Nick Clegg is wrong on EU benefits - his words and actions don't match up. We might save peanuts, but we lose so much more..

So, all these EU citizens from poorer countries coming here and claiming benefits. A huge problem? Actually, not so much. My Liberal Democrat Voice co-editor was bang on the money yesterday when he said:

So, for all the uproar and shouting, 94% of overseas nationals entering the UK do not claim out-of-work benefits within six months – c.6% do, compared to c.13% of UK natives. That’s not nothing, but it puts the issue into perspective, doesn’t it?

That’s also the most charitable explanation I can come up with for Nick Clegg’s decision to go along with the Tory proposals, describing them as “sensible and reasonable”. If he’d said the proposals were “blatantly populist but unlikely to have much effect beyond further stoking the public perception that immigrants are to blame for all our ills” he’d have been closer to the mark.

 Regular readers will be familiar with my "Lock me in a cupboard with a bottle of gin" list of things that I really cannot stand about this coalition. Things already on it include time limiting Employment and Support Allowance, the Bedroom Tax, secret courts and cuts to legal aid. There is, of course, also a list of fantastic stuff we've done, like the Scotland Act, ending child detention for immigration purposes, giving extra money to disadvantaged kids in school having a health minister who knows what he's doing about mental health and a pensions minister who has given the biggest cash rise in the state pension and put them on a fairer and more secure footing. But every time something else goes on the Gin List, the glow of the Good List diminishes.

I'm not saying that Santa Claus will be putting a lump of coal in Nick's stocking this Christmas, but I am well displeased with him for agreeing to Cameron's benefit restrictions. It will save the UK peanuts, but we will lose so much more. If you look at the big picture, what you see is the liberal voice you thought you could depend on to challenge the awful UKIP/DailyMail/Tory anti immigrant rhetoric ceding ground. It's all very well for Nick to say on Call Clegg that he's speaking for the majority of British people, but if the majority of British people are wrong, misinformed and have a view that's contrary to our core values,he should be challenging them to think differently. He should be pointing out where their facts are wrong and giving them evidence to the contrary.

What he shouldn't be doing is giving the forces of xenophobia and conservatism the sort of shot in the arm that was in his email to members last night:

Let others flirt with the prospect of European exit in order to pander to the right. We remain passionately committed to staying in the EU for the sake of British jobs, security and influence in the world.

That does not mean that we are indifferent to the need to reform the EU. On the contrary, pro-Europeans urgently need to reclaim this territory. Otherwise we surrender this debate to the populists and xenophobes – the people who want to pull up the drawbridge and pull Britain out of Europe.

For that very reason I am urging all pro-Europeans to back the changes to the access European nationals have to UK benefits announced by the Coalition Government today. It is precisely because I want Britain to remain an open and outward facing nation that I am delivering these reforms.

Freedom of movement is a cornerstone of the European project and millions of Brits benefit from it every year. But years of mismanagement of the immigration system have undermined people’s confidence in it and this loss of faith must now be addressed. That is the only way to preserve this nation’s warm and welcoming nature. If we are to protect the right to move and work in the longterm, we must ensure it does not become an automatic right to claim benefits.

The trouble is he is legitimising the populists and xenophobes by ceding our ground to them. He says one thing and does another. It's just not right.He might use moderate language, but he will be associated forever with David Cameron's more bombastic approach. That is not what you want from an advocate of liberal values.

Sarah Teather, who has been consistently critical of the coalition's immigration policies, had this to say:

Once again we have an immigration policy announcement that has nothing to do with reacting to fact and everything to do with reacting to anti-immigration rhetoric-driven polling. Instead of providing political leadership and tackling immigration myths, these proposals target a problem that doesn't exist while stoking public anger and distrust towards foreigners.

Politicians are often far too afraid of talking about the benefits to the UK and its residents of being part of the EU project, which has freedom of movement at its heart. Over 2 million Brits live in other EU countries with tens of thousands of British citizens claiming benefits in their host countries, a fact many opinion formers seem to conveniently forget.

Reading today's proposals you would think that all EU nationals have unfettered access to the benefit system and that people from all over Europe are flocking to the UK in their millions in order to abuse our hospitality. Yet the reality is far different.

EU migrants already have to have to go through a process of registration before being able to claim benefits, which in itself takes several weeks and requires a fixed address. Plus the Government's own data shows that EU migrants are far less likely to be claiming out of work benefits than UK citizens.

