Northernireland

16 2.7% -1.6 -10.1% 2.1%

Tax & beneftadministration

10.7 1.8% -0.9 -8.9% 1.3%

Treasury,cabinet &quangos

1.1 0.2% 2.7 241.9% n/a

Financial crisismeasures

8.2 1.4% n/a n/a n/a

Pensions 71.6 12.2% 0 0% n/a

Benefts & taxcredits

118.4 20.2% -22.0 -18.6% 29.3%

TOTAL - .4 - . %

TA . How central government expenditure and the cuts are distibuted (in billions)

In other words, despite the governments claim that the cuts would be made airly, thecuts are not spread evenly across public services or systems o entitlements. Te cuts havebeen targeted .

Moreover, the act that deep cuts are being targeted on only a small raction o publicexpenditure ensures that these targeted cuts will be even more severe. As Figure 3 makesclear, i we see how the cuts have been distributed, the vast majority all on just two areas- benefts and local government.


16/44

A FA R S C T ?| . TARGETED CUTS


14

F R . ercentage change in annual funding by 2015 in real terms

F R . Where the cuts are targeted

-50%-40%-30%-20%-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%Local gov (England)

University & businessPolicing, justice etc.

Energy, environment, culture Transport

Bene ts & tax creditsWales

ScotlandSchools

N. IrelandDefence

Tax & bene ts adminPensions

NHSForeign aid

No 10, No 11, quangos[240%]

Tax & bene ts admin

N. Ireland

Wales

Transport

Defence

Energy, environ., culture

Scotland

Policing, justice etc.

University & business

Schools

Local gov (England)

Bene ts & tax credits


17/44

H W TH C TS TAR T D SA D | . CUTS I PLE ENTATI N


15

. Cuts implementation

In this report we are going to concentrate on the cuts thattarget disabled people and people living in poverty, inparticular:

1. Cuts in social care (the main activity o local government)

2. Cuts in personal income (bene ts and tax credits)

. Cuts in social careThe highest percentage cut in public expenditure is the 41.9% cut inreal-term unding or English local government. There has never beensuch a severe cut to a vital public services like this.

Cuts to spending in Scotland (13%), Northern Ireland (10.1%) and Wales (15.3%) do notseem so severe. However this is somewhat misleading, or these fgures also include NHSspending. So, it is likely that any e ort to copy Whitehall, and to protect NHS spending,will also lead to similar cuts in social care. For the sake o simplicity we will concentrateon the English fgures here, but it is important to recognise that similar orces are atwork in every country. However, there are some encouraging signs that the devolved

governments have tried to mitigate the more extreme cuts to social care that are takingplace in England.

Many people do not realise that local governments primary function is to providesocial care services. Social care provides:

Help to older people living at home, or in residential careIndependent living or disabled people , including people severe learning di cultiesHelp or people with mental health problems to regain ordinary livesSupport to amilies who have children with severe disabilitiesSafeguards or children who are being abused or neglectedSupport or families , and many others who are in greatest need

Social care is the ront-line prevention service o the wel are state. When people do notget this practical assistance it can quickly lead to death, health crisis, hospital admission,institutionalisation, ractured amilies and police action - all o which is more expensiveand less e ective than early support to stay strong and independent.

Many people do not realise that social care is also the main activity o local government.Many o the activities that we associate with local government are e ectively controlled

rom Whitehall and local authorities have no control over how that unding is used. able3 sets out local authority expenditure and the unding which is really controlled locally.


18/44

A FA R S C T ?| . CUTS I PLE ENTATI N


16

Spending protected rom local authority cuts

Education . ring- enced

Police . ring- enced

Fire & rescue . ring- enced

Total o expenditure outside cuts 60.Spending that local authorities are orced to cut

Adult social care . . %

Childrens social care . . %

Environment and regulatory services . . %

Culture and leisure . . %

Housing . . %

Planning & development . . %

Total o expenditure to be cut 35.9

Theoretical total or local expenditure 96.3

TA . Annual expenditure (in bi llions) by nglish local authorities in 2010-11

Figure 4 describes the balance o unding that is in genuine local control and whichmust there ore be cut as a response to the targeting o English local government in thegovernments plans. As can be seen, over 60% o relevant local government expenditureis or social care or children or adults .[ ]

F R . The services actually controlled by local government

Local authorities can raise some income themselves, although this is a minority o theincome they control. Most local government unding comes rom taxes raised centrally.However this means that the relationship between the cut in central government undingand the actual cuts in social care won't be identical. o fnd how the cut in unding doesreduce social care unding we need to look at what is actually happening to social care.

ogether (ignoring charges and private purchasing o care) and using 2010 data, adultsocial care cost about 14.4 billion, while childrens social care cost 7.7 billion.[5] Te

Campaign or a Fair Society predicted severe cuts in social care unding when it was

Planning & development

Housing

Culture and leisure

Environment and regulation

Childrens social care

Adult social care


19/44

H W TH C TS TAR T D SA D | . CUTS I PLE ENTATI N


17

launched in February 2011. oday, a er more than two years o cuts, these predictionshave been proved correct.

Adult social care in England was cut by 99 million by 20 [6]

Adult social care in England was cut by a urther 890 million by 20 2 [7]

Childrens social care in England was cut by .852 billion rom 20 0 to 20 2 [8]

In act the Campaigns original estimate or cuts to social care understated the problem.In just two years nearly 4 billion has been cut rom social care, and urther cuts areplanned over the next three years. IBy 2015 social care in England will be have been cutby 8 billion . Tis is a real term cut o about 33% . Tis may seem a surprising fguregiven the governments supposed commitment to protect social care but in act it is thelogical result o cuts to local government that must then all on social care.[9]

In practice these cuts are actually experienced by a range of di erent measures:

Reduced levels o support or voluntary organisations , advocacy and services notcovered by FACS (e.g. support or women experiencing domestic violence). [10]

Reductions in support , reezing o ees or service providers and the reduction o personal budgets. [11]

Reducing expenditure on supported housing services unded through SupportingPeople. [12 ]

Increasing the threshold or eligibility ; e.g. by 20 , 78% Councils had stoppedsupporting people with Low or oderate needs. [13 ]

Increasing, so called, social care charges, efectively increasing what is a direct tax on those disabled people who have the most severe needs

It is di cult to overstate the problem here. Tese kinds o cuts (cuts to services that havehistorically always been under- unded) are devastating. Given the gloomy economicoutlook, and the on-going trend and pattern o expenditure cuts, then it is likely thatwe will seesocial care cut by 50% by 2018 . Te lack o public debate about this is very surprising.

