In 1997, with Tony Blair and Paul Corrigan, Alan Milburn brought NHS privatisation from the outer fringes of the thinktank circuit to the heart of government. So of course John Pring writes:
The government’s youth inactivity adviser swore at Disability News Service’s editor after being challenged about his failure to discuss the safeguarding risks involved in forcing tens of thousands of young disabled people into employment.
A series of speeches by former New Labour minister Alan Milburn were enthusiastically welcomed at this week’s Labour conference in Liverpool by lobbyists and party members who crowded into fringe venues to hear him speak about his review for the government on young people not in education, employment or training (NEETs).
He spoke repeatedly of the need for “fundamental transformation” of the social security and employment support systems and said his final report – due in the next few weeks – would “feel very much like a manifesto for change”. He insisted that young people were “the most resilient generation there has ever been”, despite substantial evidence of a mental health crisis among younger people.
It seems likely that his recommendations will suggest that only a very small proportion of young disabled people should not be pushed towards education, work or training, telling one fringe event: “Work is purposeful for young people and every young person has something to give. “Work beats welfare. Not every single time – there’s a group of young people in society who are never going to be able to work because of the severity and complexity of their disabilities. Our job, the state’s job, is to provide them with a secure future and a secure income for the future to compensate for the fact that they can’t work. Every other young person who can work should work.”
He added: “Unfortunately, what the state does all too often is ask the wrong question, which is what can’t you do, rather than what can you do, and how can we enable you and support you and help you to realise those opportunities. And that particularly applies to the generation of young people who are suffering from anxiety, depression, ADHD and autism, which are the principle drivers now behind the sort of crisis that we have.”
The speeches heard by Disability News Service (DNS) mirrored the findings of Milburn’s interim report in May by failing to discuss or analyse the safeguarding risks of his “manifesto”. But when DNS editor John Pring approached him after one of the fringe events and asked about these safeguarding risks, he sighed and said he did not want to discuss that issue and did not have time to answer any questions because he was leaving for another appointment. Pring suggested they could talk as he walked alongside him, but Milburn turned his back and refused to engage with the questions.
Pring attempted to explain why the issue was so important, explaining that the last time a Labour government tried to force hundreds of thousands of out-of-work disabled people into employment – in 2008, through the work capability assessment – it led to 600 suicides in three years, mostly under the subsequent coalition government. But Milburn refused to engage or respond and kept his back turned to him – while his assistant said repeatedly that he did not want to do an interview – as Pring tried to ask him about the risks of his suggested strategy, which is expected to be published later this month. Milburn eventually stopped, clearly angry, and said: “Hey, hey, HEY! I said no! Just stop! I said no,” and told Pring to go through “the correct channels” if he wanted an interview.
When Pring said it was “perfectly legitimate” for a reporter to challenge him about such an influential report – which carries significant safeguarding risks – Milburn said: “It’s perfectly legitimate to fucking doorstep me, is it?” He then added: “Fucking wanker.” Milburn then told him again to “go through the right channels” and nudged him with his arm. When Pring objected, he said: “Oh, don’t be so sensitive…” Milburn then walked away with his assistant.
Earlier that day, the minister for social security and disability, Sir Stephen Timms, had told DNS that he believed Milburn would “be aware” of the many deaths linked to the Department for Work and Pensions. Sir Stephen said he had not discussed safeguarding with Milburn, but he added: “I do think it’s important.” There is no mention in Milburn’s interim report of the years of evidence linking DWP safeguarding failures and the actions of civil servants and ministers with the deaths of claimants. Many of these claimants, such as Michael O’Sullivan, took their own lives due to DWP’s attempts to find them fit for work and push them back into jobs.
Roy Curtis was only 25 when DWP began its efforts to force him towards employment support and work; two years later, he took his own life at his flat in Milton Keynes. But despite hundreds of secret internal reviews carried out by DWP into deaths linked to its actions and failings, there is nothing in the 217 pages of Milburn’s interim report about the risks involved in trusting what is widely seen as a failing government department with the safety of young disabled people, particularly those with significant levels of mental distress, and forcing them into employment support and the workplace.
Work and pensions secretary Pat McFadden told the conference on the same day as Milburn’s confrontation with DNS that, from next April, the government would make its jobs guarantee available to young disabled people after three months. This will offer them paid work for six months at living wage rates – on a voluntary basis – three months after undergoing their work capability assessment, along with mentoring and support. The government will cover 100 per cent of the wage costs for up to 25 hours a week for six months. The government launched its jobs guarantee scheme earlier this year for long-term unemployed young people aged 18-24 who have been claiming universal credit for 18 months.
McFadden said the government wanted “a new system focussed on opportunity” that moved from “asking what are you entitled to, to asking, ‘how do we change your life?’”. One disabled researcher, Stef Benstead, described the new policy as “interesting” but she raised a key concern. She said, in a series of posts on X: “For people with static disabilities and capacity to work, it could be transformative – if coupled with timely Access to Work. But for people assessed as too ill to work, what does govt expect will actually happen? This feels like part of politicians’ ongoing failure to understand the existence and nature of ‘chronic illness’. Chronic illness is chronic – it lasts a long time. It’s illness – it makes you unwell. It limits your capacity for activity/work. For a long time. It’s that simple.”
She added: “Politicians seem determined to believe that activity-limiting illness that lasts for years ‘isn’t a thing’. “They’re insistent that we can all work, actually. They refuse to believe that maybe a whole load of people are too sick to work, and stay too sick to work for a long time.” Other disabled activists were also critical. Journalist and author Rachel Charlton-Dailey said on X: “The government knows these young people are too sick and disabled to work, they want to force them into low-paying jobs that will make them even worse.”
