A Fair Society 2

A fair society?
How the cuts target disabled people

by Dr Simon Dufy on behalf of the Campaign for a Fair Society
A fair society?
How the cuts target disabled people
by Dr Simon Dufy
Published by The Centre for Welfare Reform
On behalf of the Campaign for a Fair Society
About the Author
Dr Simon Dufy is Director of The Centre for Welfare Reform. Simon is a philosopher
and social innovator who has worked for over 22 years to nd practical ways to try and
improve the welfare system.
Publishing Information
A Fair Society? Simon Dufy 2013
Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 Simon Dufy 2013
All rights reserved.
First published January 2013
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission from the
publisher except for the quotation of brief passages in reviews.
A Fair Society? is published by The Centre for Welfare Reform
www.centreforwelfarereform.org
Designed by Henry Iles: www.henryiles.com
44 pp.
ISBN download: 978-1-907790-44-7
The Campaign for a Fair Society is a diverse UK-wide alliance of organisations and
individuals campaigning for a society that values, includes and supports all of its
citizens. It is independent of all political parties. It represents the interests of disabled
people and everyone who is disadvantaged by the laws, policies and systems in the UK.
The Campaign for a Fair Society is a federation with equal representation from England,
Scotland and Northern Ireland.
www.campaignforafairsociety.org
The Centre for Welfare Reform is an independent research and development
organisation that works to redesign the welfare state in order to promote citizenship,
family, community and social justice. It is based in Shefeld and has an international
network of over 70 Fellows.
A REPORT FROM THE CENTRE FOR WELFARE REFORM ON BEHALF OF THE CAMPAIGN FOR A FAIR SOCIETY
3
Acknowledgements
This report was produced, pro bono, by Dr Simon
Dufy of The Centre for Welfare Reform on behalf of
the Campaign for a Fair Society.
Grateful thanks to all those who helped with ideas
and additional information. In particular Simon
thanks Dr Ben Baumberg, Professor Peter Taylor-
Gooby (especially for giving access to a draft of his
forthcoming book), Rosemary Trustam, Sue Livett,
Jim Elder-Woodward, Simon Cramp, Jane Young,
Rosemary O'Neill, Frances Kelly and Ivanka Antova.
Thanks also to Pats Petition for all their tireless work
in advocating for the need for a Cumulative Impact
Assessment of the cuts on disabled people.
Contents
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. The cuts programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2. Targeted cuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3. Cuts implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1 Cuts in social care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2 Cuts in personal income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4. Who is targeted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.1 People In Poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.2 Disabled people . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.3 People with severe impairments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5. The damage done . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.1 These cuts wont solve the real problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.2 Taking from people in poverty doesnt work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.3 Increased inequality is expensive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.4 Cutting social care is costly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.5 Cutting social care is contradictory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.6 The human cost is dreadful . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6. Why the cuts target . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.1 The government may be confused . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.2 Pandering to electoral interests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.3 Demonisation of disabled people . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.4 Pinning the blame elsewhere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.5 Disguising the cuts in 'reforms' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.6 Design aws in the welfare state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7. What we should do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Background information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
References & readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
A FAIR SOCIETY? |
6
Summary
The current UK Government aims to signicantly reduce the
level of public expenditure in the UK by an overall cut of 63.4
billion by 2015, a reduction of 10.8%.
However, not everything is being cut. Te NHS and Pensions are protected. No 10 and
No. 11 have increased their own budgets by over 240% and the level of cuts to other
services varies considerably. If we exclude the areas of growth and protected services
there are in fact cuts of 75.2 billion. And of these cuts over 50% fall on just two areas,
benefts and local government, despite the fact that together they make up only 26.8%
of central government expenditure. Most people do not realise that local governments
primary function (over 60%) is to provide social care to children and adults.
In other words, the cuts are not fair but targeted, and they target people in poverty,
disabled people and their families.
Te government seems to have made no efort to understand the cumulative impact
of its cuts on minority groups, especially those with the greatest needs. It has rejected
calls for a Cumulative Impact Assessment of the cuts despite the obvious fact that
those with the most severe disabilities now face the combined impact of:
Social care cuts
Benet cuts
Housing cuts
Regressive tax increases
For this reason Te Centre for Welfare Reform, on behalf of the Campaign for a Fair
Society, 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, local
government and housing will be cut by 16.2 billion. Tis is a cut in real terms of 41.9%.
Social care for children and adults makes up 60% of all spending over which local
authorities have any control. Data collected over the past two years indicates that social
care has already been cut by nearly 4 billion, and will be cut by 8 billion by 2015, a cut
of about 33%.
Benefts for disabled people and the poorest will also have been cut by 18 billion, a cut
of about 20%.
When we look at the combined impact of all the cuts we fnd:
People in poverty (21% of the population) bear 39% of all cuts.
Disabled people (8% of the population) bear 29% of all cuts.
People with severest disabilities (2% of the whole population) bear 15% of all cuts.
HOW THE CUTS TARGET DISABLED PEOPLE | SUMMARY
7
Te extreme unfairness of this is policy is even clearer if we compare the burden per
person with the cuts born by most other citizens (467 per person).
People in poverty will lose an average of 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 of 4,410 per person - this is 9 times more than
the burden placed on most other citizens.
Te combination of cuts in benefts and services means that:
People with severe disabilities will lose an average of 8,832 per person - this is 19
times 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 in
poverty
Disabled
People
People with
severest disabilites
5
9
19
Social Care Cuts
Beneft Cuts
Housing Cuts
Tax Increases
Burden on people in poverty: 5 x rest of population
Burden on disabled people: 9 x rest of population
Burden on people with severest disabilities: 19 x rest of population
How cuts target disabled people
A FAIR SOCIETY? | SUMMARY
8
Tis means that one person in 50 (2% of the population) has to face a loss of income
and vital support of nearly 9,000 per year. But this one person will also be somebody's
brother, sister, mother, father or child. Te impact on over 1 million families in the UK
will be devastating.
Not only do these cuts target disabled people unfairly, their reality has been covered up
with falsehoods, distortions and ugly rhetoric.
Te truth is:
Disabled people and people in poverty did not cause the current debt crisis, and
targeting them for cuts will not solve the crisis.
Social care is not being protected, it will be severely cut, for it is the major activity of
local authorities.
Benet fraud is rare and disabled people and people in poverty commit much less
fraud than other citizens.
Te overall impact of these cuts, and other so called reforms is going to be expensive and
deeply damaging. Increased inequality will worsen society for everyone and will lead to
increased spending pressures in other areas. Reducing social care will create more crises,
more institutional, abusive and inefcient services and will increase the pressure on the
NHS and other public services. It will lead to more family breakdowns and reduce the
ability of citizens and families to partipate in their communities and in the economy.
Te Campaign for a Fair Society calls for:
1. A halt to the current programme of cuts
2. An independent assessment of the cumulative impact of the cuts on disabled people
and other vulnerable groups
3. The development of a fairer and more sustainable welfare system that recognises the
equal worth of all human beings and the protection of human rights for all
HOW THE CUTS TARGET DISABLED PEOPLE | FOREWORD
9
Foreword
Sir Winston Churchill, that staunch Conservative Prime Minister of the mid-
20th Century, is reputed to have said: You measure the degree of civilization
of a society by how it treats its weakest members. I just wonder how he
would measure up this Con-Lib Governments attack on the weakest members
of todays British civilised state.