. Cuts in personal incomeBe ore the Autumn Statement 20 2 Steven Kennedy, o the House o Commons Library, summarised the governments plans to save 8billion a year by 20 4- 5 bene ts in the ollowing analysis: [1 ]

5.8 billion due to switch to CPI indexation3.6 billion rom Child Bene t reeze and clawback rom higher rate taxpayers2.6 billion rom tax credit changes .9 billion rom Housing Bene t re orms .2 billion rom DLA re orm .2 billion rom time-limiting contributory ESA

In practice the cuts will be experienced in these and many other orms, o en as parto changes to the rules o local and national systems. Also the Autumn Statement 2012


20/44

A FA R S C T ?| . CUTS I PLE ENTATI N


18

contained urther provisions to increase the burden o cuts on both the poorest (and the very richest) to bring the total level o beneft cuts, in real terms, to 22 billion. [15]

Te list of changes, reforms or cuts is varied, complex and many details areunresolved. able 4 provides a brief overview of many of these cuts and reforms.

Replacing DLA with PIP Time-limiting o contributory ESA

Change to CPI indexation o bene ts Child Bene t reeze

Council Tax Bene t % reduction andlocalisation

Child Bene t clawback rom higher ratetaxpayers

Housing Bene t cuts Tax credit changes

Universal Credit Abolition o the Independent Living Fund

Closure o Remploy services Localisation o the Social Fund

Reductions in Access to Work unding Abolition o the Child Trust Fund

Abolition o the Health in Pregnancy Grant Abolition o the ESA youth rules

Abolition o Sure Start Maternity orsecond and subsequent children

Household bene t cap

Extension o JSA lone parents with ayoungest child aged - .

Continued use o ATOS or others

Trans er o Social Fund to localgovernment

Reductions in support or carers

TA . An overview of the cuts in bene ts and tax credits

It seems that the enormous complexity o these changes, supported by the rhetorical

impact o the language o re orm and the language o stigma, is disguising a rapid shitowards an unprecedented level o income inequality and poverty in modern Britain.

Although the policy details are complex, the direction o policy is clear. It is importantto resist the ow o this policy and to avoid losing sight o the overall issue within themire o current legislative and regulatory changes. Political leaders have a particularresponsibility to outline the real social and economic problems that will arise i we allow inequality to grow in this way.


21/44

H W TH C TS TAR T D SA D | . WH IS TARGETED


19

. Who is targeted

It is use ul to look at how the cuts impact on services and onsystems o entitlements. But what is much more undamental isto understand how these cuts will impact on people themselves.

When the cuts were announced the government declared that its cuts had been organisedairly. In particular it accepted that airness demands that the poorest and the most needy

should bear the smallest burden and that the wealthiest should bear the largest burden.Tis is not what has happened .

In act it is hard to imagine a less air way o targeting the cuts. I the total level o cutsis equal to 75.2 billion, and the population o the UK is 63 million then the mean level o

cuts would be just over 1,200 per person. I we were to spread that burden in proportionto income then we might expect the poorest to be targeted less than this, and the richestto be targeted more than this. Tis is not what has happened .

Some cuts, like cuts to the de ence budget, are not directly discriminatory in theirimpact. Other cuts, like cuts to schools and student grants, are indirectly discriminatory.For they impact more on those who cannot subsidise their childs education in someother way. However, or the purpose o this analysis, we will treat all these kinds o cuts asi they are not targeted on any particular group. Tese cuts include

Education - cut by 6.7 billionTransport - cut by 2.6 billion

Business & universities - cut by 6.4 billionPolicing etc. - cut by 5.9 billionDe ence - cut by 3.4 billionEnergy etc. - cut by 3.5 billionTax & bene t administration - cut by 0.9 billion

ogether the cuts that are neither discriminatory, or only indirectly discriminatory,come to 29.4 billion. So we might say that these are shared roughly equally by the wholepopulation. Tis gives a per person burden o 467 . Tat is the modal average - whatmost people will ace.

However, while many cuts are organised in ways that are complex and di cult tomodel, it is very clear that the cuts do target the very groups that a fair society wouldseek to protect:

1. People In Poverty2. Disabled people3. People with the severest disabilities

It would be un air enough i these groups were asked to bear the same burden as the resto the population; but the reality is that they are being asked to bear a ar greater burden

than the rest o the population .


22/44

A FA R S C T ?| . WH IS TARGETED


20

. eople n overtyApproximately 3.5 million people live below the governments o cialpoverty line, which is 2 % o the population and some o these peopleare very poor indeed, surviving on less than 3,000 per year. The UK isthe third most unequal developed country in the world and its rate o growth in inequality is now greater than the USAs. [16]

Almost all o the beneft cuts are targeted at people in poverty. I we exclude the 4 billionreduction in child beneft or the rich, then the remaining cuts in benefts and tax creditswill be born by primarily by people in poverty, including many disabled people. [17]

In real annual terms, by 2015, people in poverty and disabled people will be bearingcuts in personal income o 18 billion per year .

o understand how this impacts on people in poverty and on disabled people we must

distinguish benefts that try to reduce poverty, rom benefts which help disabled peopledeal with the extra costs o disability. Tere are 7 main disability benefts, as set out inable 5.[18] Tis excludes unding or housing, which in the past, also aimed to re ect the

extra costs o disability in the details o the regulations - but which is now also underthreat.

Main disability benefts 2010-11

Attendance Allowance .

Carer's Allowance .

Disability Living Allowance .

Incapacity Bene t .Independent Living Funds .

Industrial injuries bene ts .

