Challenge change to PIP mobility for people with mental illnesses

The government is planning to restrict access to Enhanced Rate Mobility PIP, blocking people who experience "severe psychological distress" from qualifying on those grounds.

Labour are challenging this, as are a group of Lords (I think).

If you want to encourage your MP to challenge this change, please email them. You can find your MP here: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mps/

The text of my letter is below - you don't have to use it, it's just there in case it's helpful.

I'll be calling my MP's constituency office tomorrow as this is a time-sensitive thing, to ask if your MP is able to challenge this change. Emails can take a while to be read, and a call will help get it seen!


Dear My MP

The recent government decision to refuse Enhanced Rate PIP to people who can't travel outside alone because of severe psychological distress directly contradicts one of the reasons we were originally told DLA was outdated and needed to be replaced.

In the DLA to PIP consultation, it was noted that people qualifying for Higher Rate Mobility tended to be people with physical conditions, and this was to the detriment of people with mental or cognitive reasons for being unable to travel alone.

This was included during the October 2013 government response to the consultation on PIP (Moving around activity).

"4.3

When developing the Mobility criteria, we were aware that although DLA includes deeming provisions which award the higher rate Mobility component to claimants who are deaf blind, severely visually impaired and severely mentally impaired, the higher rate Mobility component is predominantly awarded to claimants with physical mobility difficulties only. The DLA lower rate Mobility component has been awarded to those individuals who require guidance or supervision outdoors. This means that many claimants with mental, intellectual and cognitive impairments do not receive DLA higher rate Mobility, despite facing significant barriers to mobility and therefore to independent living.

 The PIP Mobility component has been designed to reflect the impact of impairments on an individual's ability to get around, regardless of whether it has a physical or non-physical root cause. The Government was aware that this approach would mean a reprioritisation of finite resources and those individuals with a physical health condition or impairment would be more likely to see a reduction in the mobility support they receive relative to those with non-physical impairments requiring support for moving around." (my emphasis)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/251631/pip-mobility-consultation-government-response.pdf

This was also referenced during Steven Sumpter's court case where he unsuccessfully challenged the consultation process.

What was also raised during the case, by the DWP's barrister was:

"126
i) So far as assistance with mobility was concerned, the policy intention was to treat those with physical impairments and those with non-physical impairments equally."

in reference to the 2012 consultation on reforming DLA. 
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/2434.htm

Now according to reports in the FT & Morning Star we are being expected to accept a change where people with non-physical conditions aren't deemed to be disabled enough to need support outdoors?

(referring to: https://www.ft.com/content/2b3a7aa8-faa8-11e6-9516-2d969e0d3b65)

Anxiety disorders and other conditions that cause "severe psychological distress" are incredibly disabling, and not easily mitigated for. The financial support and stability enhanced rate PIP provides will help meet extra costs incurred as a result of struggling to leave the house, and acts as a passporting benefit indicating that individual as being significantly impaired by their condition.

Please challenge this change. It is cruel, and further shows up the change from DLA to PIP as being more about cutting costs than about better spreading the welfare budget around.

Please can you raise this with the relevant Minister?

According to the FT article Labour members are looking to challenge this this week, please feel free to forward this email on whereever it might be of use.

Yours sincerely

UK Disability inequality enquiry required

I've just written a quick letter to my MP asking that Theresa May conduct an enquiry into the inequalities disabled people face.

This is the text of my letter - I'd encourage you to write to your MPs also, feel free to use my letter as a guide, but it's not particularly great so it's probably better if you write your own.

Dear My MP

I'm glad to see Theresa May announce plans to examine racial inequality within the UK. 

I'd also like to see her looking at how disabled people fare in the UK currently, would she consider a similar process to look at the impacts of government policies on disabled people?

I understand the UN is currently examining the government's treatment of disabled people as potentially breaching their human rights obligations, so it may feel like overkill for the government to also conduct research into the same area. However, the government has persistently refused to acknowledge how much damage their policies has done to disabled people.

Disabled people are most likely to be living under the poverty line, to be digitally excluded, to be under-employed, to be struggling to participate in society. The only line we get from the current government is that they seek to improve the potential for disabled people to get into work. This ignores those for whom work is unrealistic, those who can only work part time so will always have a limited income, those disabled people who have caring responsibilities, and the fact that not all problems disabled people have will be fixed by getting a job! 

Please could you ask Theresa May if she would look at researching inequalities faced by disabled people in the realms of social inclusion, education including further and higher education, access to public services, access to healthcare, access to employment, the effects of central government cuts to council funding on social care, and access to housing? And if she isn't willing to open such an enquiry, given the level of inequality disabled people experience, how can she justify not doing so? 

Yours sincerely etc

Editing to add:

You can find your MP via http://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/contact-your-mp/

The reason I suggest this rather than set up a government petition is, petitions asking for government action on disability inequality have in the past struggled to get signatures. If you ask your MP to ask a specific question of another MP, they're obliged to do so.

Petitions are great for popular issues, but, here's the irony of the whole thing, disability inequality isn't a popular issue - yet another inequality disabled people face! So I need you to make the effort to write to your MP personally.

You don't have to support them, you don't have to have voted for them, you just need to live in their constituency.

Thanks for your time,

Robin

Access to Work - the government's in charge of another car crash

The government is actively making decisions that make it harder for disabled people to find and stay in work.

This, despite their rhetoric of work being good for you.

You'd think a government scheme that brings in £1.48 for each £1.00 spent on it (ref. 1 below) would be a flagship scheme, widely trumpeted and funded to the gills. But no, Access to Work, a fantastic scheme, that met the costs linked to meeting disabled people's access needs so they wouldn't disadvantage either employer or employee is being screwed around with, and is turning into a car crash.

Disabled workers are being made to wait 6 months upwards for decisions on whether the scheme will cover their needs. For some, this is too long, and people are having to leave jobs before decisions are made.

Previously, Access to Work was administered from multiple regional offices. Individuals would be linked to a specific advisor, who would understand the detail of their conditions, work, and requirements. This meant less admin time for both worker and government employee as explaining every last detail of work roles, conditions, and needs only needed to happen once.

Now, those regional offices have been closed, and a smaller number of central offices have opened. Those experienced in the system have lost work, and new staff have been employed. Workers no longer have a dedicated advisor, so have to go into minute detail every time they contact the AtW office. Hours can be lost to repeated phone calls - all time spent on admin that a non-disabled worker doesn't have to do. And all costing taxpayers' - our - money, as an inefficiency has been added to the system.