When millionaires are getting tax rebates and international companies go
without paying any tax whatsoever, the poorest in society are getting less
and less support, whether or not they are on low pay inside the labour
market or even lower benets outside the market. This situation is made even
worse by this Con-Lib Government vilifying and stigmatising those outside
the labour market, for no fault of their own, as lazy scroungers, who have no
sense of responsibility or self-worth.
This report by Simon Dufy counteracts this purposeful 1984 Orwellian
Newspeak. It shows how disabled people, particularly those who are the
most impaired, have been hit the hardest by the present welfare cuts.
Disabled people want to work, if they can; they want to participate as
equal members of society; but even if they do work, they still live in
multidimensional poverty and disadvantage. They are not just disadvantaged
by their impairment, but by the housing they live in, the education and
transportation from which they are excluded, the limitations in shopping
for food and the additional costs of heating, laundry etc. Finally, they are
forced to remain in poverty, even if they have worked hard and saved for their
retirement, by a system of community care charging which leaves them with
an income and savings just above that of those on jobseekers allowance, in
return for minimum levels of social care support.
The Campaign for a Fair Society is a group of people who want to show the
public just how unfair our present society is towards its weakest members.
Epidemiologists, like Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, have shown that
societies with a narrow band between rich and power experience better
quality of life than those with a much wider divide. If we, as a British society
wish our lives, all of our lives, to be quality lives then we must tackle this
growing divide between us.
On behalf of the Campaign for a Fair Society, I would wish to thank Simon
Dufy for writing and producing this paper; and to those who read it, I hope
it will give us the eyes not just to see the Grand Canyon which is between the
richest and the poorest in our society, but to nd a way to bridge it.
Jim Elder-Woodward, OBE
Chair of the UK steering committee of the Campaign for a Fair Society
A FAIR SOCIETY? | 1. THE CUTS PROGRAMME
10
1. The cuts programme
The current UK government is committed to making a signicant
reduction in the size of public expenditure relative to the
overall economy. Table 1 describes the governments spending
plans in 2010 and their ambitions for what they will have
achieved by 2014-15. These gures are taken directly from the
Comprehensive Spending Review 2010 (CSR).
[1]
Tese fgures are represented in 2010/11 prices, discounting infation, but in the
expectation of a certain level of growth. Benefts, pension and tax credit data has been
added from other government sources (for it is not included within the CSR). Te
calculation of the cut to benefts and tax credits is based on the governments declared
intention 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 the
NHS would be protected in order to keep pace, not just with infation, but also with
overall economic growth. Tis commitment provides a useful starting point for our
analysis, because it means that we can treat the cash growth of these two major items as
equivalent to no change in real terms. Te CSR plans to increase the cash expenditure on
the NHS and Pensions by 12.6% by 2014-15 (equivalent to no real growth). Tis means
any increase over and above 12.6% this can be treated as real growth, and any increase
lower than this as a real cut.
Tese fgures suggest that, in real terms, if the governments plans were successful, then
public expenditure would be 10.8% lower.
[3]
For the purpose of our analysis we are going to take, to treat the overall cut to public
expenditure, the aggregate real-term annual cut by 2015, as 63.4 billion. Tis is the
overall cut which will have been achieved by the government if its 2010 plans are
successful. However, because there are some areas of growth the actual level of cuts
is greater than that, so by 2015 there will be an annual real-term cut of 75.2 billion.
Although, as we will see, these cuts only fall hard on some services and on a fraction of
the UK population.
HOW THE CUTS TARGET DISABLED PEOPLE | 1. THE CUTS PROGRAMME
11
Spending
201011
Spending
201415
Annual
Change
Change if
protected
Change
in real
terms
Change
from
2010-15
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 local
authorities
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%
Defence 35.7 36.8 1.1 40.2 -3.4 -9.5%
Foreign aid
et 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%
Northern
ireland
16 16.4 0.4 18.0 -1.6 -10.1%
Tax & benet
administration
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 crisis
measures
8.2 7.2 1 n/a n/a n/a
Pensions 71.6 80.6 9 80.6 0 0
Benets & tax
credits
118.4 111.3 -7.1 133.3 -22.0 -18.6%
TOTAL 585 586.1 1.1 649.5 -63.4 -10.8%
TABLE 1. Government spending plans for 2014-15 (in billions)
A FAIR SOCIETY? | 2. TARGETED CUTS
12
2. Targeted cuts
Not everything is being cut and some things are even growing.
As can be seen in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1. Cut in annual real term funding by 2015
Te largest cut in terms of cash is to benefts (that is, minimal income protection for
disabled people and people in poverty). Te second biggest cuts is to English local
government (whose main function is to provide support to disabled people and families).
Table 2 shows both how government expenditure is distributed in percentage terms, and
how the cuts are also distributed. Figure 2 shows that in percentage terms, English local
government faces the deepest cuts.
When we examine Table 2 it is also striking that:
Some expenditure is growing in cash and real terms: Foreign Aid (20.7%) and Cabinet
Ofce, Treasury and associated quangos (241.9%).
The NHS and pensions are protected and do not change, and together they represent
over 30% of all government expenditure.
There are many areas where there are important cuts, cuts in real terms, but not in
cash terms (e.g. Defence, Education, Administration of Tax & Benets)
The cuts to English local government (41.9%) benets (18.6%) universities (32.1%)
and criminal justice (26.4%) are staggeringly large and together make-up about 70%
of all cuts. This is despite only representing 33% of all government expenditure. See
Figure 3.
Together the cuts on English local government (whose main function is social care)
and on Benets (whose main function is to reduce poverty) make up 50.8% of all
cuts, despite the fact they represent only 26.8% of central government expenditure.
-25 bn. -20 bn. -15 bn. -10 bn. -5 bn. 0 bn. 5 bn.
Benefts & tax credits
Local gov (England)
Schools
University & business
Policing, justice etc.
Scotland
Energy, environment, culture
Defence
Transport
Wales
N. Ireland
Tax & benefts admin
Pensions
NHS
Foreign aid
No 10, No 11, quangos
HOW THE CUTS TARGET DISABLED PEOPLE | 2. TARGETED CUTS
13
Spending
2010-11
Share of
spending
Annual
real change
by 2015
Change by
2015
Where
cuts are
targeted
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 local
authorities
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%
Defence 35.7 6.1% -3.4 -9.5% 4.5%
Foreign aid
et 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%
Northern
ireland
16 2.7% -1.6 -10.1% 2.1%
Tax & benet
administration
10.7 1.8% -0.9 -8.9% 1.3%
Treasury,
cabinet &
quangos
1.1 0.2% 2.7 241.9% n/a
Financial crisis
measures
8.2 1.4% n/a n/a n/a
Pensions 71.6 12.2% 0 0% n/a
Benets & tax
credits
118.4 20.2% -22.0 -18.6% 29.3%
TOTAL 585 -63.4 -10.8%
TABLE 2. How central government expenditure and the cuts are distibuted (in billions)
In other words, despite the governments claim that the cuts would be made fairly, the
cuts are not spread evenly across public services or systems of entitlements. Te cuts have
been targeted.
Moreover, the fact that deep cuts are being targeted on only a small fraction of public
expenditure ensures that these targeted cuts will be even more severe. As Figure 3 makes
clear, if we see how the cuts have been distributed, the vast majority fall on just two areas
- benefts and local government.