Severe Disablement Allowance .

TOTAL 26.

TA . Annual expenditure on main disability bene ts (in billions)

Tis suggests that o the 90 billion o benefts and tax credits available to improvepersonal income, about 30% are used to assist disabled people (including disabledchildren, rail older people, and their amilies).

Ideally we would be able to distinguish the beneft losses which will only harm disabledpeople rom those beneft losses that will only harm people who are poor (includingdisabled people). However, this is very di cult to do, because many o the details o theactual regulations are still unclear. Te termination o DLA, and other similar changesoutlined above, make it clear that there is certainly no special protection or disabledpeople in the governments plans. Tey will harm disabled people and they will harmpeople in poverty.

So, for this analysis, we have made the simplest reasonable assumption, that cuts todisability benefts will be proportionate to other beneft cuts . As we discussed above, the

cuts to bene ts can be broadly broken down into three categories:


23/44



21

4 billion o child bene ts cuts that will harm the better-of 12.6 billion o bene t cuts that will harm people in poverty (including thosedisabled people who are poor)5.4 billion o bene t cuts that will harm only disabled people

We can use this analysis to understand the extra burden placed by the governmenton people in poverty. Te burdens faced by an average person in poverty includes:

The burden aced by the whole population - 46700% o the burden experienced by people in poverty - 934

50% o the burden o the disability cuts - 20000% o the burden o the social care cuts - 593

This means that people in poverty do not bear the same burden asother people, instead they bear a much greater burden of 2,195.

This means that the cuts target people, in poverty about 5 times morethan other citizens.

As a group, people in poverty, 21% of the population (1 in 5 of us), willbear 39% of all cuts.

. Disabled peopleThere are many disabled people, including many people who have

become rail in old age or who are managing chronic conditions. Atleast 5 million people have impairments that are so signi cant thatthey are currently entitled to Attendance Allowance or Disability LivingAllowance; this is 8% o the population.

Many, but not all, disabled people are poor. About 50% o disabled people live in poverty,and they are there ore subject to the same level o targeting as people in poverty. Howeverdisabled people have also been subject to additional targeting, because many disability benefts have been singled out or reductions within the overall cuts. In particular the

ollowing areas o cuts are likely to be very damaging to disabled people:

The end o ILFThe end o DLA, replacement with PIPTime-limiting and means-testing ESAChanges built into development o UCChanges included in cuts to Housing Bene tReductions in relie or Council Tax or disabled people

Although there are some reasons to think that disability benefts are under greaterattack than other benefts, we have (as we described above) made the more conservativeassumption that cuts to disability benefts will be proportionate to other beneft cuts.


24/44



22

For disabled people then we need to distinguish the following burdens:

The same burden as the rest o the population - 46750% o the burden experienced by people in poverty - ,26

00% o the burden o the disability bene t cuts - ,08

00% o the burden o the social care cuts - ,600

This means the overall burden on disabled people will be an averageof 4,410 per person.

This means the cuts targeting disabled people are 9 times more thanthat place on most other citizens.

As a group, disabled people, 8% of the population (1 in 13 of us), bear29% of all cuts.

. eople with severe impairmentsThere are also approximately .3 million children or adults whose needsare so severe that they are also eligible or additional support romlocal government - that is, social care. About 2% o the population arecurrently entitled to social care.

However, this fgure excludes those people who have very high needs, but who areexcluded because o the extreme means-testing in social care (which should be called,

the disability tax). In act, the awed design o the current social care system guaranteesthat those who receive social care are almost always poor, on low incomes and with low savings.

For this reason people who receive social care are subject to a triple whammy:

Cuts in personal income, including housing costsCuts in disability income, including special housing costsCuts in social care

As we discussed above the total cut in social care (children and adults) will be about 8billion by 2015. I we divide this by the current social care population then this meansthat the burden, per person, is an additional 6,349.

In practice this burden will be aced unequally by this population. Many will loseeligibility or vital services, and then fnd themselves in hospital. Others will see theirsupport and services slashed and this will limit their reedom, increase social isolationand create other problems. Tose in the most expensive and institutional services willbe the least impacted (e.g. the likes o Winterbourne View) while low level, community-

ocused services are the frst to be cut.


25/44



23

All of this means that those who have the greatest needs will also bearing the biggestburden:

The same burden as the rest o the population - 46700% o the burden experienced by people in poverty - 934

00% o the burden o the disability cuts - ,0800% o the burden o the social care cuts - 6,349

This means the overall burden on disabled people with the severestdisabilities will be 8,832 per person.

This means the cuts target disabled people 19 times more than othercitizens.

eople with severest disabilities, 2% of the population (1 in 50 of us),bear 15% of all cuts.

Figure 5 represents how the burden o cuts is shared between di erent sections o thepopulation.

F R . How the cuts target di erent population groups

Figure 6 goes urther and shows how the burden o cuts, per person, compares with theburden on placed on the rest o the population. As need and poverty increases, so doesthe intensity with which the cuts are targeted - the very opposite o air

I all this seems very surprising then this is because the real acts have not beendiscussed by politicians or by the press.

Our analysis is certainly reasonable and it could be argued that it is rather conservative.For example, we have not included re erence to regressive taxes that also target people in

poverty and disabled people, like the increases in VA and increased social care charges.We have not included the cuts in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland - even though we

Share of cuts

Share of population

39% 29% 15%

2%8%21%

People inpoverty

DisabledPeople

People withseverest disabilites


26/44



24

have used the UK population as the base or our calculations. Nor have we been able tokeep pace with every cut that has been imposed.

Tere are o course many genuine complications and other actors that would need toconsidered in a ull analysis. Te government claims that it is re ocusing some benefts(e.g. PIP) on people with more severe disabilities, however this is largely code or makingmany people ineligible or those benefts. Excluding someone with real and signifcantneeds rom a beneft can be described as 'targeting more resources' on people with greaterneeds - but only as political spin.