I have a small amount of self employed work as a printmaker. I need to go to art fairs to sell my work - just relying on internet sales isn't enough. I am medically unfit to drive, so need to take my work - including framed prints up to 60cm square - on the bus, or in taxis. I struggle to lift and carry heavy items, so need help with this.

Formerly, AtW would help with taxi costs (within reason) to get to fairs, and a support worker, to help with physical tasks I can't manage. Bear in mind this is stuff a non-disabled person could do alone. However, recently AtW are asking for proof I have a profitable business before they'll consider me eligible for support.

How many self-employed people turn a profit in the first couple of years of operation?

I am only taking the same risks that a non-disabled person might take, but to have my access costs funded, I'm being asked to prove I'm paying NI and turning a profit immediately. To do that, I need to get to fairs, to expose my work to the public. To do that, I need support to get to those fairs. To get that support to got those fairs I need to apply to AtW. And if I cover the the support myself, I'm having to earn half as much again before I turn a profit because 50% of my earnings would go on access support... You see the Catch 22?

Access to Work should be more widely available and better funded. It can really act to remove barriers to work for disabled people, and secondarily creates employment through both the infrastructure of the scheme, and through the employment of trainers, mentors, support workers and interpreters.

I strongly believe if there is any contraction in the Access to Work scheme the government is both shooting itself in the foot as fewer disabled people will be able to stay in work, and will be making yet another decision that actively worsens conditions for a group of people who already face systemic discrimination.

The government can choose to act to remove barriers to work for disabled people here. Challenging systemic discrimination should not be falling on the shoulders of those who already carry the burden both of that discrimination, and live lives that carry the challenges of impairment. As a government, you have the capability to lift that burden significantly, and not to do so is to shirk your duty. Those who have been placed in power by the country should use that power to better the lot of those with the least, and disabled people are amongst those both with the least, and who will struggle the most to change their own situations.

Ref. 1: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/49779/sayce-report.pdf

Steroid & anaesthetic injections in hips

I had steroid and anaesthetic injections in both hips just before Christmas to try and reduce the burning nerve pain I have down the outside of my legs, and to make it clearer whether the pain I have is coming from my hips or back (or both, and to make it clear what is coming from where.)

Before the procedure I was given very little information, and nothing I could find online was particularly clear or detailed. My main anxiety was down to this lack of information. I knew it was a common procedure with low complication rates, and that if it didn't help, it was unlikely to make things worse.

A friend's sister is having the same jab, but in a different place, and wanted a bit of info, so I sent the following as an email. It seemed sensible to put that here so maybe it will be useful for someone else, too.

The procedure was amazingly low discomfort - so much that I'd not worry about getting my back done, and am thinking of asking about that.

I went in early in the morning, it's counted as day surgery, but it's not done with any sedation or anything, just local anaesthetic where the injection will be done. I was allowed to eat & drink as normal beforehand.

I walked into the theatre & hopped on the table, they swabbed my hips with iodine stuff and stuck sterile drapes over my midriff, with just two holes where they needed to get to the skin. They did the anaesthetic injection which was a little stingy using a thin & not very long needle. They did a couple of jabs of anaesthetic each side, using the same syringe & needle for each. 

A portable x-ray machine had been wheeled in shortly after I lay on the table. They took a first image, and they popped the first big injection in - it was a spinal needle, so 4-5cm long or so, with a cannula around it. They took another image to check it was in the right place, then took the needle out leaving the cannula in place. Then they attached a syringe to the cannula and popped the steroid / anaesthetic mix in, checking after it was all in with another x ray.

These were lowish dose x-rays, so several in the same day isn't a problem,

At one point there was a dull pressure ache down my thigh, as the steroid went in, but the whole thing was far less painful than anything my body does to me.  Each side took about 5 minutes maximum. 

When they had finished, the peeling off of the sterile drape was the most painful part, as the adhesive part of the drape gave me a free waxing >_<

After this, I was wheeled up to recovery, then to the obs ward to have a cup of tea & biscuit, and show the nurse I could walk - which I could.

I had no increased pain at all, it was like the burning in my legs was switched off. This is a good response, and some increased pain for a couple of days can be experienced. As the local wore off, before the steroid kicked in my hips were a little grumpy, but less than they had been.

 I went to the shop I do odd shifts at for my shift straight from the hospital, sitting on  hard chair thee for about 4 hours with no more than my regular pain.

 Pain wise, it's been 2 months now and my thighs sometimes have a bit of soreness, my hips ache a bit, but it's dialled right down, and has let me get a lot more exercise. I feel like it might be starting to wear off, annoyingly, but I need to see how it goes. I've not needed my crutches since the jabs, and have been able to reduce my tramadol intake by 1/3.

Overall, it's a very straight forward procedure, and although unpleasant, is IME less unpleasant than dental work and a lot less sore than the pain of trapped nerves.

DWP Consultation on PIP assessment - Moving Around activity

This is my response to the DWP's consultation on the Moving Around activity - specifically with regard to their plan to not automatically award Enhanced Rate to people who can only walk from 21 - 50m, with or without mobility aids.

It's not amazing, but I want it to be in public so the DWP can't try and claim no one was clearly against the distance reduction. 

Someone who can only walk 21-50 metres with a mobility aid does not have enough mobility to not need considerable support to live a full and independent life. The very use of a mobility aid often makes doing some things harder. I walk with crutches – automatically this means I can’t carry more than a very small amount of shopping, for example. Whilst they mean I can walk further than I could unaided, they also create an access barrier. On balance I find them worth that inconvenience, but that barrier is still very real, with real consequences.

Given access to schemes such as Motability are based on receiving higher rate DLA, and then Enhanced Rate PIP, people who have a small amount of mobility will be severely impeded by losing access to those schemes.

The DWP itself has estimated some 90,000 people will lose their Motability eligibility – which includes the hire of powerchairs, so that really is causing people to lose their means of mobility.

Many people can’t drive precisely because of their impairment. If public transport is inaccessible to people because of distance to stops / stations, or not being able to get on trains or tubes, or buses causing pain or nausea or sensory overload, the only alternative is to take taxis. Taxis are expensive, so without access to adequate benefit payment – which Enhanced PIP would provide – taxi journeys would be out of of reach for people on Standard Rate.

If people need to use taxis to get around £20 won’t pay for more than 2 or 3 cab journeys, if you’re lucky. Which will see people who need to travel having to decide between which to travel to - GP, hospital appointments, adult education, the Jobcentre, voluntary work, - heaven forefend disabled people should want a social life and to see friends or family!