A FAIR SOCIETY? | 2. TARGETED CUTS
14
FIGURE 2. Percentage change in annual funding by 2015 in real terms
FIGURE 3. Where the cuts are targeted
-50%-40%-30%-20%-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Local gov (England)
Energy, environment, culture
Transport
Wales
Scotland
Schools
N. Ireland
Defence
Tax & benefts admin
Pensions
NHS
Foreign aid
No 10, No 11, quangos
[240%]
Tax & benefts admin
N. Ireland
Wales
Transport
Defence
Energy, environ., culture
Scotland
Schools
Local gov (England)
HOW THE CUTS TARGET DISABLED PEOPLE | 3. CUTS IMPLEMENTATION
15
3. Cuts implementation
In this report we are going to concentrate on the cuts that
target disabled people and people living in poverty, in
particular:
1. Cuts in social care (the main activity of local government)
2. Cuts in personal income (benets and tax credits)
3.1 Cuts in social care
The highest percentage cut in public expenditure is the 41.9% cut in
real-term funding for English local government. There has never been
such 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 not
seem so severe. However this is somewhat misleading, for these fgures also include NHS
spending. So, it is likely that any efort to copy Whitehall, and to protect NHS spending,
will also lead to similar cuts in social care. For the sake of simplicity we will concentrate
on the English fgures here, but it is important to recognise that similar forces are at
work 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 taking
place in England.
Many people do not realise that local governments primary function is to provide
social care services. Social care provides:
Help to older people living at home, or in residential care
Independent living for disabled people, including people severe learning difculties
Help for people with mental health problems to regain ordinary lives
Support to families who have children with severe disabilities
Safeguards for children who are being abused or neglected
Support for families, and many others who are in greatest need
Social care is the front-line prevention service of the welfare state. When people do not
get this practical assistance it can quickly lead to death, health crisis, hospital admission,
institutionalisation, fractured families and police action - all of which is more expensive
and less efective than early support to stay strong and independent.
Many people do not realise that social care is also the main activity of local government.
Many of the activities that we associate with local government are efectively controlled
from Whitehall and local authorities have no control over how that funding is used. Table
3 sets out local authority expenditure and the funding which is really controlled locally.
A FAIR SOCIETY? | 3. CUTS IMPLEMENTATION
16
Spending protected from local authority cuts
Education 46.0 ring-fenced
Police 12.2 ring-fenced
Fire & rescue 2.9 ring-fenced
Total of expenditure outside cuts 60.4
Spending that local authorities are forced to cut
Adult social care 14.4 40.3%
Childrens social care 7.7 21.6%
Environment and regulatory services 5.5 15.4%
Culture and leisure 3.4 9.5%
Housing 2.7 7.6%
Planning & development 2.1 5.7%
Total of expenditure to be cut 35.9
Theoretical total for local expenditure 96.3
TABLE 3. Annual expenditure (in billions) by English local authorities in 2010-11
Figure 4 describes the balance of funding that is in genuine local control and which
must therefore be cut as a response to the targeting of English local government in the
governments plans. As can be seen, over 60% of relevant local government expenditure
is for social care for children or adults.
[4]
FIGURE 4. The services actually controlled by local government
Local authorities can raise some income themselves, although this is a minority of the
income they control. Most local government funding comes from taxes raised centrally.
However this means that the relationship between the cut in central government funding
and the actual cuts in social care won't be identical. To fnd how the cut in funding does
reduce social care funding we need to look at what is actually happening to social care.
Together (ignoring charges and private purchasing of care) and using 2010 data, adult
social care cost about 14.4 billion, while childrens social care cost 7.7 billion.
[5]
Te
Campaign for a Fair Society predicted severe cuts in social care funding when it was
Planning & development
Housing
Culture and leisure
Environment and regulation
Childrens social care
Adult social care
HOW THE CUTS TARGET DISABLED PEOPLE | 3. CUTS IMPLEMENTATION
17
launched in February 2011. Today, afer more than two years of cuts, these predictions
have been proved correct.
Adult social care in England was cut by 991 million by 2011
[6]
Adult social care in England was cut by a further 890 million by 2012
[7]
Childrens social care in England was cut by 1.852 billion from 2010 to 2012
[8]
In fact the Campaigns original estimate for cuts to social care understated the problem.
In just two years nearly 4 billion has been cut from social care, and further cuts are
planned over the next three years. IBy 2015 social care in England will be have been cut
by 8 billion. Tis is a real term cut of about 33%. Tis may seem a surprising fgure
given the governments supposed commitment to protect social care but in fact it is the
logical result of cuts to local government that must then fall on social care.
[9]
In practice these cuts are actually experienced by a range of diferent measures:
Reduced levels of support for voluntary organisations, advocacy and services not
covered by FACS (e.g. support for women experiencing domestic violence).
[10]
Reductions in support, freezing of fees for service providers and the reduction of
personal budgets.
[11]
Reducing expenditure on supported housing services funded through Supporting
People.
[12]
Increasing the threshold for eligibility; e.g. by 2011, 78% Councils had stopped
supporting people with Low or Moderate 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 difcult to overstate the problem here. Tese kinds of cuts (cuts to services that have
historically always been under-funded) are devastating. Given the gloomy economic
outlook, and the on-going trend and pattern of expenditure cuts, then it is likely that
we will see social care cut by 50% by 2018. Te lack of public debate about this is very
surprising.
3.2 Cuts in personal income
Before the Autumn Statement 2012 Steven Kennedy, of the House of
Commons Library, summarised the governments plans to save 18
billion a year by 2014-15 benets in the following analysis:
[14]
5.8 billion due to switch to CPI indexation
3.6 billion from Child Benet freeze and clawback from higher rate taxpayers
2.6 billion from tax credit changes
1.9 billion from Housing Benet reforms
1.2 billion from DLA reform
1.2 billion from time-limiting contributory ESA
In practice the cuts will be experienced in these and many other forms, ofen as part
of changes to the rules of local and national systems. Also the Autumn Statement 2012
A FAIR SOCIETY? | 3. CUTS IMPLEMENTATION
18
contained further provisions to increase the burden of cuts on both the poorest (and the
very richest) to bring the total level of beneft cuts, in real terms, to 22 billion.
[15]
Te list of changes, reforms or cuts is varied, complex and many details are
unresolved. Table 4 provides a brief overview of many of these cuts and reforms.
Replacing DLA with PIP Time-limiting of contributory ESA
Change to CPI indexation of benets Child Benet freeze
Council Tax Benet 10% reduction and
localisation
Child Benet clawback from higher rate
taxpayers
Housing Benet cuts Tax credit changes
Universal Credit Abolition of the Independent Living Fund
Closure of Remploy services Localisation of the Social Fund
Reductions in Access to Work funding Abolition of the Child Trust Fund
Abolition of the Health in Pregnancy Grant Abolition of the ESA youth rules
Abolition of Sure Start Maternity for
second and subsequent children
Household benet cap
Extension of JSA lone parents with a
youngest child aged 5-6.
Continued use of ATOS or others
Transfer of Social Fund to local
government
Reductions in support for carers
TABLE 4. An overview of the cuts in benets and tax credits
It seems that the enormous complexity of these changes, supported by the rhetorical
impact of the language of reform and the language of stigma, is disguising a rapid shif
towards an unprecedented level of income inequality and poverty in modern Britain.
Although the policy details are complex, the direction of policy is clear. It is important
to resist the fow of this policy and to avoid losing sight of the overall issue within the
mire of current legislative and regulatory changes. Political leaders have a particular
responsibility to outline the real social and economic problems that will arise if we allow
inequality to grow in this way.