Tere will also be other important distributive a ects caused by changes in the beneftregulations, tax and tax credit systems, housing beneft and in cuts to other services. Aneven more detailed analysis would fnd that some particular groups, within the categorieswe have used, will be harmed a little less than our fgures suggest, but logically this only means that some other group will have been harmed even more than our fgures suggest.

o some degree we will only fnd out exactly how the harm o the cut has beendistributed afer all the cuts have been made. Waiting or that degree o statistical

per ection is sel -de eating; what we must do is reverse the current and clear trend o government policy - to target cuts on disabled people and people in poverty.Ideally the government would have carried out a ull analysis o its own programme o

cuts and then seen how un air they were going to be. Or, perhaps, the act that thegovernment has repeatedly re used to make such an analysis demonstrates that it already knows how un air these cuts will be. Either way, our analysis demonstrates, very clearly,that the cuts programme is not air and that it harms most, those whom we shouldprotect frst.

F R . How the cuts target disabled people

5

9

19

Social Care Cuts

Bene t Cuts

Housing Cuts

Tax Increases

Burden on people in poverty: 5 x rest of population

Burden on disabled people: 9 x rest of populationBurden on people with severest disabilities: 19 x rest of population

How cuts target disabled people


27/44

H W TH C TS TAR T D SA D | . THE DA AGE D NE


25

. The damage done

The cuts are targeted on the very people who need the mostprotection, and the cuts are targeted on those services andincome entitlements that do the most good or the least cost.The cuts will not solve the current economic crisis, but will leadto greater injustice, social damage and increasing costs in otherparts o the wel are system.

. These cuts wont solve the real problemThe current economic crisis was not created by people in poverty ordisabled people. The economic crisis was caused by the ending o anarti cial economic bubble that had bene ted home owners and banks.Unprecedented growth in house prices encouraged unsustainableborrowing. This has now created an economic and a political problem.Politicians need to protect home owners (not people in poverty) romthe negative impact o the bursting o this bubble because the criticalswing voters are home owners. Reducing the incomes o the poorest

will not solve a problem that is rooted in the problems o the better-of.

. Taking from people in poverty doesnt workNot only do people in poverty not have enough money to solve theeconomic problems o the better of they are also major tax payers. Thevast majority o bene ts paid out come back as taxes.

Te claim that benefts are the largest part o the wel are system is alse, because mostbenefts are paid back as taxes. What we should really ouc on, the net cost o benefts andpensions, a er taxes, is only 25 billion (3% o GDP).[19] Moreover the poorest 10% o households actually pay the highest percentage o their income in tax ( 47%) (see Figure7). As the government tries to reduce the incomes o the poorest it will fnd that it alsoloses tax revenue.


28/44

A FA R S C T ?| . THE DA AGE D NE


26

F R . Tax paid as a proportion of annual family income by decile ( S data 2009)

. ncreased inequality is expensiveThe overall impact o reducing the value o bene ts is to increase thelevel o overall inequality. But increased inequality has a series o negative and expensive consequences.

As Wilkinson and Pickett have shown, income inequality is correlated with:

Lower levels o trust, thereby higher levels o regulation and bureaucracyLower levels o li e expectancyHigher levels o in ant mortalityGreater obesityWorsening mental healthPoor educational achievementHigher teenage birth rates

ore homicidesHigher levels o imprisonment

Inequality is expensive. O en governments are orced to spend more to deal with theconsequences o inequality. Te UK can expect more riots, social con ict, stigma andunhappiness. [20]

. Cutting social care is costlyAt its best, social care ensures people can carry on as independent andcontributing citizens. t prevents :

Social isolation, abuse , exclusion and the inability o individuals to ully contribute to

society - it is critical to ensuring all citizens can play their ull part in society.Hospital admissions and it reduces length o stay in hospital.

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

Income

10th9th8th7th6th5th4th3rd2nd1st0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

% Tax


29/44

H W TH C TS TAR T D SA D | . THE DA AGE D NE


27

nstitutionalisation , including the use o private institutions like Winterbourne View.[There are currently 2 ,000 people in such institutions, costing well over .5 billion,possibly very much more.]. [21]

Family breakdowns , prison costs and abuse. For example, voluntary organisationslike WomenCentre in Hali ax are o ten the rst to be cut, but provide high quality

supports or women and amilies which saves millions by reducing rates o domesticviolence, other crimes and re-ofending, while improving mental and physical healthand keeping amilies sa e. [22]

. Cutting social care is contradictoryThis government, like the previous government, claims to be shi tingpower and control into the hands o disabled people and amiliesthrough the use o individual (or personal) budgets. However the

reality is that the very budgets that are being trans erred directly tocitizens are being slashed.

Tis reality of government policy contradicts its own rhetoric:

Instead o increasing the economic power and status o disabled people, governmentpolicy will reduce that power.Instead o strengthening amilies, government policy will leave amilies weaker.Instead o promoting prevention and local resilience, government policy will increaseisolation, crisis and expensive institutional services. [23]

. The human cost is dreadfulAs the cuts are implemented, and as the cumulative impact ocusesincreasingly on disabled people with the greatest needs the human costgrows.

Here are just a few examples of what the cuts mean, from one of the local campaignsthat support the Campaign for a Fair Society - Dont Cut Us Out in West Sussex: [2 ]

Susie Rowbottom, a 41-year old lady with Downs Syndrome has seen her supportslashed to levels which are endangering her health .

lizabeth arker is 93, lives alone, is severely arthritic and profoundly deaf, but shehas now lost the care support from West Sussex County Council because she is nolonger eligible.Tony unn has limited mobility and must carry an oxygen cylinder wherever hegoes and susceptible to blackouts and periods of deep depression, but is judgedto have only moderate disabilities and will lose all bene ts and care supportcurrently provided by West Sussex County Council.

