Disabled Railcard Team may conclude PIP = DLA !! - We should tell them otherwise!
I accidentally learned a few months back that the Disabled Persons Railcard (DPRC) team are consulting about how to change their criteria given the killing of DLA, which unless you happen to have a few fluffy priviledged conditions*, is the only way to get one of the railcards**. And is the qualifying route for 60% of holders, so they say.
In short; I'm writing to them saying that PIP will cover a vastly smaller group, with ESA absorbing the rest, and the two together covering roughly the same numbers as DLA does now. And so imploring them to make ESA part of the new criteria, not just PIP.
I've put the full letter - which has all the numbers, citations, and full reasoning in it - below the cut. As sadly, 'numbers = validity' in today's politics I ask anyone who cares about equality/transport/whatever please send a message themself along these lines. disability@atoc.org or other contacts. Feel free to crib or copy from my letter, and please do circulate this. (....especially as I don't have to spoons to do stuff like twitter or facefuck.)
If ATOC presume 'PIP = DLA' around 1/4 of currently eligable disabled people will be excluded
Dear Disabled Person's Railcard team / ATOC,
I read in your email newsletter that you are "consulting with disabled people's organisations" on how to change your criteria come the replacement of DLA with PIP.
I'm not an organisation, but I am a disabled person who takes a critical interest in disabled finance and inclusion matters. I would appreciate it if you heard out my view.
Basically; given how all the new benefits being rolled out have been intentionally designed to be harder to pass (to the point with ESA they've revised and retested the forms and criteria twice now! with downwards tweaks still ongoing), that (in simple terms), the same person with the same conditions who was able to get 'n-level' benefits previously, will after the changes only be able to get '[n - 2]-level' benefits. Consequently I think you should avoid being tempted to follow the Government's disingenuous lead and simply substitute PIP for DLA. When one looks at the detail it's evident PIP isn't just a renaming or a tweaking - it will be fundamentally harder to pass, and will accept significantly less people than DLA.
I consider the numbers back this up:
Present pool of people who could qualify for DPRC on benefits grounds:
Total DLA recipients = 3,200,000 [1][2]
recipients of 'No Mobility + Low Care' = 190,000 [2]
total pool = 3,010,000
Pool of people in ~2008(?) (prior to DPRC criteria changes
who could qualify for DPRC on benefits grounds:
LA recipients (except 'No Mobility + Low Care') = 3,010,000
recipients of IB, SDA and IS on ground
of disability (pre-ESA trasfers = 1,500,000 [3]
or
recipients of IB and SDA, in 2008 = ~2,600,000 [4]
total pool = 4,510,000 to 5,610,000
Expected future benefits recipients (once changes finished):
PIP recipients = 1,700,000 [2]
ESA total = 2,100,000 [4]
Support Group as a proportion = 30 to 46 % [4]
∴ SA 'Support Group' = 630,000 to 966,000
∴ PRC benefits criteria = PIP-onl = 1,700,000
∴ PRC benefits criteria = PIP + ESA-Support = 2,330,000 to 2,666,000
∴ PRC benefits criteria = PIP + all ESA = 3,800,000
[1 http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jan/18/disability-living-allowance-data
[2 http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/dla-reform-wr2011-ia.pdf
[3 http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/unnoticed-flaw-esa-conversion-decisions
[4 www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01420.pdf
Unfortunately I haven't been able to account for where people have been on both DLA and IB, or will be on both PIP and ESA, due to lack of available statistics, but I imagine any difference in impact between the old and new systems will be of little significance. Similarly I was unable to get numbers for Longterm Incapcity Benefit (as I understand that's what you had in the old criteria). And of course there are no number available such that I can readily discount from each system those who would qualify on other grounds. These are in the end only ballpark figures, but I hope they illustrate my point. (Also please excuse me not messing around with numbers for war benefits and other confusing legacy stuff.)
But as you can see, if you restrict the railcard to just PIP, you wil effectively halve he number of disabled people who can access it. (And while I'm sure the government would say that would be "the most deserving", my experience tells me it would more likely be the most socially-functional, i.e. skewed heavily towards the physical disabilities.) Meanwhile if you include all of ESA on top of that, you only increase the pool by 1/4 above the current DLA numbers, and wouldn't be close to exceeding the number you felt appropriate back in the mid-'00s and before.
Beyond the numbers, I also want to make an ethical appeal. Regardless of however one could reform the benefits system, tax/benefit policy will never magically spirit away disability. There will be as many disabled people, with just the same problems, in 2014, as there are today, and were in 2007. And the form of these changes certainly won't do anything to alleviate the real poverty or relative poverty that are unavoidable consequences of disability -- if anything, they are guaranteed to make things worse for every disabled person (bar the very rare few gifted with wealth to the point of not needing to claim), thus making rail travel even more of a de-facto expensive luxery than it already unfortunately is! Given all that, I would ask you to includ all SA as well as PIP, as this is supposed to be the "Disabled ersons' RailCard", and ESA is just as much as PIP is, a government recognision of a disability which is severe enough to massively disrupt normal life, functioning, opportunity and incomes. Given the realities of the many varied forms of disabilty and how they impair people, and the clunkiness of even the new benefits system, to say you will give the railcard to those who can get PIP but not those who only manage to get ESA, will be to effectively say you will assist those who are lucky, and/or more socially-functional, and/or have visible-physical problems - and punish those who through no fault of their own are; less lucky, less socially-functional, or who disabilities happen to be to mental or hidden. This would be out and out Ableist and Discriminatory - the very things one would hope this railcard was created to combat.
Thank you for taking the time to read this, I hope you will look favourably on my suggestion.