HOW THE CUTS TARGET DISABLED PEOPLE | 4. WHO IS TARGETED
19
4. Who is targeted
It is useful to look at how the cuts impact on services and on
systems of entitlements. But what is much more fundamental is
to understand how these cuts will impact on people themselves.
When the cuts were announced the government declared that its cuts had been organised
fairly. In particular it accepted that fairness 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 fact it is hard to imagine a less fair way of targeting the cuts. If the total level of cuts
is equal to 75.2 billion, and the population of the UK is 63 million then the mean level of
cuts would be just over 1,200 per person. If we were to spread that burden in proportion
to income then we might expect the poorest to be targeted less than this, and the richest
to be targeted more than this. Tis is not what has happened.
Some cuts, like cuts to the defence budget, are not directly discriminatory in their
impact. 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 some
other way. However, for the purpose of this analysis, we will treat all these kinds of cuts as
if they are not targeted on any particular group. Tese cuts include
Education - cut by 6.7 billion
Transport - cut by 2.6 billion
Business & universities - cut by 6.4 billion
Policing etc. - cut by 5.9 billion
Defence - cut by 3.4 billion
Energy etc. - cut by 3.5 billion
Tax & benet administration - cut by 0.9 billion
Together 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 whole
population. Tis gives a per person burden of 467. Tat is the modal average - what
most people will face.
However, while many cuts are organised in ways that are complex and difcult to
model, it is very clear that the cuts do target the very groups that a fair society would
seek to protect:
1. People In Poverty
2. Disabled people
3. People with the severest disabilities
It would be unfair enough if these groups were asked to bear the same burden as the rest
of the population; but the reality is that they are being asked to bear a far greater burden
than the rest of the population.
A FAIR SOCIETY? | 4. WHO IS TARGETED
20
4.1 People In Poverty
Approximately 13.5 million people live below the governments ofcial
poverty line, which is 21% of the population and some of these people
are very poor indeed, surviving on less than 3,000 per year. The UK is
the third most unequal developed country in the world and its rate of
growth in inequality is now greater than the USAs.
[16]
Almost all of the beneft cuts are targeted at people in poverty. If we exclude the 4 billion
reduction in child beneft for the rich, then the remaining cuts in benefts and tax credits
will 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 bearing
cuts in personal income of 18 billion per year.
To understand how this impacts on people in poverty and on disabled people we must
distinguish benefts that try to reduce poverty, from benefts which help disabled people
deal with the extra costs of disability. Tere are 7 main disability benefts, as set out in
Table 5.
[18]
Tis excludes funding for housing, which in the past, also aimed to refect the
extra costs of disability in the details of the regulations - but which is now also under
threat.
Main disability benets 2010-11
Attendance Allowance 5.2
Carer's Allowance 1.6
Disability Living Allowance 11.9
Incapacity Benet 5.5
Independent Living Funds 0.4
Industrial injuries benets 0.9
Severe Disablement Allowance 0.9
TOTAL 26.4
TABLE 5. Annual expenditure on main disability benets (in billions)
Tis suggests that of the 90 billion of benefts and tax credits available to improve
personal income, about 30% are used to assist disabled people (including disabled
children, frail older people, and their families).
Ideally we would be able to distinguish the beneft losses which will only harm disabled
people from those beneft losses that will only harm people who are poor (including
disabled people). However, this is very difcult to do, because many of the details of the
actual regulations are still unclear. Te termination of DLA, and other similar changes
outlined above, make it clear that there is certainly no special protection for disabled
people in the governments plans. Tey will harm disabled people and they will harm
people in poverty.
So, for this analysis, we have made the simplest reasonable assumption, that cuts to
disability benefts will be proportionate to other beneft cuts. As we discussed above, the
cuts to benefts can be broadly broken down into three categories:
21
4 billion of child benets cuts that will harm the better-of
12.6 billion of benet cuts that will harm people in poverty (including those
disabled people who are poor)
5.4 billion of benet cuts that will harm only disabled people
We can use this analysis to understand the extra burden placed by the government
on people in poverty. Te burdens faced by an average person in poverty includes:
The burden faced by the whole population - 467
100% of the burden experienced by people in poverty - 934
50% of the burden of the disability cuts - 200
100% of the burden of the social care cuts - 593
This means that people in poverty do not bear the same burden as
other people, instead they bear a much greater burden of 2,195.
This means that the cuts target people, in poverty about 5 times more
than other citizens.
As a group, people in poverty, 21% of the population (1 in 5 of us), will
bear 39% of all cuts.
4.2 Disabled people
There are many disabled people, including many people who have
become frail in old age or who are managing chronic conditions. At
least 5 million people have impairments that are so signicant that
they are currently entitled to Attendance Allowance or Disability Living
Allowance; this is 8% of the population.
Many, but not all, disabled people are poor. About 50% of disabled people live in poverty,
and they are therefore subject to the same level of targeting as people in poverty. However
disabled people have also been subject to additional targeting, because many disability
benefts have been singled out for reductions within the overall cuts. In particular the
following areas of cuts are likely to be very damaging to disabled people:
The end of ILF
The end of DLA, replacement with PIP
Time-limiting and means-testing ESA
Changes built into development of UC
Changes included in cuts to Housing Benet
Reductions in relief for Council Tax for disabled people
Although there are some reasons to think that disability benefts are under greater
attack than other benefts, we have (as we described above) made the more conservative
assumption that cuts to disability benefts will be proportionate to other beneft cuts.
22
For disabled people then we need to distinguish the following burdens:
The same burden as the rest of the population - 467
50% of the burden experienced by people in poverty - 1,261
100% of the burden of the disability benet cuts - 1,081
100% of the burden of the social care cuts - 1,600
This means the overall burden on disabled people will be an average
of 4,410 per person.
This means the cuts targeting disabled people are 9 times more than
that place on most other citizens.
As a group, disabled people, 8% of the population (1 in 13 of us), bear
29% of all cuts.
4.3 People with severe impairments
There are also approximately 1.3 million children or adults whose needs
are so severe that they are also eligible for additional support from
local government - that is, social care. About 2% of the population are
currently entitled to social care.
However, this fgure excludes those people who have very high needs, but who are
excluded because of the extreme means-testing in social care (which should be called,
the disability tax). In fact, the fawed design of the current social care system guarantees
that 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 costs
Cuts in disability income, including special housing costs
Cuts in social care
As we discussed above the total cut in social care (children and adults) will be about 8
billion by 2015. If we divide this by the current social care population then this means
that the burden, per person, is an additional 6,349.
In practice this burden will be faced unequally by this population. Many will lose
eligibility for vital services, and then fnd themselves in hospital. Others will see their
support and services slashed and this will limit their freedom, increase social isolation
and create other problems. Tose in the most expensive and institutional services will
be the least impacted (e.g. the likes of Winterbourne View) while low level, community-
focused services are the frst to be cut.
23
All of this means that those who have the greatest needs will also bearing the biggest
burden:
The same burden as the rest of the population - 467
100% of the burden experienced by people in poverty - 934
100% of the burden of the disability cuts - 1,081
100% of the burden of the social care cuts - 6,349
This means the overall burden on disabled people with the severest
disabilities will be 8,832 per person.
This means the cuts target disabled people 19 times more than other
citizens.
People with severest disabilities, 2% of the population (1 in 50 of us),
bear 15% of all cuts.
Figure 5 represents how the burden of cuts is shared between diferent sections of the
population.