21-50 metres is not far enough to get to many bus stops, or from one’s front door to a local corner shop, or between benches on a high street.

To get to work many people – including disabled people – need to get from public transport to their place of work. For how many people is this less than 50m? I suspect not many. For me, it’s a 180m walk. Taxis can’t get to all workplaces so Access to Work isn’t necessarily going to be able to meet people’s transport assistance needs.

Supermarkets are bigger than a 21-50m walk to get around. Bus stops near supermarkets tend to be more than 20m away from the front door. The assumption that everyone has access to a car to get them to a supermarket is deeply flawed.

Many disabled people need to have shopping delivered. The cumulative delivery costs of shopping online for the bulk of one’s needs shouldn’t be a burden on disabled people. The point of benefits like DLA / PIP is to mitigate these extra costs. If it is only a small sum, there’s no way it’ll stretch to meet all of these extra costs. Someone with mobility as restricted as only being able to walk up to 50m is likely to also have trouble standing for extended periods – problems queuing are difficult to mitigate. Problems carrying shopping means often having to rely on other people to carry things for you – which if someone lacks support of people who can do this, means needing to pay people to do this.

Being unable to walk less than 50m even with an aid, should qualify someone automatically for Enhanced Rate PIP.

I will go further. Being unable to manage 100m should continue to be the distance at which it is considered someone’s mobility is considerably impaired. That is far enough to hobble to a corner shop & back, over to a post box & back, or from a bus stop to a shopping centre’s wheelchair hire office. Being effectively tied to one’s house by a piece of string 50m long (because you have to get there AND BACK) is incredibly restrictive. If that piece of string is cut down to 10m, that’s only to the garden gate. That is cruel, and is going to further restrict disabled people who are already living lives restricted by pain, fatigue and immobility.

There is a choice now with PIP. Choose to enable people living with impairments, or to further disable those people. A government that actively creates policies that worsen the lives of disabled people is inhumane and cruel.

I also want to add when I responded to the PIP criteria before, 20 metres distance was nowhere to be seen – this late addition consultation should never have been needed. Again, this adds a burden to disabled people, requiring us to repeatedly consult.

New Bus for London - an emblem of Boris Johnson's contempt for disabled people?

The New Bus for London / New Routemaster has been chugging around selected London routes, boiling its top-deck passengers and irritating me every time I see one.

I loved the old Routemasters, but I also appreciated that they'd done their job and needed to be retired. They weren't comfortable to travel on, and if you had luggage / shopping / a buggy / were a wheelchair users / had impaired mobility / long legs... etc etc they were either less than ideal or totally inaccessible.

As a bus designed from scratch, the New Bus for London could have been designed with all of London's passengers in mind. Instead it seems to be a step backwards in accessibility terms. Design choices have been made that are active barriers for some disabled people.

The wheelchair user's space has been designed with, seemingly, only smaller manual wheelchair users in mind. Handrails have been put in awkward spaces, and it's just not big enough for larger powerchair users.

The destination blinds are in white-on-black, which goes against TfL's own standards for legibility.  When I asked about this choice, I got the following response:

"Black and white blinds were chosen when designing the New Bus for London as these are in keeping with the traditions of the original iconic Routemaster bus, which partly inspired the design of the bus and its front and rear profile. They provide information in a format that is clear and legible for passengers, particularly at night when it is back lit.

As it meets legibility standards for contrast and visibility, no consultation was required" (my highlighting)

Most guidance I can find on legibility says yellow text on black provides best contrast for visually impaired readers, and the response from TfL contradicts the earlier information on TfL's legibility standards.

To me, this seems like a backsliding of access provision - a choice of style over readability for a wider group of people, and as such is a discriminatory choice.

This, combined with the decisions around the space for wheelchair users being less than ideal (and again, worse than existing spaces on other buses) makes me feel like the design team for this bus and Boris Johnson as the figurehead of this project, don't care about disabled people being able to travel around London, and are happy to actively place barriers in people's way.

How do Tories actually "help the most vulnerable in society"

The Independent Living Fund was a scheme whereby people with high levels of care needs were enabled to live independently, in their own homes rather than in residential care, through personal care being funded from central government.

Local councils have a responsibility to provide care for residents who have care needs, but in reality many councils are rationing this care and only providing it to those in the most desperate need - and then, only providing the minimum required. So someone who isn't incontinent, for example, may be put in nappies overnight rather than fund a personal assistant to assist that person with toileting.

Some councils are also looking at putting people into residential care if it would be cheaper to care for them there rather than in the community. (http://www.worcesterstandard.co.uk/2013/01/01/news-Legal-challenge-over-council%27s-care-cap-59039.html) The ILF has previously been used to top up people's care funding meaning disabled people could continue to live in the community.

Yes, it is councils' responsibility to provide social care, but the Coalition knows councils have shrinking budgets - they're the government providing those bloody shrinking budgets to the councils! All they're doing is going "Not my problem" about everything, and shoving it all onto other people's budgets.

I think the Tories hide behind "localism", and know people will suffer as tasks fall to different regions to legislate, when dealing with some things nationally is realistically the only way to ensure fair access to those things.

There are many people supported by the ILF - one woman is someone I know through work, Sophie Partridge, who has put a video together voicing her concerns.




Further discussions with people affected by closure of ILF: http://falseeconomy.org.uk/blog/people-affected-by-the-closure-of-the-independent-living-fund

The Independent Living Fund really did support some of those the Tories refer to as "the most vulnerable in society", people with incredibly complex care needs, who need 24 hour support. The Tories have closed it, and councils will be expected to pick up the tab, but the money is just not there.

How is this "supporting the most vulnerable"? As far as I can see it's just making those "most vulnerable" not their problem, passing the buck, handing over responsibility, and ultimately not giving a toss as long as their bottom line isn't affected.

Here is a letter from the DWP about the closure of the ILF:

"Thank you for your recent correspondence, raising issues arising from Government policies which are the responsibility of this Department. Government Ministers receive a large volume of correspondence and they are unable to reply personally on every occasion. I have been asked to respond to some of your points.

There are just over 19, 000 ILF users. There are approximately 13,000 users in England, 3,000 in Scotland, 2,000 in Wales and 750 in Northern Ireland. The average weekly ILF payment is £347. The most common use of ILF funding is to pay for personal assistants.