Tese cuts do not just all on other people they will harm your neighbours, your riendsand your amilies. I you should lose your job or acquire a disability they will all on you.
http://www.dontcutusout.org.uk/?p=1432http://www.dontcutusout.org.uk/?p=1432http://www.dontcutusout.org.uk/?p=332http://www.dontcutusout.org.uk/?p=332http://www.dontcutusout.org.uk/?p=332http://www.dontcutusout.org.uk/?p=280http://www.dontcutusout.org.uk/?p=280http://www.dontcutusout.org.uk/?p=280http://www.dontcutusout.org.uk/?p=280http://www.dontcutusout.org.uk/?p=280http://www.dontcutusout.org.uk/?p=280http://www.dontcutusout.org.uk/?p=280http://www.dontcutusout.org.uk/?p=280http://www.dontcutusout.org.uk/?p=332http://www.dontcutusout.org.uk/?p=332http://www.dontcutusout.org.uk/?p=332http://www.dontcutusout.org.uk/?p=1432http://www.dontcutusout.org.uk/?p=1432


30/44

A FA R S C T ?| . WH THE CUTS TARGET


28

. Why the cuts target

The government did not declare its intention to target disabledpeople or people in poverty. In act it claimed, on the contrary,that it aimed to impose cuts in a way that would be air. So itis impossible to be sure why the cuts do target the very groupsthat one would expect a decent society to protect.

A number o actors may have played a part:

. The government may be confusedten senior politicians and civil servants are surprisingly ignorant o

the consequences o their own actions. It may be, or example, thatthey simply do not know that about 60% o local authority expenditureis or social care or children and adults. Some may not even know whatsocial care is or, or they may think it is provided by the NHS.

. andering to electoral interestsPoliticians o all parties ocus their primary attention on swing-votersand the issues that gain a lot o media attention. It is noticeable thatthe NHS, which is o ten treated as a point o vulnerability or politicianswith the media, is not acing the same cuts, despite the greatere ciency o bene ts and social care at producing social bene ts.

. Demonisation of disabled people

Worryingly it may be that politicians welcome the opportunity to targetgroups that some in the media, and in the general public, ear ordislike.

For example, alse or misleading in ormation about beneft raud is ri e and seems to berooted in intentionally miselading briefngs by the DWP. [25] As Figure 8 shows,

Tax raud is 15 times the level o bene t raud andUnclaimed bene ts is 17 times the level o bene t raud (this gure might arguablybe treated as government raud as it is a unction o the obscurity and complexity o a bene ts system that o ten ails to enable people to get what they are entitled to).

Government cuts are 22 times the level o bene t raud.


31/44

H W TH C TS TAR T D SA D | . WH THE CUTS TARGET


29

F R . Fraud and the bene t system

. inning the blame elsewhereI the public does not understand the degree to which local spending iscontrolled by central government then they may blame local politicians

or decisions made in Whitehall. [26]

. Disguising the cuts in 'reforms'any o the cuts in bene ts are being hidden within technical changes

made to tax, tax credit and bene ts systems. This means they can behard to identi y and easier to justi y as technical change or 're orm'.Changes in the way in which bene ts are uprated are a good example

o a change which ew people ully understand but whose long-termconsequences are devastating.

. Design aws in the welfare stateIt is also possible to distinguish a certain pattern to the cuts. As Table 6suggests, the cuts have been targeted in those areas that are the leastlikely to cause embarrassment to politicians in central government. The

act that these are the areas that are likely to be most socially damaging

does not appear to have any signi cant weight with policy makers.

Bene t fraud = 1 bn.

Cuts in bene ts = 22 bn.

Total cost of bene ts & pensions = 180 bn.

Tax fraud = 15 bn.

Unclaimed entitlements = 17 bn.

Net impact of bene ts & pensions = 25 bn.


32/44

A FA R S C T ?| . WH THE CUTS TARGET


30

More likely to be protected i More likely to be targeted i

no stigma associated with services services or recipients are stigmatised

perceived as mainstream or universalservices

means-tested services that are perceivedas only being relevant to a minority

centrally controlled and ofering prestigeto national leaders locally controlled, where responsibility orcuts can be blamed on others

clear lines o accountability back toWhitehall

complex and obscure with overlappingsources o unding

TA . Factors that seem to determine targeting of cuts

Tis analysis suggests that, while there may be a certain degree o prejudice against peoplein poverty and disabled people at work in the targeting o the cuts, the real reason may be structural . Te current design o the wel are system seems to lead to some parts o thewel are system being scapegoated and targeted or cuts, while other parts are protected.

Tis would also explain why the only other signifcant targeting o cuts has been on the very well-o , or example the cut in Child Beneft or the wealthy. Tis is urther indicatesthat what we are seeing is so much an attack by the rich on people in poverty, but rather itis the weakening o our shared commitment to the principles o a universal wel are state,one that o ers support to everyone.

It seems that the political desire to pander to swing voters and to the middle isprobably the most corrosive actor in the decline o our collective wel are security. It is orthis very reason that the Campaign or a Fair Society is working to promote a modernisedwel are state, that is both universal and empowering - properly re ecting our sharedhuman rights.

However, whatever the explanation or these cuts, what is certainly true is that the ull

extent o these cuts - their severity and their un airness - is not widely understood. Tecuts will mount in severity year on year, until at least 2014-15 and the long-term damagecaused by income inequality, deepening poverty and social exclusion will grow greaterover next ew years. Even i there is a change in government, there is still no reason toexpect any change in policy beyond 2015 unless there is a more undamental rethink by policy makers and political leaders and a new level o sel -discipline within the politicalprocess itsel .

It is politics, not economics, that has caused the targeting o disabled people or cuts.


33/44

H W TH C TS TAR T D SA D | . WHAT WE SH ULD D


31

. What we should do

The government has made many optimistic assumptionsabout the impact o its defcit reduction plans and its re ormo the wel are system. However, even i we were to share thatoptimism, and assume that economic growth will be restoredand that incentives or work will increase earnings or some,there can still be no doubt that:

Poverty will deepen or many, and overall income inequalitywill increase.

Lack o care and support or people with moderate needs willincrease the number o crises and the cost o support or thesmaller number o people eligible or support.

Te consequence o these changes will be elt in increased social unrest and increasedcosts and pressures in other parts o society and the wel are system. Creating savings inthe wrong way will lead to increased costs elsewhere. [27]

I the government is wrong and growth is not restored and unemployment continues togrow then these problems will grow even more quickly.