If Nick is looking at a problem about immigration that actually needs solving, he would be well advised to look at what's happening to Isa Muaza at the behest of his cabinet colleague Mrs May. The Home Secretary is about to deport a man who is close to death, who hasn't eaten for 90 days in protest at the inhumane conditions we keep those who seek sanctuary in our country. The medics say that he isn't fit to fly, and even if he survives the journey, what's going to happen to him when he lands in Nigeria when he can't stand and can barely speak? I feel such utter shame and fury that my government is behaving so unethically and immorally.

The party is going to be debating immigration at Spring Conference in York in March. If you feel that we need to have a liberal immigration policy, please register here and come along to have your say. If your local party hasn't had its AGM, go along and stand to be a voting rep. If there are spare voting rep spaces, make sure that you organise that soon as the cut-off date will be some time in January.

Now is not the time to be running scared of the Daily Mail. There are more than enough people clamouring to put an illiberal point. Nick needs to get on the stage and loudly proclaim the liberal argument. He is not doing so at the moment. And it's abundantly clear that if he won't, nobody else will. There are vulnerable people who need us to stand up for them. If we let them down, we let ourselves down too.

ATOS to lose monopoly of Work Cabability Assessments after audit shows up "unacceptable" standard of report

Those of us who are concerned about the fairness of the welfare system often cite the Work Capability Assessment, which claimants of Employment and Support Allowance are required to take. It seems that every few days there's a story in the press reporting how someone has been marked fit for work when it is clearly inappropriate to do so. Yesterday the Daily Record carried the story of a woman who lived just a couple of miles away from me who was told she was fit for work weeks before she died of a brain tumour.

Concerns about the WCA appear to have been vindicated by a Government audit which found 41% of reports sampled to be of an unacceptable standard. As a result of this, the Independent reports, ATOS will lose its monopoly on conducting the tests.

The findings mean the company will be stripped of its monopoly on deciding whether people with disabilities are fit to work. The DWP said the poor quality of the company’s written reports were “contractually unacceptable” and announced on Monday it would be inviting other companies to bid for fresh regional contracts by summer 2014 to help reduce waiting times. Liam Byrne, the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, said: “This is a direct consequence of three years of appalling contract management by Iain Duncan Smith.”

A few points:

This needs sorting now, not in a year's time

I wonder if anyone in Whitehall actually realises how stressful the thought of an assessment is for the people who have to undergo it. And when the Government itself doesn't have confidence in almost half the reports, it can only make that process harder to endure.

Action is needed now to build confidence in the system.

Liam Byrne has a cheek

You won't find me defending the current WCA because I don't think it has any relevance to actually being able to do a job. I do see the need to have an assessment system, but it must be based on clinical evidence, not a requirement to save money. It should be based on the principle of helping people to work if they are able. You would not think from Liam Byrne's comments that Labour were the people who gave ATOS the contract and introduced the WCA in the first place. We are nowhere near having a fair WCA, but the Coalition, at the urging of Liberal Democrats, has at least improved it from the model they inherited. So, let's not listen to anything Labour has to say on the subject.

We need a WCA which reflects the reality of work

I am, however,  prepared to listen to Richard Hawkes, the Chief Executive of Scope who said:

It’s about time the Government told Atos to smarten up its act.

But, it’s also strikingly clear to disabled people that whole £112 million per year system is broken.

The cost of appeals has skyrocketed, assessors have resigned in disgust, and the test has received criticism from the Public Accounts Committee and National Audit Office. We have also witnessed shocking undercover footage of how ATOS assessors are trained and heard horror stories of disabled people inappropriately found fit to work.

The Government needs to deliver a test that is fit for purpose.

Most disabled people want to work but they face significant barriers, such as a lack of skills and experience, confidence and even negative attitudes from some employers. The Work Capability Assessment (WCA) ignores all this. It’s a tick-box test of someone’s medical condition.

If the Government is serious about getting more disabled people into work they need a test that is the start of the process that gives disabled people the specialist, tailored and flexible support they need.

Last year I took a look at the WCA and pointed out some of its intrinsic flaws.

When I was ill for a long time with Glandular Fever, there was no way, at its worst, I could have got from my bed to the bathroom, let alone to work for a whole day. Yet if I completed this form, I'd feel like a fraud because I could have done virtually everything within it. On some days, I could walk 50 metres, although I would have struggled with 200. I could pick up a pound coin, turn the pages of a book, walk up my stairs most of the time if I'd been able to get down them. When I had the energy I could communicate with people, and most of the time I didn't upset them.