There are approximately 3,000 Group 1 users (joined pre-1993). While many Group 1 users receive some support from their local authority, this input is not part of their ILF eligibility criteria. There are approximately 16,000 Group 2 users (joined in or after 1993). Group 2 users have care packages which include a minimum contribution of £200 per week from their local authority.

94% of ILF users receive support from both the ILF and the local authority. Around 41% of these users receive direct payments from both the ILF and their local authority but under different eligibility and charging functions. Around 1, 200 ILF users do not have a known local authority contribution to their care package.

Having carefully considered all the responses to the consultation, the Government believes that closing the ILF in 2015, with funding devolved to local government in England and the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales, is the best way forward. The significant changes in the wider system of care and support for disabled people mean that the care and support needs of current ILF users can, and should, be met within a single cohesive system. It is not justifiable to continue to support those disabled people who were ILF users when the fund closed to new applications, in a different way from other disabled people with similar needs. I can reassure ILF users that the Government remains fully committed to maintaining current ILF user’s care packages up to April 2015.

We believe that individual local authorities are best placed to provide locally tailored funding and services integrated around individuals’ needs through direct payments and personal budgets. Local Authorities already have a statutory responsibility to assess and fund the care needs of all disabled people – those who have been ILF users and those who have not. Over 18,000 existing ILF users already receive expert assessment and a contribution to their care funding through their Local Authority and discretionary ILF payments and have never taken precedence over this. However, operating the ILF in addition to the mainstream care and support system has duplicated functions and created unnecessary bureaucracy for both users and local authorities."

I don't find that letter satisfactory. It offers absolutely no assurance that people will continue to get the support they need to continue to live their own lives as we all have the right to.

Response to Minister for Disabled People's letter of 17th November 2012

This is my response to this letter: http://misplacedmarbles.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/letter-from-esther-mcvey-dated-17th-nov.html

Dear Ms McVey,

Thank you for your reply to my letter dated 12/10/2012, on support for disabled people.

I'm glad to see you take on board the importance of ensuring disabled people have the right support in place, and in jobs that suit individual requirements. However, some of my points have not been addressed, so I feel the need to write back asking for clarification.

You haven't really addressed the point that there are some disabled people for whom work is not a realistic expectation.

There are those with life-limiting conditions who may not wish to spend their final months on Earth sitting in the Jobcentre chasing menial and minimum-wage work. There are people living with conditions that cause relentless chronic pain and fatigue where going to work would render them unable to do anything else, once back home.

People with profound and multiple impairments who require 24 hour care may wish to enter work with a lot of support, but pressure should not be put on people to enter the very competitive world of the "jobs market" when they can't compete on a level playing field.

Why are people who can't participate in the regular working world expected to live on a pittance, fighting a cruel system for every penny that is begrudgingly given, government who on the whole persist in selling the line that disabled people are scroungers? When MPs themselves commit far more fraud than benefit claimants (some 30% involved in the expenses fraud scandal, compared to 0.5% of benefit claimants.)

Given the closure of the Independent Living Fund which supported those who are so profoundly impaired they require 24 hour care, or would need to live in institutions, how can you even think of saying your government wants to help the most vulnerable? Council budgets are being slashed, social care is only going to those in desperate need, so what is going to replace the ILF?

Access to Work will clearly help those who are in work, with work-related costs. But for support with life outside work. PIP will have a smaller caseload, so there will be more disabled people going totally unsupported with daily living tasks. What are we supposed to do? What will the estimated 100,000 disabled people who lose Motability vehicles supposed to do? How will they remain independent, or if working, remain in work having lost their accessible transport?

I have heard the line "we have consulted extensively with disabled people and disabled people's organisations." before, but I'm having trouble believing it without seeing evidence.

thanks to an FOI request by Disabled People against the Cuts I found the following organisations were met with during PIP consultations, but very few had positive things to say:

1.  Action for ME;

2.  Action for Blind People

3.  Action on Hearing Loss;

4.  CALL Scotland;

5.  Capability Scotland;

6. Citizens Advice

7.  Centre for Mental Health;

8.  Child Poverty Action Group;

9.  Crohn’s and Colitis UK;

10. DIAL Peterborough;

11. Disability Action In Islington;

12. Disability Alliance;

13. Disability Lambeth;

14. Down’s Syndrome Association;

15. Dystonia Society;

16. Ecas;

17. Enfield Disability Association;

18. Essex  Coalition  of Disabled People;

19. Family Action;

20. Glasgow Centre for Inclusive Living;

21. Hackney Carers;

22. Hayfield Support Services with Deaf People;

---

23. Headway Glasgow;

24. Haemaphilia Society;

25. Inclusion Scotland;

26. Independent Living in Scotland Project;

27. Leonard Cheshire Disability;

28. Limbless  Association;

29. Lothian Centre for Inclusive Living;

30. Macmillan;

31. Margaret  Blackwood  Housing Association;

32. Mencap;

33. Middlesborough Welfare Rights Unit;

34. MS  Society;

35. Mind;

36. Momentum Scotland;

37. National AIDS Trust;

38. National Autistic Society;

39. National Deaf Children’s Society;

40. National  Rheumatoid  Arthritis Society;

41. National  Federation of the Blind;

42. Norfolk Coalition of Disabled People;

43. Parkinson’s UK;

44. Papworth Trust;

45. People First;

46. Poverty Alliance;

47. Quarriers;

48. Royal National Institute of Blind People;

49. Scottish Association for Mental Health;

50. Scope.

Courtesy of:  http://www.dpac.uk.net/2012/02/so-we-all-wanted-to-know-who-miller-and-the-slash-and-burn-gang-were-talking-to/

Of that list, the following organisations publicly do not approve of your reforms, having real concerns for how disabled people will fare if the reforms go through as planned.

Mencap: "Mencap’s chief executive, Mark Goldring, said: “We are extremely disappointed by the government's rejection of the Lord’s amendments, and failure to listen to the concerns of disabled people and their families."

http://www.mencap.org.uk/news/article/esa-time-limit-amendment-reversed

The RNIB: "This report adds to a growing evidence base that shows the Government cannot follow through on its Big Society agenda and its commitment to give disabled people control and independence by stripping away the very benefits and services that enable them to take part in our communities"

 

http://www.rnib.org.uk/getinvolved/campaign/yourmoney/welfarereform/Pages/MTMTE_report.aspx

Mind: "we are still very worried about the impact the introduction of the new assessment will have on people with mental health problems." "we remain unconvinced that the breadth and detail of activities to be considered is sufficient to properly capture the barriers to participation faced by people with mental health problems"

 

http://www.mind.org.uk/news/6011_mind_responds_to_new_pip_assessment

The National Autistic Society: "We are concerned about how the assessment will work for the new benefit, as well as about proposals for regular re-assessments."