It is the view of the Campaign for a Fair Society that:

1. These cuts, and particularly the un air targeting o the cuts on people in poverty anddisabled people, should cease.

2. There should be a radical review o all the proposals in the light o the human rightso disabled people and the requirement or airness and equal treatment or all.

3. Instead o these un air cuts, wrongly called re orms, there should be a genuine efortto re orm the current system - the Campaigns Manifesto for a Fair Society describeshow this could be achieved.

In particular, the Campaign believes that, instead o disparaging human rights, ourpolitical leaders should be working with civil society, disabled people and others tobuild a wel are system which is underpinned by human rights. Te current system allswell short o this international standard, and the current ailure to implement cuts airly underlines our ailure to respect human rights and the social obligations they entail.


34/44

A FA R S C T ?| . WHAT WE SH ULD D


32

TH CA A WA TS A W W FAR S ST , THAT W R S F R R C T :

1. Human rights - not just services

2. Clear entitlements - not con usion

3. Early support - not crisis

. Equal access - not institutional care

5. Choice & control - not dependence

6. Fair incomes - not insecurity

7. Fair taxes - not injustice

8. Financial re orm - an afordable system

More in ormation about the Campaign is available atwww.campaign ora airsociety.org

Manifesto fora Fair Society

2012


35/44

H W TH C TS TAR T D SA D | C NCLUSI N


33

Conclusion

The UK is in the midst o a serious fnancial crisis created byover-lending to home owners by our fnancial institutions.This is an economic bubble that has not yet burst. The UKgovernment has taken successive measures to borrow moremoney to resolve this problem, creating urther national debt.

For political reasons, the costs of this debt is primarily being paid by people inpoverty, by disabled people and by other vulnerable groups. As we have explained:

People in poverty are targeted 5 times more than most other citizensDisabled people are targeted 9 times morePeople with the severest needs are targeted 19 times more

Although there are many reasons or the un airness o the way in which these cuts havebeen targeted the most important seems to be a ailure in the political process to respecthuman rights and the need or a universal wel are system - which benefts everyone.

What is even more concerning is that the current sense o economic panic and concernis leading to increased stigmatisation o disabled people and people in poverty. A wealthy,twenty-frst century society, is increasingly beginning to sound uncivilised. Blaming thepoor or poverty and stigmatising disabled people is the kind o rhetoric that led in the1920s. and 1930s to the worst kinds o eugenics, terrors and inhumanities. All o this is

not only wrong, it is wrong-headed. It will not solve our eoncomic problems and it willnot create the kind o air society that most people want to live in.

And there is no reaon to think things will not get a lot worse. A change in government,on its own, may not help and is unlikely to reverse the harm done to disabled people andpeople in poverty. Furthermore, i picking on vulnerable minority groups or electoraladvantage is seen as a success ul strategy, then even a change in government may makeno di erence. We need our political leaders to re ect more deeply on what they are doing,to look beyond short-term political games and to consider the legacy they want to leave.

Civil society also aces a signifcant challenge. Charities, voluntary organisations andservice providers used to provide some protection or the most vulnerable and could

orce politicians to ace uncom ortable realities. oday we see very little resistancerom these organisations. Mostly they seem to be just trying to survive as a business or

maintaining their lucrative relationship with central government. It is time or theseorganisations to take their courage in both hands and to remember why they really exist.

For those o us who do want to resist then it is clear we have much still to do. Tepublic do not know the acts and do not understand what is really happening. We havenot yet made a break through and genuine resistance is ragmented and can too narrowly

ocused. We have not yet helped people understand the whole picture or why theseproblems should matter to every citizen o the United Kingdom,

Tis report has been written to help our political leaders, journalists and the generalpublic ace reality. Te acts are clear - the cuts target those with greatest need. Te

question or our society is:Do we care?


36/44

A FA R S C T ?| BACKGR UND INF R ATI N


34

ackground information

Te category disabled people is broad, it includes many di erent groups including:

lder people who need help and supportPeople with long-term health conditionsPeople with learning di cultiesPeople with mental health issuesPeople with physical impairmentsPeople with neurological impairmentsPeople on the Autism spectrum who may describe themselves as neurodiversePeople with sensory impairmentsPeople who are dea

any other groups o people whose impairments, when combined with socialstructures, ace barriers to independent living

Disabled people face many barriers and disadvantages, especially because society isnot organised to support their full involvement and contribution to ordinary life.

lder people who need support and disabled people are much more likely to livein poverty. When the extra costs o being a disabled person are taken into account,47.5% o amilies with disabled people in the household, live in poverty. [28]

People who want to work cannot access work (7% o people with learning di culty

work - 65% want to work). nly 50% o disabled people o working age are in work,compared with 80% o non disabled people o working age. [29]

Disabled people o cially constitute only 6% o ormal volunteers and around 4.3% o public appointments across Britain. This is compared to 20% o the population as awhole. [30]

7% o disabled adults experience restrictions in their learning opportunitiescompared with 9% o non disabled adults. 23% o disabled people have noquali cations compared to 9% o non disabled people. [31]

45% o households with at least one disabled person living in them are unable toaford expenses or make loan repayments. This compares with 29% o householdswithout any disabled people.74% o disabled adults experience restrictions in using transport compared with 58%o non disabled adults.

2% o disabled adults experience di culty accessing rooms within their home ordi culty getting in or out o their home, compared with % o non disabled adults.29% o disabled adults experience a restriction to accessing buildings outside theirhome [including not being able to visit riends or amily] compared with 7% o adultswithout impairments.Disabled people o ten lose their homes or cannot access real homes o their own.Disabled people are subject to hate crimes and abuse, encouraged byinstitutionalisation. lder people are more than 0 times likely to be abused in

residential care than in their own home.[32]

92% o unborn children with Downs Syndrome are aborted in the UK. [33]


37/44

H W TH C TS TAR T D SA D | BACKGR UND INF R ATI N


35

By the age o 26, young disabled people are three times more likely than otheryoung people to agree with the statement whatever I do has no real efect on whathappens to me. [3 ]

Disabled people are carers too. the nearly two million people aged 6-74 inEngland and Wales who were permanently sick or disabled according to the 200

Census, over a quarter o a million provided some unpaid care or other people. [35]

Disabled people are almost ten times more likely to report poor health than non-disabled people. [36]


38/44

A FA R S C T ?|


36

References &readingsAdam, S. ( 2012) Personal Tax and Benefts .