FIGURE 5. How the cuts target diferent population groups
Figure 6 goes further and shows how the burden of cuts, per person, compares with the
burden on placed on the rest of the population. As need and poverty increases, so does
the intensity with which the cuts are targeted - the very opposite of fair
If all this seems very surprising then this is because the real facts have not been
discussed 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 reference to regressive taxes that also target people in
poverty and disabled people, like the increases in VAT 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 in
poverty
Disabled
People
People with
severest disabilites
24
have used the UK population as the base for our calculations. Nor have we been able to
keep pace with every cut that has been imposed.
Tere are of course many genuine complications and other factors that would need to
considered in a full analysis. Te government claims that it is refocusing some benefts
(e.g. PIP) on people with more severe disabilities, however this is largely code for making
many people ineligible for those benefts. Excluding someone with real and signifcant
needs from a beneft can be described as 'targeting more resources' on people with greater
needs - but only as political spin.
Tere will also be other important distributive afects caused by changes in the beneft
regulations, tax and tax credit systems, housing beneft and in cuts to other services. An
even more detailed analysis would fnd that some particular groups, within the categories
we 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.
To some degree we will only fnd out exactly how the harm of the cut has been
distributed afer all the cuts have been made. Waiting for that degree of statistical
perfection is self-defeating; what we must do is reverse the current and clear trend of
government policy - to target cuts on disabled people and people in poverty.
Ideally the government would have carried out a full analysis of its own programme of
cuts and then seen how unfair they were going to be. Or, perhaps, the fact that the
government has repeatedly refused to make such an analysis demonstrates that it already
knows how unfair these cuts will be. Either way, our analysis demonstrates, very clearly,
that the cuts programme is not fair and that it harms most, those whom we should
protect frst.

FIGURE 6. How the cuts target disabled people
5
9
19
Social Care Cuts
Beneft Cuts
Housing Cuts
Tax Increases
Burden on people in poverty: 5 x rest of population
Burden on disabled people: 9 x rest of population
Burden on people with severest disabilities: 19 x rest of population
How cuts target disabled people
HOW THE CUTS TARGET DISABLED PEOPLE | 5. THE DAMAGE DONE
25
5. The damage done
The cuts are targeted on the very people who need the most
protection, and the cuts are targeted on those services and
income entitlements that do the most good for the least cost.
The cuts will not solve the current economic crisis, but will lead
to greater injustice, social damage and increasing costs in other
parts of the welfare system.
5.1 These cuts wont solve the real problem
The current economic crisis was not created by people in poverty or
disabled people. The economic crisis was caused by the ending of an
articial economic bubble that had beneted home owners and banks.
Unprecedented growth in house prices encouraged unsustainable
borrowing. This has now created an economic and a political problem.
Politicians need to protect home owners (not people in poverty) from
the negative impact of the bursting of this bubble because the critical
swing voters are home owners. Reducing the incomes of the poorest
will not solve a problem that is rooted in the problems of the better-of.
5.2 Taking from people in poverty doesnt work
Not only do people in poverty not have enough money to solve the
economic problems of the better of they are also major tax payers. The
vast majority of benets paid out come back as taxes.
Te claim that benefts are the largest part of the welfare system is false, because most
benefts are paid back as taxes. What we should really fouc on, the net cost of benefts and
pensions, afer taxes, is only 25 billion (3% of GDP).
[19]
Moreover the poorest 10% of
households actually pay the highest percentage of their income in tax (47%) (see Figure
7). As the government tries to reduce the incomes of the poorest it will fnd that it also
loses tax revenue.
A FAIR SOCIETY? | 5. THE DAMAGE DONE
26
FIGURE 7. Tax paid as a proportion of annual family income by decile (ONS data 2009)
5.3 Increased inequality is expensive
The overall impact of reducing the value of benets is to increase the
level of overall inequality. But increased inequality has a series of
negative and expensive consequences.
As Wilkinson and Pickett have shown, income inequality is correlated with:
Lower levels of trust, thereby higher levels of regulation and bureaucracy
Lower levels of life expectancy
Higher levels of infant mortality
Greater obesity
Worsening mental health
Poor educational achievement
Higher teenage birth rates
More homicides
Higher levels of imprisonment
Inequality is expensive. Ofen governments are forced to spend more to deal with the
consequences of inequality. Te UK can expect more riots, social confict, stigma and
unhappiness.
[20]
5.4 Cutting social care is costly
At its best, social care ensures people can carry on as independent and
contributing citizens. It prevents:
Social isolation, abuse, exclusion and the inability of individuals to fully contribute to
society - it is critical to ensuring all citizens can play their full part in society.
Hospital admissions and it reduces length of stay in hospital.
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
Income
10th 9th 8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd 2nd 1st
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
% Tax
HOW THE CUTS TARGET DISABLED PEOPLE | 5. THE DAMAGE DONE
27
Institutionalisation, including the use of private institutions like Winterbourne View.
[There are currently 21,000 people in such institutions, costing well over 1.5 billion,
possibly very much more.].
[21]
Family breakdowns, prison costs and abuse. For example, voluntary organisations
like WomenCentre in Halifax are often the rst to be cut, but provide high quality
supports for women and families which saves millions by reducing rates of domestic
violence, other crimes and re-ofending, while improving mental and physical health
and keeping families safe.
[22]
5.5 Cutting social care is contradictory
This government, like the previous government, claims to be shifting
power and control into the hands of disabled people and families
through the use of individual (or personal) budgets. However the
reality is that the very budgets that are being transferred directly to
citizens are being slashed.
Tis reality of government policy contradicts its own rhetoric:
Instead of increasing the economic power and status of disabled people, government
policy will reduce that power.
Instead of strengthening families, government policy will leave families weaker.
Instead of promoting prevention and local resilience, government policy will increase
isolation, crisis and expensive institutional services.
[23]
5.6 The human cost is dreadful
As the cuts are implemented, and as the cumulative impact focuses
increasingly on disabled people with the greatest needs the human cost
grows.
Here are just a few examples of what the cuts mean, from one of the local campaigns
that support the Campaign for a Fair Society - Dont Cut Us Out in West Sussex:
[24]
Susie Rowbottom, a 41-year old lady with Downs Syndrome has seen her support
slashed to levels which are endangering her health.
Elizabeth Parker is 93, lives alone, is severely arthritic and profoundly deaf, but she
has now lost the care support from West Sussex County Council because she is no
longer eligible.
Tony Munn has limited mobility and must carry an oxygen cylinder wherever he
goes and susceptible to blackouts and periods of deep depression, but is judged
to have only moderate disabilities and will lose all benets and care support
currently provided by West Sussex County Council.
Tese cuts do not just fall on other people they will harm your neighbours, your friends
and your families. If you should lose your job or acquire a disability they will fall on you.

A FAIR SOCIETY? | 6. WHY THE CUTS TARGET
28
6. Why the cuts target
The government did not declare its intention to target disabled
people or people in poverty. In fact it claimed, on the contrary,
that it aimed to impose cuts in a way that would be fair. So it
is impossible to be sure why the cuts do target the very groups
that one would expect a decent society to protect.
A number of factors may have played a part:
6.1 The government may be confused
Often senior politicians and civil servants are surprisingly ignorant of
the consequences of their own actions. It may be, for example, that
they simply do not know that about 60% of local authority expenditure
is for social care for children and adults. Some may not even know what
social care is for, or they may think it is provided by the NHS.