I could set my alarm clock (although my husband still can't work the Sky Plus, and he's reasonably healthy so I'm not sure what that proves), I could put the washing machine on no bother, although it could take me half a day to get the energy together to sort the clothes into loads.

Fixing it will take more than just bringing in new companies to administer it. The whole process needs to be rebuilt to be realistic, sensitive and fair.

Liberal Democrats should not be voting to cut benefits for the poorest, working or not

I aIways knew when we went into Coalition that there would be moments when I would need to be locked in a cupboard with a bottle of gin. Tonight is one of them when MPs vote on a proposal, which, sadly is almost assured to pass, to raise benefits by only 1% for each of the next 3 years. The current inflation rate is 2.2%. To give the poorest in society less than half of what they need to stand still is simply not acceptable.

I do realise that Nick Clegg's position is different from the Tory undeserving poor rhetoric, but it's so subtle that nobody will really notice. People will hear his line that a nurse should not have less of a rise than someone not working and think it's the same thing. If you are a nurse, your sub inflation pay increase is unlikely to mean that you won't be able to feed yourself adequately. If you are existing on benefit income alone, it most likely will, especially if you are living on your own, without children. £71 a week Job Seekers' Allowance won't go very far if your shoes spring a hole, for example.

Nick Clegg insisted that the benefit rise was paid in line with inflation last year and I'm disappointed that he has not won the battle this year. Benefits are supposed to be the minimum people need to live on. If we effectively cut their value, then what are we saying? You can have less than you need to live on? That's not on. I would rather have foregone the extra rise in the tax threshold for this year. I sort of understand that achieving it this year means that we must get to £10,000 but it's still not right.

I am also not at all convinced by Iain Duncan Smith's claim that this will cut the deficit. Surely plunging people into worse poverty will only increase poor health which has its own NHS cost implications? We all know there's a link between poverty and ill health.

If I were an MP, I'd be with Sarah Teather tonight, voting against this plan. I really don't understand why the rest of them have agreed to support it. Voters are in favour of it, but that's because they're fed the scaremongering scroungers rhetoric by the Daily Mail, not the TUC's facts.

I feel profoundly depressed and frustrated by what has been agreed to in my name in this instance. But however upset I am, I will not be taken in by Labour's rhetoric. It's not as though they have much to be proud of - remember the 10p tax and the 75p pension increase? And they introduced the iniquitous Work Capability Assessment  that's still rubbish despite Coalition improvements. They bleat about cut in the top rate of tax, conveniently forgetting that the top rate of tax for all but a month of their 13 years in office was 5% dearer and Capital Gains Tax was 10% less until the Coalition's first budget.

Being able to demolish Labour's nonsense, though, gives little comfort when I know the harsh reality that people with jobs and  without, but whose circumstances make them need benefits, face in the future.

UPDATE: John Leech is joining Sarah Teather in the "no" lobby tonight. Of course I'm pleased, but I do take exception to part of his reasoning:

I find it objectionable that the Tories are ramping up the  “Skivers Vs Strives” rhetoric to justify a benefit cut to 7 million working families.

If you are one of those 7 million, you have made your choice to work. You should be encouraged by the system, whether that be through benefits or tax breaks.  That is why I strongly support rises in the tax threshold.

The phrase I've written in bold is an appalling phrase. Does John think that everyone out of work wants it that way? If so, he's very much mistaken. Some folk just can't get work and that's not for lack of trying. And what about those who are too sick to work? Thoughtless wording, really.

Autumn Statement: the good, the bad and the ugly

So, the Chancellor has given his Autumn Statement. Liberal Democrat reaction is likely to be at best mixed. Will people feel that the balance of tax and benefit measures is sufficient to support our claims that we are making the system fairer?

Osborne painted a fairly gloomy economic picture. The growth forecast is under 3% for the next 5 years. Austerity will continue way beyond the next election. It's in that context that his measures must be judged.

Let's take a brief look at the key points from a Liberal Democrat activist's point of view:

The good - Lib Dem gains

Steve Webb's Pension Triple Lock has ensured a 2.5% rise in the State Pension, more than earnings and inflation.

The tax threshold edges closer towards £10,000 as a further £235 rise is given from next April.

No removal of Housing Benefit from under 25.

No plan to remove benefits for the third and subsequent child.

Fuel duty rise planned for January cancelled. Environmentalists won't like it, but it's the only fair solution for rural areas where you have no choice but to drive because public transport is as good as non existent.

The bad

Benefits will rise by only 1% for the next 3 years. If the reports in the press were right, the Tories wanted to freeze them. I am not sure cutting the spending power of people who have nothing is justifiable, particularly as higher rate tax payers will get the benefits of the extension of the tax threshold.

