Eleven reasons why the UK deaf population should join the war on welfare

From: The Word
These are scary times we are living in. Over the weekend, the spectre of ’80s political tension has rematerialised with rioting Millwall fans and Thatcher death-parties in Trafalgar Square.


The economy, and in particular the deregulated banking sector, is making headlines too, with fears that Britain could become either another Greece (total financial chaos – remember Northern Rock?) or another China (totalitarian state), depending on your point of view. Whichever way you look at it, George Osbourne is the most unpopular MP in nearly 10 years.

The welfare reforms are more than just benefit cuts. We are part of the estimated 3.7 million deaf and disabled people set to lose a total of £28 billion over the next five years; a whopping £757 per person, and that’s just the start. The cuts are an attack on everything to do with our well being: our health, employment, family, relationships, housing, education, money and leisure. Broken down, this is how our welfare, equality and human rights are being eroded, bit by bit.

1. Disability Living Allowance (DLA) is being replaced with Personal Independence Payment (PIP).
The roll-out started last Monday in parts of the North of England, aiming to go nationwide in June. Just because we’re permanently deaf doesn’t mean that the PIP assessment procedure is going to be the same as the one for DLA. Instead of bringing in NHS doctors at no cost to the taxpayer, the government are paying ATOS £1 billion – along with two other companies – to assess us for PIP, aiming to cut benefit claims by 20%, meaning that half a million genuine claimants could lose out. If Work and Benefits’ PIP self-test is anything to go by, that includes deaf and hard-of-hearing people.

2. Deaf education is under threat.
Most deaf and hard-of-hearing people and clued-up partners or parents know that the NDCS are campaigning to preserve funding for deaf children’s services. The fact that they’re having to work so hard to collect petition signatures is a worrying indication of the government’s priorities, especially in light of evidence that a bilingual (BSL/English) education is the best fit for many deaf children.

3. British healthcare is now an open market.
I’ve already blogged about this. Mark my words; it won’t be too long before ‘NHS’ stops being synonymous with ‘healthcare for all’. Already, people have to be re-referred to an audiologist who’s known them for years, while hearing aid batteries are no longer available in local surgeries. Imagine getting left behind in the queue for a CI operation in favour of someone who has more money than you – and blow the consequences for your quality of life. And then what will you do? Go private?

4. Eligibility for Legal Aid has changed.
Before April 1st, 2013, everyone on Income Support or Employment and Support Allowance was automatically eligible for Legal Aid funding to cover cases involving (among various aspects of family law) debt, discrimination, housing, education, welfare, and clinical negligence. Now, new claimants need a household income of £32,000 to qualify, and those getting between £14,000 and £32,000 have to take a means test. Even in discrimination cases, you will be expected to access help via a telephone line manned in three offices across the country, rather than face-to-face solicitor meetings.

5. The quality standards of court interpreting services have been compromised.
Interpreters Anonymous have blogged about this for over a year. In January 2012, the coalition contracted Applied Language Solutions (ALS), now part of Capita Translation and Interpreting Services, to handle all spoken and signed language interpreter bookings for court at reduced hourly rates.
Quality of interpretation has declined sharply since, with many cases thrown out of court due to unqualified and unregistered interpreters, interpreters not turning up, and people being pulled off the street because they happened to have the right language skills. Capita is solely responsible for supplying BSL interpreters in court, yet their website makes no mention of standards, registration with NRCPD, minimum levels of qualifications, codes of conduct or professional indemnity insurance. Even if we could afford to sue for discrimination in court, we’d still be in trouble.

6. The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s funding has been slashed. These people– a merger of the Disability Rights Commission, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Racial Equality Commission – were instrumental in the drive for anti-discrimination legalisation. Without them, we might not have had the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act or the 2010 Equality Act.
Now, with funds cut from £70 million to £17 million and the loss of an office, they have far less power to push for equality, discrimination and human rights issues on the political agenda than they used to. Who decides on equality issues now? Read on.

7. The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) is being ‘reviewed’. With the implementation of the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), and then the 2010 Equality Act, measures were in place for organisations to consult on discrimination and equality issues before developing new policies. While not perfect, at least they empowered deaf and disabled people to have a say in how services could be adapted. I should know – I was one of them, giving presentations to roomfuls of mainstream CEOs as part of the Arts Council’s own Disability Equality Duty.
Last November, David Cameron axed equality impact assessments, choosing instead to leave equality and discrimination issues to ‘smart people in Whitehall’. In other words, he’s made it policy-makers’ prerogative to work out for themselves how best to cater for the UK deaf and hard-of-hearing population – without our consultation.