6.2 Pandering to electoral interests
Politicians of all parties focus their primary attention on swing-voters
and the issues that gain a lot of media attention. It is noticeable that
the NHS, which is often treated as a point of vulnerability for politicians
with the media, is not facing the same cuts, despite the greater
efciency of benets and social care at producing social benets.
6.3 Demonisation of disabled people
Worryingly it may be that politicians welcome the opportunity to target
groups that some in the media, and in the general public, fear or
dislike.
For example, false or misleading information about beneft fraud is rife and seems to be
rooted in intentionally miselading briefngs by the DWP.
[25]
As Figure 8 shows,
Tax fraud is 15 times the level of benet fraud and
Unclaimed benets is 17 times the level of benet fraud (this gure might arguably
be treated as government fraud as it is a function of the obscurity and complexity of
a benets system that often fails to enable people to get what they are entitled to).
Government cuts are 22 times the level of benet fraud.
HOW THE CUTS TARGET DISABLED PEOPLE | 6. WHY THE CUTS TARGET
29
FIGURE 8. Fraud and the benet system
6.4 Pinning the blame elsewhere
If the public does not understand the degree to which local spending is
controlled by central government then they may blame local politicians
for decisions made in Whitehall.
[26]

6.5 Disguising the cuts in 'reforms'
Many of the cuts in benets are being hidden within technical changes
made to tax, tax credit and benets systems. This means they can be
hard to identify and easier to justify as technical change or 'reform'.
Changes in the way in which benets are uprated are a good example
of a change which few people fully understand but whose long-term
consequences are devastating.
6.6 Design aws in the welfare state
It is also possible to distinguish a certain pattern to the cuts. As Table 6
suggests, the cuts have been targeted in those areas that are the least
likely to cause embarrassment to politicians in central government. The
fact that these are the areas that are likely to be most socially damaging
does not appear to have any signicant weight with policy makers.
Beneft fraud = 1 bn.
Cuts in benefts = 22 bn.
Total cost of benefts & pensions = 180 bn.
Tax fraud = 15 bn.
Unclaimed entitlements = 17 bn.
Net impact of benefts & pensions = 25 bn.
A FAIR SOCIETY? | 6. WHY THE CUTS TARGET
30
More likely to be protected if More likely to be targeted if
no stigma associated with services services or recipients are stigmatised
perceived as mainstream or universal
services
means-tested services that are perceived
as only being relevant to a minority
centrally controlled and ofering prestige
to national leaders
locally controlled, where responsibility for
cuts can be blamed on others
clear lines of accountability back to
Whitehall
complex and obscure with overlapping
sources of funding
TABLE 6. Factors that seem to determine targeting of cuts
Tis analysis suggests that, while there may be a certain degree of prejudice against people
in poverty and disabled people at work in the targeting of the cuts, the real reason may
be structural. Te current design of the welfare system seems to lead to some parts of the
welfare system being scapegoated and targeted for cuts, while other parts are protected.
Tis would also explain why the only other signifcant targeting of cuts has been on the
very well-of, for example the cut in Child Beneft for the wealthy. Tis is further indicates
that what we are seeing is so much an attack by the rich on people in poverty, but rather it
is the weakening of our shared commitment to the principles of a universal welfare state,
one that ofers support to everyone.
It seems that the political desire to pander to swing voters and to the middle is
probably the most corrosive factor in the decline of our collective welfare security. It is for
this very reason that the Campaign for a Fair Society is working to promote a modernised
welfare state, that is both universal and empowering - properly refecting our shared
human rights.
However, whatever the explanation for these cuts, what is certainly true is that the full
extent of these cuts - their severity and their unfairness - is not widely understood. Te
cuts will mount in severity year on year, until at least 2014-15 and the long-term damage
caused by income inequality, deepening poverty and social exclusion will grow greater
over next few years. Even if there is a change in government, there is still no reason to
expect any change in policy beyond 2015 unless there is a more fundamental rethink by
policy makers and political leaders and a new level of self-discipline within the political
process itself.
It is politics, not economics, that has caused the targeting of disabled people for cuts.
HOW THE CUTS TARGET DISABLED PEOPLE | 7. WHAT WE SHOULD DO
31
7. What we should do
The government has made many optimistic assumptions
about the impact of its decit reduction plans and its reform
of the welfare system. However, even if we were to share that
optimism, and assume that economic growth will be restored
and that incentives for work will increase earnings for some,
there can still be no doubt that:
Poverty will deepen for many, and overall income inequality
will increase.
Lack of care and support for people with moderate needs will
increase the number of crises and the cost of support for the
smaller number of people eligible for support.
Te consequence of these changes will be felt in increased social unrest and increased
costs and pressures in other parts of society and the welfare system. Creating savings in
the wrong way will lead to increased costs elsewhere.
[27]
If the government is wrong and growth is not restored and unemployment continues to
grow 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 unfair targeting of the cuts on people in poverty and
disabled people, should cease.
2. There should be a radical review of all the proposals in the light of the human rights
of disabled people and the requirement for fairness and equal treatment for all.
3. Instead of these unfair cuts, wrongly called reforms, there should be a genuine efort
to reform the current system - the Campaigns Manifesto for a Fair Society describes
how this could be achieved.
In particular, the Campaign believes that, instead of disparaging human rights, our
political leaders should be working with civil society, disabled people and others to
build a welfare system which is underpinned by human rights. Te current system falls
well short of this international standard, and the current failure to implement cuts fairly
underlines our failure to respect human rights and the social obligations they entail.
A FAIR SOCIETY? | 7. WHAT WE SHOULD DO
32
THE CAMPAIGN WANTS A NEW WELFARE SYSTEM,
ONE THAT WORKS FOR EVERY CITIZEN:
1. Human rights - not just services
2. Clear entitlements - not confusion
3. Early support - not crisis
4. Equal access - not institutional care
5. Choice & control - not dependence
6. Fair incomes - not insecurity
7. Fair taxes - not injustice
8. Financial reform - an afordable system
More information about the Campaign is available at
www.campaignforafairsociety.org
Manifesto for
a Fair Society
2012
HOW THE CUTS TARGET DISABLED PEOPLE | CONCLUSION
33
Conclusion
The UK is in the midst of a serious nancial crisis created by
over-lending to home owners by our nancial institutions.
This is an economic bubble that has not yet burst. The UK
government has taken successive measures to borrow more
money to resolve this problem, creating further national debt.
For political reasons, the costs of this debt is primarily being paid by people in
poverty, by disabled people and by other vulnerable groups. As we have explained:
People in poverty are targeted 5 times more than most other citizens
Disabled people are targeted 9 times more
People with the severest needs are targeted 19 times more
Although there are many reasons for the unfairness of the way in which these cuts have
been targeted the most important seems to be a failure in the political process to respect
human rights and the need for a universal welfare system - which benefts everyone.
What is even more concerning is that the current sense of economic panic and concern
is leading to increased stigmatisation of disabled people and people in poverty. A wealthy,
twenty-frst century society, is increasingly beginning to sound uncivilised. Blaming the
poor for poverty and stigmatising disabled people is the kind of rhetoric that led in the
1920s. and 1930s to the worst kinds of eugenics, terrors and inhumanities. All of this is
not only wrong, it is wrong-headed. It will not solve our eoncomic problems and it will
not create the kind of fair 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 and
people in poverty. Furthermore, if picking on vulnerable minority groups for electoral
advantage is seen as a successful strategy, then even a change in government may make
no diference. We need our political leaders to refect 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 faces a signifcant challenge. Charities, voluntary organisations and
service providers used to provide some protection for the most vulnerable and could
force politicians to face uncomfortable realities. Today we see very little resistance
from 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 for these
organisations to take their courage in both hands and to remember why they really exist.