London, Institute o Fiscal Studies.

ADASS (2011) Budget Survey 2011

ADASS (2012) Budget Survey 2012

Alakeson, V. and Du y, S. ( 2011) HealthE ciencies. She eld, Te Centre or Wel areRe orm.

Baumberg, B. ( 2012) Beneft Cuts, Wel are Re orm

and Inequality . One Society.Baumberg, B. Bell, K. & Ga ney, D. with

Deacon, R. Hood, C. and Sage, D. ( 2012)Benefts Stigma in Britain . London, urn 2 Us.

Brown, M. ( 2011) Context or charging Financial Challenges. CoSLA Community Care ChargingListening Event (ADSW Resources Committee)

Burchardt, . ( 2005) e Education and Employment o Disabled Young People:Frustrated Ambition . York, JRF

Campaign or a Fair Society ( 2012) Mani esto or

a Fair Society . She eld, Te Centre or Wel areRe orm.

Carpenter, M. ( 2000) Charging with care: howcouncils charge or home care. London, TeAudit Commission

Citizen Advice Bureau ( 2010) Charities challenge government over 16bn unclaimed benefts http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/press_o ce201022(accessed 30th January 2012)

CIPFA ( 2011) Smart Cuts? Public spending onchildrens social care. London, NSPCC

Clements, L ( 2011) Social Care Law Developments: A Sideways Look at Personalisation and Tightening Eligibility Criteria. Elder Law volume1, pp47-52.

Counsel and Care ( 2010) Care Home Fees: Paying em in England. London, Counsel and Care

Cowen A. ( 2010) Personalised Transition. She eld,Te Centre or Wel are Re orm.

Crisp, Nigel. ( 2009) Turning the World UpsideDown. London, RSM Press

CSCI (2008) State o Social Care 2007-08. London,

CSCI

DH ( Department o Health) (2010) Prioritising need in the context o Putting People First: Awhole system approach to eligibility or social careGuidance on Eligibility Criteria or Adult Social Care, England 2010. London, DH

DRC (2006) Disability Agenda: Increasing Participation and Active Citizenship

DWP ( 2010) 21st Century Wel are.London, DWP

DWP ( 2011a) Social Security Beneft Up-rating .London, DWP

DWP ( 2011b) Beneft Tables . London, DWP

Du y, S. ( 2010) Sa ety or Citizens: Personalisation& Sa eguarding . She eld, Te Centre orWel are Re orm.

Du y, S. & Fulton, K. ( 2010) Architecture or Personalisation . She eld, Te Centre or

Wel are Re orm.Du y S (2011a) Personalisation in social care

what does it really mean? Social Care andNeurodisability, Vol. 2 No. 4 pp. 186-195

Du y, S. ( 2011b) A Fair Income. She eld, TeCentre or Wel are Re orm.

Du y, S. ( 2012a) Who Really Benefts romWel are? http://www.centre orwel arere orm.org/library/by-az/who-really-benefts- rom-wel are.html (accessed 10th January 2013)

Du y, S. ( 2012b) Real Localism. http://www.

centre orwel arere orm.org/library/by-az/real-localism.html (accessed 10th January 2013)

Du y, S. and Hyde, C. ( 2011) Women at theCentre. She eld, Te Centre or Wel areRe orm.

EHRC ( Equality and Human Rights Commission)(2011) How Fair is Wales? London, EHRC

Harker, R. ( 2011) NHS unding and expenditure (SN/SG/724) London, House o CommonsLibrary

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

Independent Living in Scotland ( 2009) eEssential Guide to Independent Living inScotland. Glasgow, Independent Living inScotland Project

Kane, D. and Allen, J. ( 2011) Counting the Cutse impact o cuts on the UK voluntary and

community sector. London, NCVO.

Kennedy, S ( 2012) Wel are Re orm Update.

London, House o Commons Library.


39/44

H W TH C TS TAR T D SA D | REFERENCES & READINGS


37

Law Commission ( 2008) Adult Social CareScoping Report . London, Law Commission

Morris, J. K. and Alberman, E. ( 2009) Trendsin Downs syndrome live births and antenatal diagnoses in England and Wales rom 1989 to2008: analysis o data rom the National DownSyndrome Cytogenetic Register . British MedicalJournal (BMJ 2009;339:bmj.b3794)

Murray, P. ( 2011) A Fair Start . She eld, TeCentre or Wel are Re orm.

National Audit O ce ( 2010) Report by theComptroller and Auditor General o Fraud and Error in Benefts . London, NAO

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

Naysmith, Stephen ( 12.04.2011) Glasgow Herald:is time its personal .

ONS (O ce or National Statistics) (2009) Labour Force Survey, January to March 2009. London,ONS

Pickles, E. ( 2013) Oral Statement on Financial Statement 2013/14.

Roxburgh et. al. ( 2010) Debt and Deleveraging:e Global Credit Bubble and its Economic

Consequences. McKinsey Global Institute.

aylor-Gooby, P. and Stoker, G. ( 2011) eCoalition Programme: A New Vision or Britainor Politics as Usual? Te Political Quarterly, Vol.82, No. 1, JanuaryMarch 2011

Te reasury ( 2010) Spending Review 2010.London, Te reasury

Te reasury ( 2011) Spending Review 2011 London, Te reasury

University o Leeds ( 2007) Valuing Carers calculating the value o unpaid care. London,Carers UK

Whittaker, K. ( 2011) Personalisation in a Time o Cuts. http://www.centre orwel arere orm.org/library/by-az/personalisation-in-a-time-o -cuts.html (accessed 10th January 2013)

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

Wood, C and Grant, E. ( 2010) DestinationUnknown. London, Demos


40/44

A FA R S C T ?|


38

otes

The statistics used in this reportbuild on earlier work published bythe Campaign or a Fair Society.The diference between these

gures and those in our earlierwork is primarily that in these

gures we have taken ull accounto the government's predictions

or growth. In the earlier reports

we ocused on only the cuts incash terms. This is why, insteado 25%, we have now calculatedthat 5% o all cuts all on peoplewith the most severe disabilities.Clearly the essential injustice o the cuts has not changed.