 

http://www.autism.org.uk/en-gb/get-involved/campaign-for-change/campaigning-by-issue/work-and-benefits/campaigning-on-disability-living-allowance.aspx

Scope: "Scope warns that the government is in danger of repeating mistakes with its new benefit assessment.

The charity says that up to two million disabled people risk losing essential financial support because the new £6 billion Personal Independence Payment, introduced to replace Disability Living Allowance (DLA), will use a flawed eligibility assessment." 

http://www.scope.org.uk/news/benefit-assessments

Leonard Cheshire: "There have been some positive changes agreed in the Lords, but as the plans stand there are still real fears that many thousands of disabled people will be pushed into poverty and financial hardship if they are found ineligible for support through the new Personal Independence Payment"

 

http://www.lcdisability.org/?lid=21724

The National AIDS Trust: "NAT does not consider the proposed functional assessment a more accurate method for identifying disability-related needs than the existing DLA assessment" "NAT is extremely concerned that the reform process is being driven by a pre-determined 20% budget cut" "The decision to focus PIP on those with ‘greatest needs’ is also a move away from the principles of DLA"

http://www.nat.org.uk/media/Files/Policy/2011/NAT_submission_WPCommitteePIP_FINAL.pdf

Capability Scotland: "These amendments could be the difference between a family being able to heat their home and put food on the table and complete financial devastation.  Unfortunately the UK Government does not have a great track record on listening when it comes to Welfare Reform"

http://www.capability-scotland.org.uk/news-events/latest-news/capability-urges-westminster-to-listen-to-peers/

Joint response from Centre for Mental Health, Hafal, Mind, Rethink, The Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Scottish Association for Mental Health: "We do not support the objective of an overall reduction target for the basis of DLA reform – the reform should be based on supporting disabled people to lead fulfilling lives and not primarily concerned with reducing costs."

"We are concerned about the focus on those with ‘greatest need’ – this may be counterproductive and significantly disadvantage those eligible to lower rates of benefit, who may still have high disability costs."

http://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/DLA_Consultation_Response_CFMH_Hafal_Mind_Rethink_RCPsych_and_SAMH.docx 

Citizens Advice: "A benefits cap is just one of a number of welfare reforms that will have a disproportionate impact on some of the most vulnerable families, including children, breadwinners who have lost their job, and others forced to give up work because of illness The government is right to try and simplify a benefits system which is far too complex, but unless some safeguards are put in place the combined impact of these sweeping welfare reforms and huge cuts will be catastrophic for a lot of families already stretched to the limit."

http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/index/pressoffice/press_index/press_20120123.htm 

In addition, along with the Papworth Trust, these organisations have called for a pause to the Bill because their concerns are so severe:

Papworth Trust
Action on Hearing Loss
Brandon Trust
Campaign for a Fair Society
Disability Rights UK
Disability Wales
Ekklesia
Leonard Cheshire Disability
MS Society
The National Autistic Society
Rethink Mental Illness
RNIB
Sense
Three Cs
United Response
The Westminster Society

 

http://www.papworth.org.uk/news-detail.php?aid=280

Breast Cancer Care "Breast Cancer Care, along with other cancer charities, met with Maria Miller MP, Minister for Disabled People and DWP officials in July, to discuss the changes we wanted to make to the Welfare Reform Bill for the benefit of cancer patients. We provided case studies of people with breast cancer to the Minister’s office to demonstrate the possible negative impact of the changes if they go ahead." 

http://www.breastcancercare.org.uk/campaigning-volunteering/campaigning/current-campaigns/welfare-benefits/what-have-we-done-so-far

MS Society "The MS Society, along with other major charities, have today urged the Government to pause the Welfare Reform Bill and carefully consider the future of Disability Living Allowance" 

http://www.mssociety.org.uk/ms-news/2012/01/major-charities-call-pause-on-welfare-reform-bill


Sense "Sense is deeply concerned the Government’s decision to get rid of the automatic entitlement to DLA mobility component for deafblind people will leave many out in the cold and the needless bureaucracywill create confusion and cost the tax payer more. The Government’s short sighted focus on disabled people with solely higher needs means preventative support will be slashed. This financially irrational approach is not sustainable and will cut many deafblind people off from participating in society"

And as for your press office being open 24/7, maybe you need to tell your fellow MPs to check with them before talking to the media. Your own colleagues are using inaccurate statistics and wrong information - Ian Duncan Smith linking DLA with in-work benefits, when it isn't. Repeated use of the "30% growth in DLA" figure, which is inappropriate as it includes children and older adults - when PIP will only apply to working age people, so relevant growth is only about 14% when demographics are accounted for. Whenever a minister talks about fraud they use the 5 Billion punds figure - but that is fraud AND ERROR - Approx £1 Billion is claimed fraudulently and £4 Billion lost through DWP error! Add to that the £17 Billion UNDERCLAIMED, and the fraud figure pales into near insignificance. However I've not heard Ian Duncan Smith mention the huge amount underclaimed.

I look forward to your respone

Yours sincerely

Robin

Save Lewisham Hospital's A&E department

Lewisham Hospital's A&E is being threatened with closure. Not because it is failing - almost the reverse. It is doing really well, and has recently been renovated. No, because the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Woolwich is bankrupt, the administrator wants to close Lewisham to drive more business to the Queen Elizabeth, meaning they get more funding!

Lewisham Hospital serves a borough with a large population - nearly 250,000 people - as well as taking in people from surrounding boroughs if, for whatever reason, they can't go to their local hospitals.

If Lewisham A&E closes, its maternity and ICU services will be reduced as emergency care on site won't be possible.

If Lewisham A&E closes, people will have to travel further on public transport to get to other hospitals - the QE or Kings College Hospital. The QE, for me, is an hour by buses, and then a 10 minute walk. If I'm sick enough to need to go to A&E, I don't want to have to sit on one bus for 20 minutes, wait at a bus stop, sit on another bus for 20 minutes, and then walk 10-20 minutes from the bus stop to the A&E department. Kings is a great hospital, but it already serves a large population, and is already very busy and overstretched.

How many people will end up more impaired by extended waits to get to A&E? Strokes, heart attacks, loss of blood - these things need very rapid treatment. An ambulance taking 15 minutes longer to get someone to hospital reduces survival rates by a huge amount, and those who do survive are likely to have poorer outcomes and live with unnecessary impairment afterward.