Yours Sincerely
[name]
* not angry at the lucky ppl, angry at the hierarchist bullshit societal attitudes
** technically you can receive 'Low Care - No Mobility' DLA which won't make you eligible but I understand this is a rare occurance
PS: sorry for the odd formatting in the middle, LJ's code is so ballsed these days -_-
In short; I'm writing to them saying that PIP will cover a vastly smaller group, with ESA absorbing the rest, and the two together covering roughly the same numbers as DLA does now. And so imploring them to make ESA part of the new criteria, not just PIP.
I've put the full letter - which has all the numbers, citations, and full reasoning in it - below the cut. As sadly, 'numbers = validity' in today's politics I ask anyone who cares about equality/transport/whatever please send a message themself along these lines. disability@atoc.org or other contacts. Feel free to crib or copy from my letter, and please do circulate this. (....especially as I don't have to spoons to do stuff like twitter or facefuck.)
If ATOC presume 'PIP = DLA' around 1/4 of currently eligable disabled people will be excluded
Dear Disabled Person's Railcard team / ATOC,
I read in your email newsletter that you are "consulting with disabled people's organisations" on how to change your criteria come the replacement of DLA with PIP.
I'm not an organisation, but I am a disabled person who takes a critical interest in disabled finance and inclusion matters. I would appreciate it if you heard out my view.
Basically; given how all the new benefits being rolled out have been intentionally designed to be harder to pass (to the point with ESA they've revised and retested the forms and criteria twice now! with downwards tweaks still ongoing), that (in simple terms), the same person with the same conditions who was able to get 'n-level' benefits previously, will after the changes only be able to get '[n - 2]-level' benefits. Consequently I think you should avoid being tempted to follow the Government's disingenuous lead and simply substitute PIP for DLA. When one looks at the detail it's evident PIP isn't just a renaming or a tweaking - it will be fundamentally harder to pass, and will accept significantly less people than DLA.
I consider the numbers back this up:
Present pool of people who could qualify for DPRC on benefits grounds:
Total DLA recipients = 3,200,000 [1][2]
recipients of 'No Mobility + Low Care' = 190,000 [2]
total pool = 3,010,000
Pool of people in ~2008(?) (prior to DPRC criteria changes
who could qualify for DPRC on benefits grounds:
LA recipients (except 'No Mobility + Low Care') = 3,010,000
recipients of IB, SDA and IS on ground
of disability (pre-ESA trasfers = 1,500,000 [3]
or
recipients of IB and SDA, in 2008 = ~2,600,000 [4]
total pool = 4,510,000 to 5,610,000
Expected future benefits recipients (once changes finished):
PIP recipients = 1,700,000 [2]
ESA total = 2,100,000 [4]
Support Group as a proportion = 30 to 46 % [4]
∴ SA 'Support Group' = 630,000 to 966,000
∴ PRC benefits criteria = PIP-onl = 1,700,000
∴ PRC benefits criteria = PIP + ESA-Support = 2,330,000 to 2,666,000
∴ PRC benefits criteria = PIP + all ESA = 3,800,000
[1 http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jan/18/disability-living-allowance-data
[2 http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/dla-reform-wr2011-ia.pdf
[3 http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/unnoticed-flaw-esa-conversion-decisions
[4 www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01420.pdf
Unfortunately I haven't been able to account for where people have been on both DLA and IB, or will be on both PIP and ESA, due to lack of available statistics, but I imagine any difference in impact between the old and new systems will be of little significance. Similarly I was unable to get numbers for Longterm Incapcity Benefit (as I understand that's what you had in the old criteria). And of course there are no number available such that I can readily discount from each system those who would qualify on other grounds. These are in the end only ballpark figures, but I hope they illustrate my point. (Also please excuse me not messing around with numbers for war benefits and other confusing legacy stuff.)
But as you can see, if you restrict the railcard to just PIP, you wil effectively halve he number of disabled people who can access it. (And while I'm sure the government would say that would be "the most deserving", my experience tells me it would more likely be the most socially-functional, i.e. skewed heavily towards the physical disabilities.) Meanwhile if you include all of ESA on top of that, you only increase the pool by 1/4 above the current DLA numbers, and wouldn't be close to exceeding the number you felt appropriate back in the mid-'00s and before.
Beyond the numbers, I also want to make an ethical appeal. Regardless of however one could reform the benefits system, tax/benefit policy will never magically spirit away disability. There will be as many disabled people, with just the same problems, in 2014, as there are today, and were in 2007. And the form of these changes certainly won't do anything to alleviate the real poverty or relative poverty that are unavoidable consequences of disability -- if anything, they are guaranteed to make things worse for every disabled person (bar the very rare few gifted with wealth to the point of not needing to claim), thus making rail travel even more of a de-facto expensive luxery than it already unfortunately is! Given all that, I would ask you to includ all SA as well as PIP, as this is supposed to be the "Disabled ersons' RailCard", and ESA is just as much as PIP is, a government recognision of a disability which is severe enough to massively disrupt normal life, functioning, opportunity and incomes. Given the realities of the many varied forms of disabilty and how they impair people, and the clunkiness of even the new benefits system, to say you will give the railcard to those who can get PIP but not those who only manage to get ESA, will be to effectively say you will assist those who are lucky, and/or more socially-functional, and/or have visible-physical problems - and punish those who through no fault of their own are; less lucky, less socially-functional, or who disabilities happen to be to mental or hidden. This would be out and out Ableist and Discriminatory - the very things one would hope this railcard was created to combat.
Thank you for taking the time to read this, I hope you will look favourably on my suggestion.
Yours Sincerely
[name]
* not angry at the lucky ppl, angry at the hierarchist bullshit societal attitudes
** technically you can receive 'Low Care - No Mobility' DLA which won't make you eligible but I understand this is a rare occurance
PS: sorry for the odd formatting in the middle, LJ's code is so ballsed these days -_-