8. It’s implied that the welfare cuts are politically-driven, not economic. Bear with me a little. This report, from the New Economics Foundation, stresses that Britain can afford to borrow and invest its way out of the recession. Over 300 years, we have never defaulted on our debt – unlike Greece, who has built up a history of bad credit in half its independent life. As a result Britain’s borrowing rates are enviably low, but the government chooses to invest less, thus damaging economic growth and protracting the austerity regime for longer than necessary.
Meanwhile, George Osbourne is ordering money-printing at an unprecedented rate (implementing the cuts actually costs money), intending to artificially boost the Bank of England’s account balance and therefore the economy, but of course it doesn’t work, because no-one can afford to borrow from the Bank of England due to the cuts.
Osbourne’s tactics have clearly appalled leading economists, because 63 of them have pledged their support for the People’s Assembly Against Austerity in opposition. (More about this later.)
John Walker, who blogs at Deaf Capital, points out that the Conservatives could be aiming for a totalitarian state. ‘We are seeing the privatisation of public services, an attack on the “precariats” or underclass – including deaf and disabled people – and the creation of a favourable situation where the rich get richer.
‘Some say that due to the sluggish economy we lost our manufacturing industry (ie. textiles) to China, so the devaluation of the pound will make products more attractive, bringing more foreign money into the UK. In order to do that wages have to go down, the poorest have to work for less income, and employment rights have to be restricted. We can then compete with China and bring manufacturing back into the UK.’ The next two reasons suggest that he could be right.

9. The Conservatives want to scrap the 1998 Human Rights Act.
They tried to do this in December last year, but were overturned by a majority of 123 votes, thanks to Labour. Think about it. Once stripped of the basic right to a life free of torture, we wouldn’t be able to exercise political rights or individual freedoms as deaf and hard-of-hearing people against interference by the government.

10. Tomorrow (Tuesday 16th April 2013), the government plans to repeal a vital clause of the 2006 Equality Act. Did you see the blog about this? It seems they can’t wait for 2015 after all.

11. Language rights? What language rights? Right now there is a ‘Spit the dummy out’ Facebook campaign for a BSL Act, which has to be commended for pulling in 11,000 members and hundreds of videos documenting various experiences of being deaf in a mainstream world and the difference a BSL Act could make. Obviously there is a lot of anger over how an entire decade could have passed without the government building on their initial ‘recognition’ of BSL. But it’s also telling how many of the videos revolve around – yes, you guessed it – welfare.

So while I agree on the principle of a BSL Act, all those efforts to get MPs to sign Early Day Motion (EDM) 1167 before the end of this month will go to waste if we don’t focus on the bigger picture now. What is the point of fighting for BSL legalisation without decent welfare, equality or human rights?

Now, you have three options:

a. You can keep telling yourself, ‘Nah, it won’t happen. We’re not China,’ until it’s too late.
b. If you’re an investor, you can take MoneyWeek’s scaremongering advice and invest in gold bullion. (Then again, what would be the point? In the event of financial collapse, wouldn’t that be confiscated anyway?)
c. Or you can join the People’s Assembly Against Austerity, organised by the Coalition of Resistance, on Saturday 22nd June 2013 – details here:


Communication support is being organised, and the National Secretary of the CoR has agreed to reserve a block of seating in the main hall for deaf and hard-of-hearing audiences. Your involvement is required to make this happen. The CoR will not be be able to support us if we don’t come forward with our own concerns.

Register for the event online first, then email melissamostyn (at) gmail dot com to confirm attendance and book your place in the reserved seating.

This article was written by Melissa Mostyn-Thomas in the People’s Assembly articles section.

The truth about universal credit

by Michael Meacher MP in The Morning Star

Universal Credit was officially launched on a very small scale at the end of last month in Ashton-under-Lyne in Lancashire.

It merges several benefits and tax credits into one monthly pay-out – not, let it be noted, weekly.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith is keen to tell the public that three million people will gain – though for some reason he forgets to add that on the government’s own impact assessment 2.8 million people will lose.