You can help. Go here: http://www.savelewishamhospital.com/how-to-respond-to-tsa/ and respond to the consultation as advised - we have only two weeks to do this.

All consultation documents, including Easy Read are here: http://www.tsa.nhs.uk/document-downloads

Minister for Disabled People responds to my letter of October 12th

Letter from Esther McVey, dated 17th Nov 2012 replying to http://misplacedmarbles.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/dear-esther-mcvey.html

Dear Robin,

Thank you for your e-mail of 12 October regarding support for disabled people.

Thank you for your comments on the difficulty of ensuring the right support is in place for disabled people to work. I agree that it is important to make sure that the right support is in place, ensuring the job is suitable for the individual.

Access to Work is a specialist disability programme delivered by this Department, providing practical advice and support to disabled people and their employers, helping them overcome work-related obstacles, resulting from their disability. Access to Work funds the support that is beyond what an employer should provide, as reasonable adjustments.

To ensure the right support is in place, the Access to Work process includes an assessment of the applicant's needs; carried out in their workplace. I agree that it is also important to ensure that the job is suitable for the individual, to help achieve this, the scope of activity that Access to Work funding can support has recently been expanded to include people taking part in a Work Trial arranged by Jobcentre Plus, and young people gaining Work Experience as part of the Youth Contract.

I should add that throughout the process of Disability Living Allowance reform, we have consulted extensively with disabled people and disabled people's organisations.

This includes formal consultations earlier this year on the second draft of the Personal Independence Payment assessment criteria, and the detailed rules that will underpin the new benefit. We received a total of 2,600 responses to our consultations and are now carefully considering these responses.

While I am not able at this stage to reveal the contents of any discussions or submissions from any of the organisations that responded, I can tell you that the Government intends to publish its responses to the consultations later this year, once our considerations are complete. We will also be publishing organisations' responses to the consultations.

I understand you took the opportunity to share your views with us on our proposals by participating in our consultation activity, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for that. As you may be aware, more information about Personal Independence Payment can be found on our website at www.dwp.gov.uk/pip.

Furthermore, disabled people have been telling Governments for some years that media tends to highlight the negative and these types of stories are used to affirm some people's prejudices about disabled people. This is not a new issue.

However this Government fully accepts that whilst laws are in place to ensure equality, we need to work together and do more to challenge and change negative attitudes towards disabled people.

That is why we are currently developing our new "Disability Strategy" - which focuses on the responses of thousands of disabled people who gave their views to our "Fulfilling Potential" consultation over the summer.

One of the key areas of the Strategy looks at is promoting positive attitudes and behaviours towards disabled people and tackling discrimination and harassment wherever they occur. We received over 2,200 comments which related to this theme.

Suggestions include the Government benchmarking attitudes in order to properly understand how to make changes over the long-term; producing and launching a media guide for journalists; and training for frontline Government staff to embed disability issues at the start of the policy-making process.

To help deliver the Strategy, we are carry forward ideas proposed by disabled people themselves and we are now setting up a new Disability Action Alliance.

Convened by Disability Rights UK and supported by the Office for Disability Issues, the alliance will join forces with private sector and public sector organisations to help change attitudes and create "inclusive communities" around the country.

Finally, the Department's press office operates a "24/7" service so there is always someone available to help explain the statistics to journalists and help ensure accurate reporting.

I hope this reply explains the position.

Kind regards

Esther Mcvey MP
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State and Minister for Disabled People.

Pudsey's WCA

Crossposted from http://samedifference1.com/2012/11/16/pudsey-bears-wca/

By SameDifference1

As a celebration of Children In Need, I gave Pudsey Bear a WCA.
Pudsey Bear’s WCA
Here’s what happened when Pudsey, the disabled bear, went for a Work Capability Assessment to the offices of ATOS.
ATOS Worker: Hello, please sit down.
(Pudsey sits, looking confused)

ATOS Worker: So, he can sit independently. How are you today?

Pudsey: Good, thank you.

ATOS Worker: Hold your arms out, turn your hands over. Straighten your fingers.

Pudsey: I don’t have hands, or fingers.

ATOS Worker: Hmmm…  stand up on your tiptoes.

Pudsey: I don’t have toes… or feet.

ATOS Worker: Hmm… please remove that horrible scarf from across your face. Open your right eye.

Pudsey: It’s not a scarf, it’s an eye patch. And I don’t have a right eye. One of the children pulled it off.
That’s why I had to stop working. I’m partially sighted.

ATOS Worker: Children? You have children? You’re not disabled! Disabled people can’t have CHILDREN!

Pudsey: They’re not my children… I’m a charity mascot… they’re the children I help.

ATOS Worker: A charity mascot? So, you already have a job.  Disability benefit fraud… well well well.

Pudsey: But I’m a partially sighted teddy bear with no fingers, hands, toes or feet…
 
ATOS Worker: Well, Mr Pudsey, if you’re fit to be in the same room as children, you’re fit to work. Close the door on your way out. NEXT!
 
*******

My addition: Oh no! What will happen to Pudsey next? If he's forced onto the Work Programme how will he fundraise for all those Children in Need? Will the Coalition Government not think of the disabled children?!

Spartacus Report into the Work Capability Assessment

Taken directly from http://wearespartacus.org.uk/wca-peoples-review/

"Anticipating the publication of Professor Harrington’s third (and, for him, final) annual review of the Work Capability Assessment, the WeAreSpartacus group have published our own review, from the lived experience of the sick and disabled people going through it. The People’s Review of the Work Capability Assessment includes the experiences of more than 70 claimants who have been wrongly assessed, humiliated, badly treated and forced to go to tribunal to secure the benefits to which they are legally entitled. The review also highlights press reports of some of the claimants who have died after being found fit for work or whose suicide has been linked, at least in part, to the stress of a process which is essentially abusive, demeaning and not fit for purpose. In the final section of the review, we examine what has been said about the WCA by the Government, MP’s, courts, professional bodies, medical organisations and individual medical professionals. This section includes full references, including replies to Freedom of Information requests, so readers can check the facts for themselves."

I suggest you have a big cup of tea ready, a comfy blanket, and something to hug when you read this review. Then send it onward - send it to your MP ESPECIALLY if they are Lib Dem or Tory. Tell them how this makes you feel. Let them know that they can change this system, and unless they do, they aren't getting your vote.

Screen readable report can be downloaded here: http://wearespartacus.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/The-Peoples-Review-of-the-Work-Capability-Assessment.doc

Complaining about Atos Drs.

