Disability campaigners are understandably outraged by these last-minute proposed changes to the welfare bill now going through Parliament. They claim these concessions will create a two-tier benefit system, thereby unfairly discriminating against future claimants. Prominent leaders of the disability rights movement expressed their righteous anger during a virtual press conference convened earlier this week. Tracey Lazard, CEO of Inclusion London, and Claire Glasman, member of WinVisible, dropped their boom!
The controversial welfare bill, facing widespread protest and uproar, seeks to re-adjust the country’s social security framework. Advocates argue the changes will penalize first-time filers. This is doubly an issue for women who have invisible and unpredictable conditions. Lazard emphasized that the concessions “effectively mean anyone not already ill or disabled in Britain can’t become ill or disabled and expect to have enough money to live on in the future.”
Disability organizations have expressed panic that these proposed changes would have damaging consequences. They are afraid that the bill will not result in real reform, but will instead perpetuate the trend of rationing benefits. Lazard stated, “This is not a reform – it’s still rationing,” highlighting that the current system fails to adequately support those in need.
Glasman echoed these sentiments, stating that new claimants would “lose out massively across Pip and universal credit.” She especially emphasized the impact on women who live with invisible or episodic disabilities.
We have raised concerns about the implications of this for linking benefits such as carer’s allowance to Personal Independence Payments (PIP). Lazard cautioned that it would still remain unclear if the concessions accepted would protect eligibility for these vital supports.
Disability campaigner Andy Mitchell said the bill’s provisions were “absolutely pathetic” and left the community feeling “completely betrayed”. He declared, “This is worse than anything that happened under the Tories,” reflecting the deep frustration shared among advocates.
Claire Every, communications director of Long Covid Advocacy, cautioned that these late-game concessions wouldn’t ensure safety for the disabled. She articulated that these measures create an “unfair two-tier system,” noting that “it is unethical to only throw some people under the bus.” Each person talking pointed out how the changes would negatively impact people with long Covid. They maintained that this would unfairly discriminate against people who have fluctuating disabilities.
The failure to consult with disabled people about these concessions, or the impact of their withdrawal, has attracted further anger. Linda Burnip from Disabled People Against Cuts underlined how ridiculous it was to have two different social security payment rates. She emphasized that these premiums should not be based on when people apply or how long they’ve been sick. She asked rhetorically, “How can you justify someone with the same impairments getting two different rates of social security payments based solely on [when they applied or how long they’ve been ill]? Is it even legal?”
Cherylee Houston, one of the co-founders of the #TakingThePIP campaign, called out the government’s response in no uncertain terms. She said that the announcement concessions reflect an overall misunderstanding of disabled people’s needs. “These offers are a glimpse into the window of the soul of the government that they think people are protesting these cuts for their own gain not the wellbeing of all disabled people,” she remarked.
Disability organizations such as Inclusion London, WinVisible, and Long Covid Advocacy have joined together. Second, they are insistent that the proposed changes are a bridge too far. They claim that the plans will produce a “two-tier” benefit system that “condemns” disabled people to poverty in the long run.