The rise in the tax threshold has to be taken with the effective cut in tax credits, which only rise by 1%. Tax credits are payable to poorer people who are in work, so cutting them does not seem to be consistent with the aim of making work pay.

No Mansion Tax. Osborne's justification, that it would be intrusive, expensive and, get this, might encourage a future chancellor to bring in more properties to its scope, was greeted with Nick Clegg rolling his eyes and grimacing to indicate disagreement.

Departmental budgets cut, but this is to include more digital engagement. That requires technology that many poorer people may not have access to.

The ugly

I expect many Liberal Democrats will be squirming at the language used by the Chancellor to describe benefit claimants. He talked about people getting up in the morning to go to work, while their neighbour on benefits is in bed. People are bound to feel that this language encourages scapegoating and resentment. It is to be hoped that no Liberal Democrat will use this form of language. Tim Farron has promised that he won't, but then I wouldn't have expected it of him anyway.

The rest

Other measures in the Statement include:

• a cut in the Corporation Tax famously not paid by large corporations such as Starbucks, Google and Amazon
• action at an international level to try to change the way such corporations pay their taxes
• £3 billion extra for schools, roads and infrastructure investment (the Scottish Government will receive £331 million in Barnett Consequentials)
• Ultra fast broadband extended to 12 more cities.

It's a very mixed bag for Liberal Democrats. What do you think?

Autumn Statement gloom.....

I never look forward to George Osborne getting up on his feet in the House of Commons. It's not entirely his fault, and I do know that he's not getting to give the statement that he would like to because Liberal Democrats won't let him, but the economy is still incredibly fragile and there's every chance of a triple dip recession. 

We know that Osborne would love to taking Housing Benefit from under 25s, or restricting benefits to large families. He won't be doing these things because Nick Clegg has put his foot down. That doesn't mean, though, that I'm going to like everything Osborne is going to come out with. 

Stephen Williams MP emailed Lib Dem members last night and his message was one of compromise which smacked of us being prepared for things we don't like. Williams said:

I can’t yet reveal to you the contents of the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement.

But I do want to share with you the context in which the discussions around the statement have taken place.

Both parties in the Coalition agree that delivering a strong economy and growth is the top priority right now. 

We also agree that Britain needs to balance its books so we don’t saddle future generations with a debilitating national debt.

But it’s no secret that when it comes to balancing the books, the Liberal Democrats have different instincts to most Conservatives.

Let’s be clear, there will be some difficult decisions in tomorrow’s statement. That would be the case no matter which party was running the country right now.

Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander have been negotiating hard with David Cameron and George Osborne to get the best possible deal for ordinary families across Britain.

Tomorrow we will see the results of those negotiations and the compromises they reached in the Autumn Statement.

Our key objective was to ensure the burden of clearing up Labour’s mess is shared fairly. Everyone needs to make a fair contribution, and that must include the richest too.

Whether they have done enough remains to be seen. I really will be furious if benefits aren't raised in line with inflation, for example. I also want to see more measures put on the wealthiest, individuals and companies, to ensure that they pay their fair share.

While Williams' email unsettled me a bit, Tim Farron was a bit more reassuring when he spoke to BBC News this morning.

He talked about our "battle with the Tories" to make sure that those on the lowest incomes are protected. He said that the figures today weren't going to be  glorious but it was important not to over-react in either direction, demanding either deeper austerity or an end to austerity. He said that economically the things that matter moving, if slowly, in the right direction in that we have low interest rates and falling unemployment.

He said there was a need for demand led measures which matter to people - like building schools, and he hoped to see some today. That's been trailed in the media so I suspect that he's on a safe bet there. I doubt he'd allude to something that definitely wasn't going to happen. Tim does not like to disappoint.

We'll know in an hour or so exactly what we're looking at. I'm not expecting to hear anything that lifts my mood, though.

Lib Dems stop Tories from taking Housing Benefit from the Under 25s

One bit of very good news on welfare front - the Liberal Democrats have held firm and told George Osborne where to shove his ridiculous plan to take Housing Benefit away from under 25s, according to yesterday's Observer. Nor is he getting to freeze benefits as he would have liked.

The piece has a great quote from Greg Mulholland, Liberal Democrat MP for Leeds North West who says:

The Lib Dems would not stand for cutting housing benefits for under 25-year-olds which would not only be unjust and unfair but would have unacceptable consequences for many young people. Neither do we think a freeze in working-age benefits is acceptable.