Having seen a doctor at Atos' Croydon Assessment centre who made some interesting medical statements about my abilities, I decided to complain about her assessment of me.

First, I made a complaint to Atos - by emailing their customer relations email address. Details of their Customer Charter and the email address are here http://www.atoshealthcare.com/claimants/our_customer_charter

It's only been three weeks since making the complaint, so I don't expect to have heard anything back yet. I'll give them a month and then I'll email to ask how the complaint is progressing.

I'm also contacting the General Medical Council to complain. Their complaints procedure is outlined here: http://www.gmc-uk.org/concerns/making_a_complaint/a_patients_guide.asp

I've not been able to get through to the online complaints form, so I'm printing out their paper form, and rather than handwrite the whole thing, I'll type it up and add the typed pages to the form.

A Future that Works march - October 2012

Non ranty post!

I was hit with inspiration for a Christmas-type card today, so adventured up to Blade Rubber for some pink mock-lino with which to make a Festive Pylon!

If you'd like to send some seasonal industrial architecture to your nearest and dearest, then drop me an email! They're £2.00 each, with 40p postage for the 1st card, and 10p postage for each additional card.

Disability Benefit Acronyms

For quick reference if you're not familiar with many of the acronyms used around disability benefits.

DLA - Disability Living Allowance. Benefit paid to help with additional costs of living with impairment. NOT means tested or work-related. Has two components - Care, and Mobility. Care has three rates - High,Middle, and Low. Mobility has two rates, High and Low. High Rate Mobility can be exchanged to hire an adapted car from Motability. Being replaced in 2013 - 2014 by PIP.

PIP - Personal Independence Payment. DLA replacement benefit. Will have smaller budget and tighter eligibility criteria. DWP estimate 500,000 fewer disabled people will qualify for PIP.

ESA - Employment and Support Allowance. Unemployment benefit paid to chronically sick and disabled people who go through WCA. Has two levels - WRAG and SG. Is replacing Incapacity Benefit. Workers who are off sick without pay can also claim ESA.

IB  - Incapacity Benefit. Unemployment benefit paid to chronically sick and disabled people who are considered unable to work. Is being replaced by ESA.

WCA - Work Capability Assessment. Medical assessment carried out by Atos on behalf of the DWP to determine level of ESA an unemployed disabled person is eligible for.

WRAG - Work Related Activity Group. Level of ESA where an unemployed disabled person is expected to be ready for some work at some point in the future. Has two types - contribution based, and income based. Contribution based is for those who have paid some NI, and runs out after a year. Income based is for those living in a very low income household.

SG - Support Group. Level of ESA where unemployed disabled person is considered too impaired to be able to manage any work at all, ever. Very stringent criteria apply to get into this group, such as those considered terminally ill with less than 6 months left to live.

DWP - Department of Work and Pensions. Government department with responsibility for benefit administration.

Atos - IT company who have many government contracts, including carrying out medicals for both ESA and DLA.

JSA  - Job Seekers Allowance. Benefit paid to unemployed people, including unemployed disabled people who aren't deemed to require any support to seek work.

HB - Housing Benefit. Benefit to pay toward rent cost of social tenants on very low incomes.

LHA - Local Housing Allowance. Benefit to pay toward rent cost of tenants privately rented accommodation on very low incomes.

CA - Carer's Allowance. A sum paid to someone providing full time care for a disabled person who is in receipt of certain benefits.  CA is means tested.

AA - Attendence Allowance. A benefit paid to people over pension age who have additional support needs similar to those that qualify someone for Disability Living Allowance. Has two components - Care and Mobility. Both have two rates, High or Low.

SDA- Severe Disablement Allowance. Old unemployment Benefit for disabled young people who hadn't accrued enough NI contributions to qualify for Incapacity Benefit. Was phased out in 1997-8, but those with historic claim may continue to receive this benefit. Will be replaced by ESA.

All of this information can be found here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/index.htm This is intended to be a quick quide for easy reference.

Dear Esther McVey...

Firstly, Congratulations on your appointment as Minister for Disabled People.

I've had a look at your blog over on the Wirrel Conservatives website, and I'm really pleased to see you wanting to be clear about your role as Minister for Disabled People.

I confess I do have concerns, but they may be unfounded, it may simply be that Maria Miller's tenure has left me mistrustful and scared that you have no idea of the challenges life lived with impairment brings, and have no genuine desire to actually engage with real disabled people to ensure Conservative policies don't leave us all far worse off.

A Minister for Disabled People has an important role, and should be doing a number of things:

- Working for disabled people's equality in society.
- Understanding the needs of disabled people by listening to disabled people. 
- Challenging stigma attached to disability by:
- Openly challenging the media when they publish wrong or misleading stories about sick & disabled people.
- Openly challenging fellow ministers when they use wrong and misleading statistics in parliament, and in the media.
- Educating government ministers about disabled people's needs and rights.
- Being held accountable by disabled people.

You will do well if you listen to what disabled and chronically sick people are saying, then act on what you learn. Look at where disadvantage occurs and ask us why we think that is, and what we would like to do to fix it.

Please understand that there's a big difference between "fit for some work with the right adaptations" and "fit to compete in the current jobs market." I work in an organisation that employs people with a range of impairments - from those who require little support, to people that require 24 hour personal care so I know that almost anyone can work, however, it isn't as simple as just finding a job. That job must be correct for that individual, and the right support must be in place.

For those who can't work - and there are many who can't - realistic alternatives must be available. People must be given enough money to live on. Disability and chronic illness are not choices, and allowing people to live in conditions where they have to choose between heating and eating sees people's health deteriorate.

Please look at the cumulative impact the current cuts are having on the whole of disabled people's lives - don't see the cuts in isolation. We are people who use hospitals, GPs, allied health services, local authority services, libraries, leisure services, adult education, transport.We make up around 1/6 of the UK population, so wherever people are, disabled people are. Whatever services are out there, disabled people are using them.

I'd like to ask about your new Disability Alliance. Who will make up this alliance? How many disabled people will be part of it? What charities will be involved? How many are Disabled Led? How many charities were critical of the plans for PIP?

If you only take one thing from this please let it be that you actively listen to us. That's all.

Yours sincerely

Robin

Edited to add - Ms McVey responded - copy of letter here: http://misplacedmarbles.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/letter-from-esther-mcvey-dated-17th-nov.html

Have the DWP done the maths?

The DWP have estimated between 310,000 and 500,000 disabled people will lose all support following the reforms to Disability Living Allowance, which will only affect working-age disabled people, including the 2,010,000 who currently claim DLA.