For those of us who do want to resist then it is clear we have much still to do. Te
public do not know the facts and do not understand what is really happening. We have
not yet made a break through and genuine resistance is fragmented and can too narrowly
focused. We have not yet helped people understand the whole picture or why these
problems should matter to every citizen of the United Kingdom,
Tis report has been written to help our political leaders, journalists and the general
public face reality. Te facts are clear - the cuts target those with greatest need. Te
question for our society is: Do we care?

A FAIR SOCIETY? | BACKGROUND INFORMATION
34
Background information
Te category disabled people is broad, it includes many diferent groups including:
Older people who need help and support
People with long-term health conditions
People with learning difculties
People with mental health issues
People with physical impairments
People with neurological impairments
People on the Autism spectrum who may describe themselves as neurodiverse
People with sensory impairments
People who are deaf
Many other groups of people whose impairments, when combined with social
structures, face barriers to independent living
Disabled people face many barriers and disadvantages, especially because society is
not organised to support their full involvement and contribution to ordinary life.
Older people who need support and disabled people are much more likely to live
in poverty. When the extra costs of being a disabled person are taken into account,
47.5% of families with disabled people in the household, live in poverty.
[28]
People who want to work cannot access work (7% of people with learning difculty
work - 65% want to work). Only 50% of disabled people of working age are in work,
compared with 80% of non disabled people of working age.
[29]
Disabled people ofcially constitute only 6% of formal volunteers and around 4.3% of
public appointments across Britain. This is compared to 20% of the population as a
whole.
[30]
17% of disabled adults experience restrictions in their learning opportunities
compared with 9% of non disabled adults. 23% of disabled people have no
qualications compared to 9% of non disabled people.
[31]
45% of households with at least one disabled person living in them are unable to
aford expenses or make loan repayments. This compares with 29% of households
without any disabled people.
74% of disabled adults experience restrictions in using transport compared with 58%
of non disabled adults.
12% of disabled adults experience difculty accessing rooms within their home or
difculty getting in or out of their home, compared with 1% of non disabled adults.
29% of disabled adults experience a restriction to accessing buildings outside their
home [including not being able to visit friends or family] compared with 7% of adults
without impairments.
Disabled people often lose their homes or cannot access real homes of their own.
Disabled people are subject to hate crimes and abuse, encouraged by
institutionalisation. Older people are more than 10 times likely to be abused in
residential care than in their own home.
[32]
92% of unborn children with Downs Syndrome are aborted in the UK.
[33]
HOW THE CUTS TARGET DISABLED PEOPLE | BACKGROUND INFORMATION
35
By the age of 26, young disabled people are three times more likely than other
young people to agree with the statement whatever I do has no real efect on what
happens to me.
[34]
Disabled people are carers too. Of the nearly two million people aged 16-74 in
England and Wales who were permanently sick or disabled according to the 2001
Census, over a quarter of a million provided some unpaid care for other people.
[35]
Disabled people are almost ten times more likely to report poor health than non-
disabled people.
[36]
A FAIR SOCIETY? |
36
References &
readings
Adam, S. (2012) Personal Tax and Benefts.
London, Institute of Fiscal Studies.
ADASS (2011) Budget Survey 2011
ADASS (2012) Budget Survey 2012
Alakeson, V. and Dufy, S. (2011) Health
Efciencies. Shefeld, Te Centre for Welfare
Reform.
Baumberg, B. (2012) Beneft Cuts, Welfare Reform
and Inequality. One Society.
Baumberg, B. Bell, K. & Gafney, D. with
Deacon, R. Hood, C. and Sage, D. (2012)
Benefts Stigma in Britain. London, Turn 2 Us.
Brown, M. (2011) Context for charging Financial
Challenges. CoSLA Community Care Charging
Listening Event (ADSW Resources Committee)
Burchardt, T. (2005) Te Education and
Employment of Disabled Young People:
Frustrated Ambition. York, JRF
Campaign for a Fair Society (2012) Manifesto for
a Fair Society. Shefeld, Te Centre for Welfare
Reform.
Carpenter, M. (2000) Charging with care: how
councils charge for home care. London, Te
Audit Commission
Citizen Advice Bureau (2010) Charities challenge
government over 16bn unclaimed benefts http://
www.citizensadvice.org.uk/press_ofce201022
(accessed 30th January 2012)
CIPFA (2011) Smart Cuts? Public spending on
childrens social care. London, NSPCC
Clements, L (2011) Social Care Law Developments:
A Sideways Look at Personalisation and
Tightening Eligibility Criteria. Elder Law volume
1, pp47-52.
Counsel and Care (2010) Care Home Fees: Paying
Tem in England. London, Counsel and Care
Cowen A. (2010) Personalised Transition. Shefeld,
Te Centre for Welfare Reform.
Crisp, Nigel. (2009) Turning the World Upside
Down. London, RSM Press
CSCI (2008) State of Social Care 2007-08. London,
CSCI
DH (Department of Health) (2010) Prioritising
need in the context of Putting People First: A
whole system approach to eligibility for social care
Guidance on Eligibility Criteria for Adult Social
Care, England 2010. London, DH
DRC (2006) Disability Agenda: Increasing
Participation and Active Citizenship
DWP (2010) 21st Century Welfare. London, DWP
DWP (2011a) Social Security Beneft Up-rating.
London, DWP
DWP (2011b) Beneft Tables. London, DWP
Dufy, S. (2010) Safety for Citizens: Personalisation
& Safeguarding. Shefeld, Te Centre for
Welfare Reform.
Dufy, S. & Fulton, K. (2010) Architecture for
Personalisation. Shefeld, Te Centre for
Welfare Reform.
Dufy S (2011a) Personalisation in social care
what does it really mean? Social Care and
Neurodisability, Vol. 2 No. 4 pp. 186-195
Dufy, S. (2011b) A Fair Income. Shefeld, Te
Centre for Welfare Reform.
Dufy, S. (2012a) Who Really Benefts from
Welfare? http://www.centreforwelfarereform.
org/library/by-az/who-really-benefts-from-
welfare.html (accessed 10th January 2013)
Dufy, S. (2012b) Real Localism. http://www.
centreforwelfarereform.org/library/by-az/real-
localism.html (accessed 10th January 2013)
Dufy, S. and Hyde, C. (2011) Women at the
Centre. Shefeld, Te Centre for Welfare
Reform.
EHRC (Equality and Human Rights Commission)
(2011) How Fair is Wales? London, EHRC
Harker, R. (2011) NHS funding and expenditure
(SN/SG/724) London, House of Commons
Library
Hutton, W. (2010) Tem and Us - Changing
Britain - Why We Need a Fair Society. London,
Abacus
Independent Living in Scotland (2009) Te
Essential Guide to Independent Living in
Scotland. Glasgow, Independent Living in
Scotland Project
Kane, D. and Allen, J. (2011) Counting the Cuts
Te impact of cuts on the UK voluntary and
community sector. London, NCVO.
Kennedy, S (2012) Welfare Reform Update.
London, House of Commons Library.