[ ] This analysis is based upon the 20 0 CSR.The revenue and capital gures have beencombined and bene ts data has been added

rom other government sources (data onbene ts is excluded rom the CSR). Thegovernment has made some minor changesto the original 20 0 CSR, however there hasbeen no opportunity to revise the gures inthe light o these changes and the changes arenot signi cant enough to make any diferenceto the overall analysis o this brie ng paper.For another independent analysis that reachessimilar conclusions see Taylor-Gooby andStoker (20 ).

[2] By 20 the planned cuts to bene ts were

at 8 billion. The Autumn Statement 20 2announced urther reductions in uprating andchanges to the design o Universal Credit thatwould save a urther amount o approximately4 billion. So by 20 5 the target saving is 22billion. The act that worsening economiccircumstances will almost inevitably mean thatthe actual gross spend will not meet its target,

or more people will be reliant on bene ts,is no com ort; or the value o these bene tsand the overall level o income inequality andpoverty will be much greater than it would

have been.[3] For obvious reasons the cost o nancial

crisis measures has been excluded rom thecalculation o the total cuts. In principle itwould be interesting to see this analysed indistributional terms. Efectively it would seemto be a huge subsidy to banks and, indirectly,to those who took out large and unsustainable

loans on their property. That is, it wouldappear to be a urther subsidy to homeowners- and there ore, not people in poverty. Howeverwe have not pursued this matter here.

[4] As we also know there is a signi cant regionalredistribution o harm rom the cuts. Seehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/20 2/nov/ 4/local-authority-cuts-map However or this analysis we havenot tried to capture the act that, broadlyspeaking, the North has been cut much morethan the South.

[5] The data on local authority expenditure inEngland is taken orm the use ul report byChartered Institute o Public Finance andAccountancy (CIPFA) the NSPCC - Smart Cuts?

[6] See ADASS Budget Survey 2011 , reportproduced by Directors o Adult Social Services

[7] See ADASS Budget Survey 2012 , reportproduced by Directors o Adult Social Services

[8] See CIPFA (20 )

[9] As part o the 20 0 Spending Review thegovernment announced extra spending or

social care and this statement continues to beused by the media. However it is extremelymisleading. The money that it described asnew (the Adult Personal Social Services GrantPSS Grant) is not new. It is the same moneythat was described in the 2007 letter by theDirector General o Social Care and which hasbeen provided to local government or manyyears. This PSS Grant does not provide any orsocial care; in act the only innovation is thatthis money (which is only about 5% o thewhole social care budget) is now ully pooledinto the general unding o local government.This tiny trans er rom the Department o Health to local government can be used toreduce Council Tax bills or mend roads, it doesnot need to be spent on disabled people.

[ 0] See Kane and Allen (20 )

[ ] See ADASS (20 )

[ 2] See ADASS (20 )

[ 3] See ADASS (20 ), note that these levelsare technical terms that are de ned by theironically titled policy Fair Access to CareServices (FACS). For instance, i you live in an

area where eligibility is set at Critical thenthis means you will N T be entitled to care


41/44

H W TH C TS TAR T D SA D | N TES


39

even i : (a) you have only partial choice andcontrol over your immediate environment, or(b) you have been abused or neglected, or youwill be abused or neglected, or (c) you cannotcarry out the majority o your personal care ordomestic routines, or (d) you cannot sustain

involvement in work, education or learning,or (e) you cannot sustain the majority o yoursocial supports and relationships, or ( ) youcannot ul l the majority o your amily rolesor other social roles. As the Campaign or a FairSociety have argued, the current system wasalready prone to respond only in a crisis, thecurrent cuts worsen this problem.

[ 4] See Kennedy (20 2)

[ 5] See Adam (20 2)

[ 6] See Wilkinson and Pickett (20 0) or a ullanalysis o inequality in the UK and the socialproblems associated with income inequality.

[ 7] See Kennedy (20 2) and Adam (20 2)

[ 8] See DWP (20 b)

[ 9] See Dufys A Fair Income (20 b) and alsothe essay Who Really Bene ts rom Wel are?(20 2a)

[20] See Wilkinson and Pickett (20 0)

[2 ] See Alakeson and Dufys Health E ciencies(20 )

[22] Dufy and Hydes Women at the Centre(20 )

[23] See Whittakers Personalisation in a Time o Cuts (20 )

[24] For these and many other stories go to:http://www.dontcutusout.org.uk

[25] For example, in 5 people believe amajority o claims are alse, while 4% believea majority o claims are raudulent. TheGovernments own statistics indicate an actual

raud rate o around %. See Baumberg et

al. (20 2) For data on the diferent types o raud and re erences see the ani esto or a

Fair Society 20 2. For misin ormation on localgovernment nance see Pickles (20 3) whosaid English local government accounts or o every 4 spent on public services. It spends

4 billion thats twice the de ence budgetand more than the NHS. This incredible andmisleading gure is only possible by includingEducation and other unding streams overwhich local authorities have no meaning ulcontrol.

[26] See Dufys essay Real Localism (20 2b) oran analysis o the ways in which the wel aresystem distorts the relationship between localand central government.

[27] Wilkinson and Pickett argue persuasivelythat high levels o inequality reduce well-

being even or those who are better of andalso increase social problems which thenlead to higher levels o compensatory publicspending (Wilkinson and Pickett, 20 0)

[28] See Wood and Grant, 20 0

[29] See NS, 2009

[30] See DRC, 2006

[3 ] See NS, 2009

[32] See Dufy, 20 0

[33] See orris & Alberman, 2009

[34] See Burchardt, 2005

[35] See EHRC, 20

[36] See EHRC, 20


42/44


43/44


44/44

T C W R

a fair society?

Documents