He went on to say a phrase which made me cringe a little "having spent the last year making sure that benefits are directed to those who really need them most". Actually, we have taken them away from people who really do need them. Ok, it's been as bad as it would have been had the Tories had free rein, but I really wish we wouldn't say self-justifiying things like that because they aren't true and they don't wash.


Whenever George Osborne is due to get up on his feet, there are understandable nerves throughout the Party. There's inevitably going to be stuff in the Autumn Statement that we as a party don't like. The Social Liberal Forum has issued a statement today making it clear what it thinks - no more welfare cuts, and no agreement on spending plans after the next election. I can't see much to disagree with in what they say.

The Social Liberal Forum would not support a Government that takes regressive spending decisions, on the welfare budget in particular, that will go beyond the term of this Parliament.  There is no basis for taking such decisions in the policy of the Liberal Democrats, nor in the Coalition Agreement.  With living standards already squeezed and with the considerable uncertainty associated with the introduction of the Universal Credit – a measure that needs to succeed and will inevitably have consequences that will require adjustment – it would be irresponsible for further such steps to be taken.

It is therefore up to the Government to produce an overall spending package that is functional, that will not further hold the economy back, and that is fair. Senior Liberal Democrats have always clearly stated that addressing a widening deficit through further spending cuts, not least those that harm the spending power of the poorest, would lead to an unacceptable downward spiral of low growth and higher deficits. If the state of the economy leaves the Coalition with a choice between investing in future growth by easing the deficit reduction programme and cutting support to the most vulnerable people in society, it can only choose the former.

We can't put our name towards any further benefit cuts. We've already gone too far in that direction. Nor can there be any slacking in the raising of the tax threshold. At the other end, I want to see more being done on taxing the wealthiest. A mansion tax would be great, but I'd take anything that actually works that means that the well off feel a bit of the pinch. I say that as someone who had to stop claiming Child Benefit today. I am not whinging. It was only fair that I do so. It's a bit of a shame that the only time that my husband has been a higher rate tax payer in his entire working life coincides with the time Child Benefit is being cut, especially as he's had just 6 years' notice that he'll have to wait an extra year before he gets his State Pension. But, the point is, we can deal with it. We are not going to suffer in any sense and it's only right that we should do our bit. There are plenty wealthier than us who could do with digging a bit deeper, too.

Mind you, a sure fire way of making sure the country was rolling in money would be a tax on journalists' whinges about how Leveson is the end of a free press and how they're all being suppressed like it's North Korea... I have never heard such a load of self-serving, petulant nonsense in my whole life.

Note to Nick Clegg: put your foot down and insist on benefit rise

Last year, Nick Clegg defied Tory wishes and insisted that benefits were raised in line with inflation, as Nick Thornsby wrote at the time. 

Living on benefits is no joke. If you're getting £71 a week Job Seekers' Allowance and things cost 2.4% more this year than they did last year, that's £1.70 per week that just disappears. The poorest are the last people who can afford to lose any amount of money. 

That's why it's important that the meagre amount they get at least keeps pace with the way prices are going up.

Food prices are predicted to go up significantly this year after a poor grain harvest in the US. This is going to have horrendous consequences in poorer countries, but it will affect us here, too. Basic foodstuffs, nothing flashy, will cost more. 

Strangely enough, the Tories are apparently now making noises that they want to freeze benefits for two years and then only put them up in line with average earnings. That's what Tories do.

Nick Clegg must put his foot down again and he must succeed. I know that's not necessarily going to be easy but failure is not an option. If money needs to be found from somewhere, it can be found from the wealthiest. The poor can take no more.

Nick Clegg needs to condemn Cameron's welfare plans

Many Liberal Democrats will have been choking on their Corn Flakes this morning as they read, with horror, David Cameron's plans to slash benefits even further than this year's Welfare Reform Bill. If he had his way, there would be no Housing Benefit payable to anyone under 25. The critical part of the article is, however, this sentence:

Downing Street said they were Conservative plans for after the next general election.

That's all right then. This rubbish isn't going to happen on our watch.


Except.....there are lots of young lives that may be even more ruined than they are already if that shower win the next General Election. Everyone who cares about these things needs to be constructing rational, common sense arguments against such ideas, against the notion perpetuated by the Tories and the right wing press that being out of work and on benefits is the result of some sort of moral failing.