These are not (all) fraudulent claimants – at least 209,500 non-fraudulent DLA claimants will lose out - assuming every one of the fraudulent claimants is weeded out during the reassessment process. (The DWP estimates that 0.5% of DLA claimants are fraudulent. 2,010,000 x 0.5% = 100,500. 310,000 – 100,500 = 209,500. The higher figure is 500,000 - 100,500 = 400,500 disabled people losing benefit support)

I’ve spent Sunday afternoon using DWP reported figures to work out:

a) the current numbers of working-age disabled people getting each combination of DLA rates

b) what the new PIP regime will look like in terms of different types of claimant

c) from that, where the cuts will come from to reduce the numbers of claimants by 310,000

 Total DLA expenditure currently £12,000,000,000 (From http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/adhoc_analysis/2011/analysis_of_disability_living_allowance_DLA_awards.pdf )

Total number of claimants = 3,203,000

Number of working age claimants = 2,010,000

Number of claimants under 16 = 335,000

Number of pensioners = 857,000

(claimant numbers from http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/eia-dla-reform-wr2011.pdf ) 

Percent of claimants that are working age = 2,010,000 / 3,203,000

= 62.7%

I will round to 63%

63% of current budget £12,000,000,000 x 0.63

 = £7,560,000,000

£7,560,000,000 / 2,010,000 = £3,779

Average of total budget spend per claimant = £3,779

PIP will have 20% decrease in total budget = £9,600,000,000

PIP is only for working age claimants. Pension age claimants will continue to get DLA, and not be reassessed for PIP.

Only working age claimants affected by change to PIP. So 100-63% = 37% of CURRENT budget must go to claimants not of working age (children and pensioners). = £4,440,000,000

Amount left for working age claimants will be

£9,600,000,000 – 4,440000,000 = £5,160,000,000

£5,160,000,000 / 2,000,500

= £2,579 per head

So if the total number of DLA claimants simply transfers to PIP, each claimant will, on average, lose £1,200 a year, or £100 a month.

However, the DWP itself accepts that will not happen - people will lose their benefit support.

The information below uses the DWP figures from “Disability Living Allowance Reform, Equality Impact Assessment. May 2012”  http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/eia-dla-reform-wr2011.pdf  Table 8, Page 12 for proportions of each claim rate.

Who currently gets DLA and at what rates?

These are the current numbers of people getting each combination of DLA rates.

	Lower Rate Care	Middle Rate Care	Higher Rate Care	Care – no award
Lower Rate Mobility	LRM & LRC	LRM & MRC	LRM & HRC	LRM
	190950	347730	122610	80400
	9.50%	17.30%	6.10%	4.00%
Higher Rate Mobility	HRM & LRC	MRC & HRM	HRC & HRM	HRM
	271350	271350	299490	184920
	13.50%	13.50%	14.90%	9.20%
Mobility – No Award	LRC	MRC	HRC	XX
	188940	42210	8040	0
	9.40%	2.10%	0.40%	0%

Table 1 – percentage of working age claimants getting each combination of DLA rate and number of claimants at each rate.

Figure in middle cells indicates number of claimants, calculated using total number of working age claimants = 2,010,000, and percentage provided in table 8 of referenced document. Some rounding has clearly been used in the DLA Table 8 as the percentages do not add to 100%, and total claimants is 2,007,990.

This is my estimate of how PIP will look – based on some assumptions described beneath the table.

.

	Care – standard rate	Care – enhanced rate	Care – no award
Mobility – standard rate	C-SR & M-SR 12%	C-ER & M-SR 15%	M-SR 6%
Mobility – enhanced rate	C-SR & M-ER 12%	C-ER & M-ER 23%	M-ER 15%
Mobility – no award	C-SR 14%	C-ER 3%	XX

Table 2 – estimated proportions of PIP claimants by rate, projected from DLA proportions.

Note. I have estimated the proportions of people receiving PIP based on the following assumptions and evidence:

The reforms claim to be helping those in greatest need – so I’ve increased the proportion getting enhanced rate benefits slightly, and assumed some lower rate claimants will lose out. Also, people who can "mobilise" effectively may be considered not in need of mobility support. "mobilise" includes using a wheelchair.

There are fewer rates to choose from, so I’ve combined DLA claim proportions to map across to PIP (e.g. MRC & HRC have combined to C-ER)

Total projected number of PIP claimants in the DWPs analysis is 1,700,000²

	C-SR	C-ER	C-None
M-SR	204000	255000	102000
M-ER	204000	425000	255000
M-none	238000	51000	XX

Table 4 – estimated number of PIP claimants by rate, calculated from reference 2 figure of projected PIP numbers 2015 = 1,700,000.

	C-SR	C-ER	C-None
M-SR	204,000 DWP – 250,00	255,000 DWP -110,000	102,000 DWP-230,000
M-ER	204,000 DWP-190,000	425000 DWP -340,000	255,000 DWP -230,00
M-none	238,000 DWP-250,000	51,000 DWP- 90,000	XX

Table 5 amended– estimated number of PIP claimants by rate with DWP projected figures added. (With thanks to @Narco_sam for finding the figures in http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/pip-assessment-thresholds-and-consultation.pdf )

Many additional types of support are “passported” from DLA.

Not all DLA claimants will be able to access all of these things - they are dependent on DLA rate awarded, economic need, area of the country the claimant lives in, amongst other things.
 

* Enhanced Housing Benefit rates to account for need for extra room for carers or equipment

* Someone getting Carer's Allowance for looking after someone on DLA will lose that Carer's Allowance
* Concessionary travel schemes - Freedom Pass, local bus passes and the National Rail Disabled Person’s Railcard, M6 toll pass, London Congestion Zone exemption

* Motability funding so disabled people can afford adapted cars.

* Blue Badges for disabled parking

* Access to some local council support

* Discounted access to gyms and leisure centres

* discounted or free tickets at some galleries, museums, cinemas and theatres for your carer, so you don’t have to pay extra to go out, just because you can’t go alone.
* Higher rate mobility DLA claimants can learn to drive at 17, and get free car tax.
* Warm Home rebate from some energy suppliers.
* Enhanced Income Support levels to account for increased costs of life with impairment

Fraud figure from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmworpen/1493/1493vw43.htm

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/pip-assessment-thresholds-and-consultation.pdf

Edit: Oh, and best estimate of fraudulent claimants is 0.5%, or 1 claimant in 200.