Somehow he’s also forgotten to tell you that the cuts have taken place even before universal credit starts – cuts to housing benefit, the bedroom tax, cuts to working tax credit and child tax credit, and the replacement of council tax with local schemes that often involve people losing £200 a year.

That’s just for starters. Universal credit is going to mean difficulty for millions for a whole range of different reasons.

Applications for UC can only be made online. It takes 20-40 minutes to complete the online form.

But according to the Office of National Statistics 7.6 million people have never used the internet and in some rural areas people who can use the internet don’t have access to broadband.

The National Audit Office says only 37 per cent of people are happy to provide personal details on government websites, another obstacle to online applications.

Households that earn £247 or less a week will see a fall in real income in 2015 because of the changes to benefits, and lone parents will be worse off whatever their circumstances.

Low earners with a working partner will see their marginal tax rate rise, because universal credit has a higher withdrawal rate than tax credits do.

Workers on low incomes who receive tax credit currently already lose most of the credit when their salary rises above a certain level – so a couple with two children on £25,550 lose 73p in every pound they earn over that level, but this is set to rise to 76.2 per cent.

People will be driven to use payday lenders, or even worse loan sharks, because unlike current benefits universal credit is paid monthly in arrears.

So people will have no money coming in for the first five weeks after they have successfully made a claim.

At present half those earning under £10,000 a year are paid more frequently than once a month.

Given that universal credit applications are online only, people will have to rely on help via the telephone.

The UC helpline on (0845) 600-0723 costs up to 10p a minute from a landline and up to 41p a minute from a mobile.

Between April and October 2012, calls to 0845 numbers lasted on average seven minutes and 42 seconds, so an average call to a DWP 0845 number would cost over £3.

The amount you receive will depend on the data submitted to HMRC by the employer. So you lose out if your employer provides the wrong information or at the wrong time.

Council and Housing Association tenants are denied the choice to have their rent paid direct to the landlord. That will be less efficient, less cost-effective, and is likely to increase rent arrears.

And to get universal credit you will have to sign a “claimant commitment.”

This sets out what you are expected to do in preparing for work, looking for work or getting work that pays the equivalent to 35 hours at the minimum wage – that is, at least £216.65 a week.

It will also set out the consequences if you fail to do what is required.

And because universal credit is a household benefit what one person does or does not do will affect all the other members of the household.

Lord Young, one of Thatcher’s business ministers, has got himself sacked before for making deeply callous and insensitive remarks.

He has obviously not lost the knack because he’s now making comments of similar ilk.

Reminiscent of Jo Moore sending round an email on September 11 2001 which said “today might be a good day to bury bad news,” Lord Young circulated his message last week that a recession was a good time to increase profits.

Apart from the offensive distastefulness of trading profits on other people’s misery, Young has really let the cat out of the bag about the government’s motives for the austerity programme.

It has always been difficult to explain why Osborne & co have persisted with a programme of semi-permanent stagnation when it was manifestly failing.

Young has given us a clue that suggests that in the last analysis this is not a deficit-reduction policy at all.

Its real target is not only shrinking the state and squeezing the public sector into the farthest recesses of a fully privatised regime – it’s also to push down wages so far that it creates a bonanza for profits.

In the era of neoliberal capitalism since the early 1980s the policy has worked well.

The share of wages in GDP steadily fell from 65 per cent to just 52 per cent in the early 2010s.

It is now being taken further – the freeze on public-sector pay over the last three years has led to a real terms cut in wages of some 7 per cent.

But what Lord Young has exposed is that this is not just an unfortunate consequence of fiscal consolidation.

It is deliberate government policy now being ruthlessly driven through for a valuable outcome in its own right – soaring profits.

Germany did this, it is argued, to secure its industrial and economic supremacy, so why not impose the same discipline on Britain?

Welfare, to give the social security system the name the Tories have now poisoned, was chosen as an easy, soft target. You shrink the state and by increasing desperation put downward pressure on wages too.

Osborne has now realised he made a major mistake at the outset in hacking back capital investment. He’s now restoring some of those lost investment opportunities and raiding the welfare budget mercilessly to fund them.

Quite apart from the sheer heartlessness in treating the livelihood of the most vulnerable sectors in society as a convenient piggy bank to be raided with impunity, it is also a policy ultimately doomed to failure because it strips demand out of the economy and reinforces stagnation.

The policy will end in devouring itself.

The problem is, how many millions will it have damaged and victimised in the process?