That's why it is really important that Nick Clegg - and it has to be him - condemns these proposals in the strongest language imaginable. The very idea that the under 25s could be stopped from claiming Housing Benefit, which costs £2 bn per year, is particularly ridiculous given that unemployment within that age group is still so disproportionately high. Nick Clegg's £1 bn Youth Contract will help young people get jobs, but that generation is bearing the biggest brunt of the economic crisis.


Not only that, but not all under 25s have a family home where it's safe for them to stay. What about those leaving care, who are ill, whose parents won't let them stay at home, who are fleeing domestic abuse? My daughter will be welcome in our home, which is her home and always will be, but it's not the same for everybody. Cameron clearly doesn't have the first notion about the realities of life for many young people today. The PM's plans will create more homeless young people - and you know  how tough it is to get a job if you're homeless. If people can't provide themselves with a roof over their head, the state has to help them. It's the right thing to do. 


Cameron talked in the Fail on Sunday about the engaged couple who are feeling hard done by because they have to live with their parents while some single mother can just have a baby and get a council house. Maybe that engaged couple should just think that they're lucky to have the sort of family relationship where they can live,comfortably and probably cheaply, at home. They should recognise that not everybody can walk into jobs. They could maybe do with realising that the single mother trapped in a damp, cramped Council flat is not exactly living a bed of roses lifestyle.


As regular readers will know, I cannot accept the parts of the Welfare Reform Act which take benefits away from sick people, at the underlying assumption that they are all faking it until it's proved otherwise. We've all heard of people like Karen Sherlock, who passed away after being told by ATOS that they were fit for work.

I felt that, while many Liberal Democrats, including Paddy Ashdown, opposed parts of the Act, there was too much adoption of the moralising Tory rhetoric from senior Liberal Democrats like Danny Alexander. This was, I think, a mistake. We should have taken the opportunity to show our different approach. People who are ill should be supported, but parking people on benefits who could otherwise be happily working is highly illiberal. It's not good for anyone, least of all those who want to work but can't because their family would be a lot worse off if they did. The welfare system should not be an instrument of punishment, it should be an instrument of enablement where people are given the help they need, tailored to suit them, to get into work without losing out while making sure that those who can't work are looked after.

Cameron's plans give us an insight into what the Tories governing alone would have done if they hadn't had the Liberal Democrats holding them back. However unhappy many of us are with the changes, we need to at least acknowledge that.

I won't be happy, though, until I hear Nick Clegg say that Cameron's words are Tory plans, we think they're wrong and would not support them. As I write, Danny Alexander has made me very cross. Speakingon the Sunday Politics, he said he was relaxed about Cameron setting out his party's agenda, which is fair enough, but then he said that there needs to be further debate about the welfare system once the reforms bed in.This is simply not good enough. Removing a critical benefit from young people without considering their circumstances is just plain wrong and we should not hold back in our condemnation of it.

Please help encourage Scottish Borders Council to do the right thing for a 6 year old?

Of all the damaging things the last Labour Government did, bringing in the Local Housing Allowance was one of the worst. This means that Housing Benefit claimants are entitled only to benefit based on the local market rent for the size of house they are deemed to need. It's the latter part that causes the damage.

Just imagine, you, your partner and your child rent a 3 bedroomed flat to give yourselves extra space. You lose your job. You have to claim benefits. You will only get Housing Benefit for a 2 bedroomed flat. What are you supposed to do? Move? How expensive is that? Especially if there's a problem and your landlord withholds your deposit for some spurious reason.

But that's not the worst of it.

Let me tell you the story of someone I know through her tireless voluntary work. She used to be a teacher, but had to give up her job to care for her severely disabled husband. The couple have a 6 year old son, Hugh.

After a 3 year struggle to move from their totally unsuitable accommodation down south, the family were delighted to be offered a 3 bedroomed flat in the Scottish Borders by a disability charity. It seemed the perfect answer for all their needs. However, Scottish Borders Council are refusing to give them funding for the third bedroom, which is essential. Hugh needs a room of his own, and, for medical reasons, so does his Dad.  The two bedroomed flat they are supposedly entitled to under the LHA regulations clearly isn't sufficient.

Now, Scottish Borders Council could, if they chose, follow the guidelines set out by the Department of Work and Pensions on discretionary housing payments . which would enable them to fund the extra bedroom this family so clearly needs.  The Social Policy Unit states that:

The Department has stated that it expects the additional needs of disabled people to be paid for by local authorities from Discretionary Housing Payments.

Unfortunately, Scottish Borders Council is digging its heels in and refusing to act in accordance with these guidelines.