HOW THE CUTS TARGET DISABLED PEOPLE | REFERENCES & READINGS
37
Law Commission (2008) Adult Social Care
Scoping Report. London, Law Commission
Morris, J. K. and Alberman, E. (2009) Trends
in Downs syndrome live births and antenatal
diagnoses in England and Wales from 1989 to
2008: analysis of data from the National Down
Syndrome Cytogenetic Register. British Medical
Journal (BMJ 2009;339:bmj.b3794)
Murray, P. (2011) A Fair Start. Shefeld, Te
Centre for Welfare Reform.
National Audit Ofce (2010) Report by the
Comptroller and Auditor General of 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:
Tis time its personal.
ONS (Ofce for 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:
Te Global Credit Bubble and its Economic
Consequences. McKinsey Global Institute.
Taylor-Gooby, P. and Stoker, G. (2011) Te
Coalition Programme: A New Vision for Britain
or Politics as Usual? Te Political Quarterly, Vol.
82, No. 1, JanuaryMarch 2011
Te Treasury (2010) Spending Review 2010.
London, Te Treasury
Te Treasury (2011) Spending Review 2011
London, Te Treasury
University of Leeds (2007) Valuing Carers
calculating the value of unpaid care. London,
Carers UK
Whittaker, K. (2011) Personalisation in a Time of
Cuts. http://www.centreforwelfarereform.org/
library/by-az/personalisation-in-a-time-of-cuts.
html (accessed 10th January 2013)
Wilkinson, R. & Pickett, K. (2010) Te Spirit
Level. London, Penguin
Wood, C and Grant, E. (2010) Destination
Unknown. London, Demos
A FAIR SOCIETY? |
38
Notes
The statistics used in this report
build on earlier work published by
the Campaign for a Fair Society.
The diference between these
gures and those in our earlier
work is primarily that in these
gures we have taken full account
of the government's predictions
for growth. In the earlier reports
we focused on only the cuts in
cash terms. This is why, instead
of 25%, we have now calculated
that 15% of all cuts fall on people
with the most severe disabilities.
Clearly the essential injustice of
the cuts has not changed.
[1] This analysis is based upon the 2010 CSR.
The revenue and capital gures have been
combined and benets data has been added
from other government sources (data on
benets is excluded from the CSR). The
government has made some minor changes
to the original 2010 CSR, however there has
been no opportunity to revise the gures in
the light of these changes and the changes are
not signicant enough to make any diference
to the overall analysis of this brieng paper.
For another independent analysis that reaches
similar conclusions see Taylor-Gooby and
Stoker (2011).
[2] By 2011 the planned cuts to benets were
at 18 billion. The Autumn Statement 2012
announced further reductions in uprating and
changes to the design of Universal Credit that
would save a further amount of approximately
4 billion. So by 2015 the target saving is 22
billion. The fact that worsening economic
circumstances will almost inevitably mean that
the actual gross spend will not meet its target,
for more people will be reliant on benets,
is no comfort; for the value of these benets
and the overall level of income inequality and
poverty will be much greater than it would
have been.
[3] For obvious reasons the cost of nancial
crisis measures has been excluded from the
calculation of the total cuts. In principle it
would be interesting to see this analysed in
distributional terms. Efectively it would seem
to be a huge subsidy to banks and, indirectly,
to those who took out large and unsustainable
loans on their property. That is, it would
appear to be a further subsidy to homeowners
- and therefore, not people in poverty. However
we have not pursued this matter here.
[4] As we also know there is a signicant regional
redistribution of harm from the cuts. See
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/
interactive/2012/nov/14/local-authority-
cuts-map However for this analysis we have
not tried to capture the fact that, broadly
speaking, the North has been cut much more
than the South.
[5] The data on local authority expenditure in
England is taken form the useful report by
Chartered Institute of Public Finance and
Accountancy (CIPFA) the NSPCC - Smart Cuts?
[6] See ADASS Budget Survey 2011, report
produced by Directors of Adult Social Services
[7] See ADASS Budget Survey 2012, report
produced by Directors of Adult Social Services
[8] See CIPFA (2011)
[9] As part of the 2010 Spending Review the
government announced extra spending for
social care and this statement continues to be
used by the media. However it is extremely
misleading. The money that it described as
new (the Adult Personal Social Services Grant
PSS Grant) is not new. It is the same money
that was described in the 2007 letter by the
Director General of Social Care and which has
been provided to local government for many
years. This PSS Grant does not provide any for
social care; in fact the only innovation is that
this money (which is only about 5% of the
whole social care budget) is now fully pooled
into the general funding of local government.
This tiny transfer from the Department of
Health to local government can be used to
reduce Council Tax bills or mend roads, it does
not need to be spent on disabled people.
[10] See Kane and Allen (2011)
[11] See ADASS (2011)
[12] See ADASS (2011)
[13] See ADASS (2011), note that these levels
are technical terms that are dened by the
ironically titled policy Fair Access to Care
Services (FACS). For instance, if you live in an
area where eligibility is set at Critical then
this means you will NOT be entitled to care
HOW THE CUTS TARGET DISABLED PEOPLE | NOTES
39
even if: (a) you have only partial choice and
control over your immediate environment, or
(b) you have been abused or neglected, or you
will be abused or neglected, or (c) you cannot
carry out the majority of your personal care or
domestic routines, or (d) you cannot sustain
involvement in work, education or learning,
or (e) you cannot sustain the majority of your
social supports and relationships, or (f) you
cannot full the majority of your family roles
or other social roles. As the Campaign for a Fair
Society have argued, the current system was
already prone to respond only in a crisis, the
current cuts worsen this problem.
[14] See Kennedy (2012)
[15] See Adam (2012)
[16] See Wilkinson and Pickett (2010) for a full
analysis of inequality in the UK and the social
problems associated with income inequality.
[17] See Kennedy (2012) and Adam (2012)
[18] See DWP (2011b)
[19] See Dufys A Fair Income (2011b) and also
the essay Who Really Benets from Welfare?
(2012a)
[20] See Wilkinson and Pickett (2010)
[21] See Alakeson and Dufys Health Efciencies
(2011)
[22] Dufy and Hydes Women at the Centre
(2011)
[23] See Whittakers Personalisation in a Time of
Cuts (2011)
[24] For these and many other stories go to:
http://www.dontcutusout.org.uk
[25] For example, 1 in 5 people believe a
majority of claims are false, while 14% believe
a majority of claims are fraudulent. The
Governments own statistics indicate an actual
fraud rate of around 1%. See Baumberg et
al. (2012) For data on the diferent types of
fraud and references see the Manifesto for a
Fair Society 2012. For misinformation on local
government nance see Pickles (2013) who
said English local government accounts for 1
of every 4 spent on public services. It spends
114 billion thats twice the defence budget
and more than the NHS. This incredible and
misleading gure is only possible by including
Education and other funding streams over
which local authorities have no meaningful
control.
[26] See Dufys essay Real Localism (2012b) for
an analysis of the ways in which the welfare
system distorts the relationship between local
and central government.
[27] Wilkinson and Pickett argue persuasively
that high levels of inequality reduce well-
being even for those who are better of and
also increase social problems which then
lead to higher levels of compensatory public
spending (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2010)
[28] See Wood and Grant, 2010
[29] See ONS, 2009
[30] See DRC, 2006
[31] See ONS, 2009
[32] See Dufy, 2010
[33] See Morris & Alberman, 2009
[34] See Burchardt, 2005
[35] See EHRC, 2011
[36] See EHRC, 2011
published by The Centre for Welfare Reform
design: henry iles & associates / [email protected]

A Fair Society 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Fair Society 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Fair Society 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A fair society?

How the cuts target disabled people

You might also like