The grassroots, user-led mental health group Recovery in the Bin added: “It’s six months cheap labour, no job.” Meanwhile, the prime minister, Andy Burnham, said in his speech to conference on Tuesday – repeating previous commitments – that he wanted to reduce the “welfare bill” through improved support and more people in work rather than “through crude cuts”. He said he awaited Milburn’s final report but warned that there would need to be a “fundamental rethink of the welfare system” to pay for changes to education, support, work experience, apprenticeships and mental health support for young people. And he said the government would “require young people to take up the help presented to them”, which he said was “a different approach to welfare” and was “based on a philosophy of social security”.
And therefore:
Andy Burnham’s announcement of free personal care as part of a new National Care Service will only apply to those over 65, and not to working-age disabled people, No 10 has confirmed, sparking shock and concern among disabled people’s organisations. The prime minister spoke to Labour’s annual conference in Liverpool on Tuesday of the need for a “person-centred, high-quality care service that starts in the home” and which was “free at the point of use”.
But there was disquiet among disabled people’s organisations (DPOs) after the speech at his repeated emphasis on older people and the failure to mention working-age disabled people, as he spoke of the need to provide “peace of mind over care needs in later life”. He pledged to “start laying the ground now for the National Care Service and introduce it in the next parliament”. The move, he said, would be funded by changes to the state pension “triple lock” to make it less generous, a move confirmed by the government later that day. He said he was “going to go out and argue” for his plan, which would provide a “good deal for our pensioners and for older people in the 21st century”.
But after concern among DPOs at the emphasis in his speech on older people, Disability News Service (DNS) asked for clarity from Downing Street. And the government later confirmed that his announcement of free personal care applied only to those over the age of 65. Any changes aimed at fixing the care crisis and charges faced by tens of thousands of working-age disabled people will only be announced after next year’s final report of Baroness Casey’s social care commission. A government spokesperson told DNS yesterday (Wednesday):
“We have set out a new settlement for older people which will deliver free personal care and a state pension that rises every year, giving peace of mind in later life. This is a core part of our vision for the National Care Service and will draw a line under decades of drift so that people can receive the dignity and security they need. Baroness Casey’s commission continues to work on wider recommendations for fixing the social care system for all those who need it, including working age adults.”
Yesterday’s statement caused alarm and frustration among DPOs. Svetlana Kotova, director of campaigns and justice for Inclusion London, said: “We welcome the prime minister’s vision of a person-centred, high-quality, free-at-the-point-of-use care service that starts in people’s homes.
“However, we are shocked and disappointed that the vision of a National Care Service does not include disabled people of working age, who make up one third of social care users and who are facing much harsher charges compared to older people. There is no justification for limiting support just to older people. Everyone who needs care and support should have a right to live independently in the community, regardless of their age, as outlined in the UNCRPD [the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities]. We call on the prime minister and Baroness Casey to urgently and meaningfully engage with disabled people and our organisations, ensuring our experiences and expertise are at the heart of designing and running a joined-up National Care Service that is available to all, going well beyond basic personal care and enabling everyone to enjoy their right to live independently and be included in the community.”
Fazilet Hadi, head of policy for Disability Rights UK (DR UK), also welcomed Burnham’s commitment to developing a National Care Service but said the announcement “raises real questions and concerns”. She said: “Why is the spotlight solely on older disabled people, which he refers to as older people? Why is there a rightful concern about older disabled people paying for care from their state pension but no similar concern relating to disabled people of working-age having ever-increasing charges for care, taken from benefit payments?”
She also criticised Burnham for talking about care and support in “paternalistic ways”. She said: “Don’t disabled people, young and old, have a right to more than receiving personal care? Don’t we have the right to live with dignity, independence, choice and control? Don’t we have a right to be supported to be socially engaged and connected with family and community?” She said there was a “wholly unacceptable” exclusion of disabled people’s organisations from the decision-making process on social care reform, with the Casey Commission’s “big conversation” failing to bring disabled people “to the heart of shaping a new service”.
Earlier this week, Sophia Kleanthous, DR UK’s policy and campaigns officer, had told a fringe meeting hosted by the New Statesman and the new Free Home Care campaign at Labour’s conference: “We really need a system-level approach to making sure that choice, control and independence is at the heart of our care system… it needs to be co-produced with and by disabled people.” She said that Baroness Casey had sidelined disabled people’s organisations from her commission, and she called for a National Independent Living Service (NILS) that was “free at the point of need and delivery and alongside the NHS to solve the current crisis in social care. And at the heart of it, it should be built with and by and for disabled people.”
Meanwhile, Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) has announced that a protest outside No 10 North in Manchester will take place later this year and call for a NILS designed in co-production with disabled people. The protest will take place on 4 December, almost 20 years after UNCRPD was adopted by the United Nations (PDF) in December 2006, and the day after the international day of disabled people. DPAC said it wanted to “celebrate the convention and expand the scope of our campaign against regression of our rights by this Labour government and the coalition and Tory regimes that went before them”. The protest will argue that “social care is broken beyond repair” and that there must be “meaningful coproduction with representative DPOs” in moving towards NILS, rather than the “tokenism” of the Casey Commission. It will also call for Baroness Casey’s commission to be scrapped and for UNCRPD’s article 19 – which recognises disabled people’s right to independent living – to be implemented in UK law.
DPAC has launched a crowdfunder to fund the demonstration and other campaigning and protest that would show how “since signing and ratifying the convention, successive governments have taken away our rights and attacked our benefits, independence and living standards”. DPAC co-founder Linda Burnip said: “It is shocking that a Labour government continues to slash our rights, putting us at risk of destitution, imprisonment in our own homes or care homes, and even of more unnecessary deaths.”
No comments:
Post a Comment