If they do not agree to do so, then this family faces eviction and homelessness as they live on Income Support and Disability Living Allowance and simply can't afford to pay the extra £20 a week rent. In that instance, the Scottish Borders Council would have to rehouse them  - but they could be moved anywhere across this vast Council, probably more than once. Can you imagine how stressful that would be for a severely disabled man and a 6 year old? The disruption to Hugh's schooling for a start would be horrendous. And that's before we even get to the effect this would have on the mum, who would have to care for both husband and son in these uncertain circumstances. And, to be blunt and look at it callously,  the cost to the taxpayers in the Scottish Borders would be significantly more than the £20 per week currently being sought.

But this isn't about relative cost - it's about what's right for this family. Scottish Borders Council would not want to be the sort of organisation that treated a vulnerable family in such a cruel way, surely? Why should they be forced out of a flat which is adapted for them which suits their needs exactly? It's clear that the DWP guidance suggests that the  Council could and should pay the extra rent. The letter of the relevant bit of legislation gives them the right not to.

If you agree that the Council is being unjust, please could you write a letter in support of this family to its Chief Executive, David Hume, at Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA. You could copy your letter to Council leader David Parker at the same address. You don't need to know the personal details of this family - the first name of their son should suffice. Ask them to pay the extra £20 per week in accordance with DWP guidance on Discretionary Housing Payments.

I think this is one occasion when actually taking the time to print out a letter and post it off would help to show that the Council's reputation is being damaged by its intransigence.

There may be some contradiction between guidance and law, and it looks like the Council are doing what it thinks will be the cheapest thing for them, rather than the right thing for a family who have been caught out by this lack of clarity.  None of this is Hugh's or his Mum and Dad's  fault, but they are being asked to pay a heavy price. I feel so angry and frustrated that we treat people like this. This family have been fighting over housing one way or another for the better part of 6 years. Please help bring their ordeal to an end so they can just live their  lives in peace.

Work Capability Assessment errors slammed by Commons Committee - Lib Dems must act

The Commons Work and Pensions Committee has highlighted failures in the Government's Work Capability Assessment, saying these have caused "fear and anxiety" for claimants whose benefits have been stopped.

This will come as no surprise to the many people for whom the process has been an ordeal.

This is a problem which has been building up for years, since the assessment was introduced by the last Labour Government in 2008 for new ESA claimants.

Now it seems that administrative errors have led to people being counted as having missed appointments which they may not even have been informed about. This actually happened to a friend of mine. Thankfully they were able to get it sorted reasonably quickly, but not without a whole load of unnecessary stress, but it should never have happened.

I found it a particular outrage that disabled claimants were sent appointments in venues that weren't accessible to them:

 It is unacceptable that disabled people should be called to attend an assessment at a centre which is inappropriately located, inaccessible to them or where reasonable adjustments cannot be made to accommodate special requirements arising from their health condition. We note DWP's assurance that Atos Healthcare is "moving rapidly toward" a situation where this is no longer the case. We request that, in response to this Report, the Government sets out progress towards this aim. This should include options for the relocation of assessment centres where necessary, increasing disabled access, and improvements to the mechanisms for ensuring a claimant's needs are known to Atos Healthcare in advance of the WCA. (Paragraph 71)

In terms of the actual process itself, there are still people being found fit for work when they patently are not, despite the changes as a result of the Harrington Review. The difficulty is that it takes time to make improvements after the recognition of a flaw in the process -and when 30,000 people a week are going through this assessment, a lot of them are going to come through the wrong side of this assessment.

I think I've shared with you before that I know someone who was passed as too ill to continue in their job by ATOS and pensioned off early - and when they applied for ESA, ATOS, via the Work Capability Assessment, marked them fit for work. That, too, was sorted - but again, after a long time. The Committee highlighted the cost and stress of an overloaded appeals system.

There is some good stuff in there, though - the Government is praised for trying to do actually offer support to people to help those who can back to work and for implementing the Harrington Review. By the way, I feel a bit better that the review process is ongoing, with evidence being requested for the next stage now.

We support the Government's objectives of helping people with disabilities and long-term health conditions to move back into work, whilst continuing to provide adequate support for people who have limited capability for work or are unable to work. However, the scale of the challenge should not be underestimated and nor should the level of anxiety which currently surrounds the process. 

Conservative ministers got a bit of a slap on the wrist from the Committee for contributing to an inaccurate portrayal of benefit claimants as "workshy" and "scroungers" in the media. You don't find Liberal Democrats talking like that about people - but we do need to be more noisy about publicly challenging the Tories when they talk this sort of judgemental nonsense.

The idea of stopping contributory ESA after a year comes in for criticism too.

The other thing the Committee raised concerns about was how the people put back on the labour market would fare if employers were reluctant to take them on:

 In almost all of the discussion of the Government's plans, the emphasis is on getting the claimant ready to go back to work. However, the Government will only achieve this laudable aim if employers are willing to employ someone who might have been on incapacity benefit and out of work for some time and who might still have substantial health issues. This will require a great deal of co-operation and change of attitude from many employers. Providers of employment support have a crucial role to play in building relationships with employers so that they can gain trust and an understanding of the challenges and benefits of employing former benefit claimants. However, it is also the Government's responsibility to engage in changing attitudes and spreading good practice amongst employers. The Government must pay as much attention to this side of the "back to work" equation as it does to getting the claimant "work ready"

I still feel uneasy about this aspect of the welfare reform. I saw the mistakes that were made with the WCA when it was first introduced when I was working for an MP. It was clear that the system was flawed and stacked against the claimant. I'm not against the idea in principle - but I want the emphasis to be on supporting the person, not on taking money from them unfairly. It needs to be made to work better.

My worry is that there is no will in either the Tory or Labour parties to really make this system work fairly and compassionately. The only people in that place who have a track record of speaking up for the people affected by these changes are the Liberal Democrats. Alistair Carmichael and Danny Alexander both had a good go at the Labour Government in opposition. We know that the Tories would have been a lot harder on welfare reform but were stopped because of us. It's up to us to maintain the pressure within the Government to act on and even beyond the recommendations in this report.

So this post is really a Lib Dem call to arms - I reckon that if Mr Potter's motion was passed with an overwhelming majority at our Conference, like the health reform one was, that would be a very powerful message to the Government.

Let's get to it. Despite the awful procedures for registering for Conference, there's now a really good reason to go.

Hero of the Day: Bob Russell MP lambasts "callous cretins" who took away constituent's DLA

Paul Walter will no doubt write up his usual fantastic report of PMQs for Lib Dem Voice later and I don't want to take away from that, but I thought it was worth highlighting that the toughest questions David Cameron faced came, not from the opposition, but from the Liberal Democrat benches.

I absolutely cannot stand it when Government backbenchers demean themselves by asking obviously planted questions. The snivelling toady look is really not edifying. It makes the MP appear like they don't have a mind of their own and they are entirely in the Whip's thrall.

Liberal Democrats don't do snivelling toadying that well. We see authority as something that has to be rigorously tested rather than cowed to. Nobody did that better today than Bob Russell the MP for Colchester, who highlighted the disparity between the aims of the Government to give disabled people the  back to work with the real life experience of one of his constituents.  Robert Oxley had a leg amputated after a motorbike accident and his other leg is severely damaged too. He was able to go back to work, but the transport on which he depends, his motability car, has been removed by the Department of Work and Pensions, who have decided that he doesn't qualify for DLA.

Bob didn't mince his words - dismissing those who sat on the Tribunal as "callous cretins" and asking Cameron where the words "fairness" and "all in it together" fitted into Mr Oxley's experience.

This is what PMQs should be about. I was actually impressed with David Cameron's answer. He seems much more willing to look into things himself than any other Prime Minister. He was quite clear that he'd seen decisions from tribunals that "fly in the face of common sense". He talked about having gone through the process of filling in the forms, presumably for his son Ivan, who sadly passed away last year, being soul destroying and complicated.

Let's hope that some high level intervention brings about a speedy review of Mr Oxley's case and that he is soon given back the car he needs to get to work.

Here's the full exchange from Hansard:

Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): Prime Minister, our Government say that we want to help disabled people back to work. Two years ago, my constituent, Mr Robert Oxley, a father of four, had a serious motorcycle accident, which resulted in one leg being amputated and the other leg no longer functioning. A year later, he recovered and his firm gave him back his job, which he has been able to continue for a year through disability living allowance and Motability. Regrettably, those in charge, including callous cretins on the tribunal, have taken away his DLA and took away his Motability car on Monday, and he is now out of work—or he will be. May I ask the Prime Minister where in that story the words “fairness” and “all in it together” feature?

The Prime Minister: I am very happy to take up the hon. Gentleman’s case. We have all seen cases in our constituencies where tribunals have come to conclusions that completely fly in the face of common sense. I am very happy to take up that case, have a look at it and see what can be done. We should do what we can to help disabled people, particularly with the mobility needs that they have. Having filled out those forms myself, I know just how soul destroying and complicated it can be and how much we need to help people who cannot get around to make sure that they do.