Are you fit to work?

How do you know if you're fit to go to work?

You would think, wouldn't you, that being able to get ready and out, get yourself to your place of work, work your shift and get home again would be just ever so slightly relevant, wouldn't you?

Most people's work shifts are at least 4 hours long, so given everything else, you need to have at least six hours' stamina in the tank, and much more if you do anything physical.

Everyone's situation will be variable and unique to them, and if they're very sick, they're likely to have a whole load of professionals around them who will know them and their capabilities well.

As a result of the changes brought in by the last Labour Government (and ever so slightly, but not enough, improved by the Coalition thanks to the influence of the Liberal Democrats), everyone on sickness and disability benefits is being put through an assessment process, sub-contracted out to a company called ATOS. I have never heard anyone have a good word to say about ATOS. Not once. A reputation like that takes some building.

I don't have an objection in principle to an assessment process, but I'd like it to be one that doesn't cause people unnecessary stress. I don't believe that we're anywhere near there yet. Bear in mind that seeing in stark black and white the extent of your health conditions and how they limit you is pretty painful in itself. Most of the time people try to push through the barriers of mental and physical disability and get on with as much as they possibly can. Having to fill in a form that seems full of traps and pitfalls and bears little relevance to the world of work just compounds the problems.

And this, dear readers, is the Bad Boy in question, the form most people have to complete. This is the form that someone behind a desk at ATOS uses to decide whether you are ill or not. I expect most of you looking at it will be reasonably fit and healthy. Imagine being confronted with this, with a time limit by which you have to complete it or you lose your benefit, when you're undergoing Cancer treatment, or dealing with Parkinsons, or coming to terms with the fact that you have MS, or depressed or stressed or anxious.

So what are the questions. Well, you have to say how your illness affects you on a day to day basis. If you're not used to organising your thoughts on paper, a big box to complete is quite scary.

Then you're asked about various physical and mental capabilities.

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.

So, any decision maker would see that I could do everything and would most likely tick the box that said "get your backside down the job centre, you scrounger". And I think there is that culture, that mentality, within the DWP. Everyone I know who has ever claimed benefits say that they are made to feel like a criminal when they do so. It's hardly surprising that so few have confidence in an assessment process that seems designed to have them marked as fit for work.

In reality, though, for a good while, I was as likely to be physically able to get to work as I was to fly to the moon and back before Elevenses. Even after I went back to work, there were days when I drove myself beyond my limits and, literally, collapsed in a heap. For months, I literally didn't have any life at all outside work and slump. If being ill and being isolated and stuck at home had been bad, that was worse.

But enough of me. Imagine someone with Angina who suffers intermittent heart attacks, who can't go to sleep  without being put on a special machine in case they stop breathing, who's confined to a wheelchair as a result of 20 years of ME, who has severe depression and anxiety, who's been in this situation for several decades, who requires 24 hour care. Can you just imagine how stressed out they must feel at the thought of filing in these forms? They'll have seen the news about the inefficiency of the system, how so many sick people are marked as fit for work. They'll be petrified about losing their benefits. And if they aren't, their family certainly will. I'm not making this scenario up, by the way. It's a real one happening to a friend of mine right now. She's given me permission to give the outline details on here. A properly functioning assessment process would clearly put her husband in the support group. A compassionate benefits system would give her far more support as a carer too but we won't go there at the moment.

There has to be a more respectful, dignified way of assessing people. The system introduced by Labour was appalling, relying in the first instance on the opinion of an ATOS employee. The Coalition's willingness to implement the recommendations of Professor Malcolm Harrington as he makes them is a step in the right direction, but they aren't there yet. An assessment process that takes no account of the realities of travelling to and completing a day's work with a fluctuating condition is in my view fundamentally flawed.

I know that Steve Webb and Jenny Willott have done lots of work on this and are pushing in the right direction, but we are not there yet. The assessment system is still making too many wrong decisions and people simply do not have confidence in it. The family I mentioned above are going through real torment at the thought that they might lose their benefits. I strongly suspect that they won't, but it surely can't be fair to put them through such anxiety in the meantime. A form that asked more relevant, realistic questions combined with a more helpful and positive culture within the Department of Work and Pensions and ATOS would help. When we see people like Sue Marsh, who's in and out of hospital the whole time, whose immune system is basically borked, for want of a better word, and who's in constant pain, having her ESA taken off her, you can do nothing else but question the fairness of the assessment system.

Sue writes on her "Diary of a Benefit Scrounger" blog about her daily struggle to keep going. This week she's faced the prospect of another admission to hospital. Read her account here.

Nick Clegg has done more than any other Government Minister I can remember to speak out about mental illness and provide real money to help people access the therapies they need to get better. This is so much better than people just being parked on benefits for years and left. What he's done will give people their lives back. That's such a valuable thing for him to have done. I have no doubt that we have stopped the Tories doing some even more horrendous stuff on welfare reform, but I can't accept or support either the one year time limit on contributory ESA or an assessment process that seems to have little relevance to the realities of work.

Leadership programme hopefuls and new MEP among signatories of candidates' plea to Clegg on Welfare Reform

Today's Guardian carries a report that more than 50 Liberal Democrat candidates at the last election have written to Nick Clegg to ask for a rethink on welfare reform.

This shows that many within the Party are unhappy with measures like the withdrawal of contributory Employment and Support Allowance after one year, something I've written about many times.

And this is not just Gareth Epps being awkward, either. Among the signatories to the letter are Greg Judge, Belinda Brooks-Gordon, Shas Sheehan and Layla Moran, four of the  participants in the much vaunted Leadership Programme as well as Daisy Benson, who darned well should be on it. We also have our newest MEP Rebecca Taylor who takes over Diana Wallis' seat after Stewart Arnold decided against succeeding his wife.  Stephen Glenn also told me where to find the actual letter rather than just the Guardian report so thanks to him.

The letter says:

Dear Nick

As you are aware the House of Lords voted in favour of 3 amendments to the Welfare Reform Bill, protecting important benefits for sick and disabled people.

The amendments, regarding contributory Employment and Support Allowance (cESA), were:

• The amount of time a person can receive cESA will be extended to at least 24 months, instead of the Government’s proposed 12 month limit.
• Cancer patients will be exempted from the time limit.
• The ‘youth provision’ of the benefit will be protected, meaning that young disabled people who cannot work will still be entitled to cESA without having made National Insurance contributions.

The amendments were passed with significant majorities, but they must still be approved by the House of Commons.

Contributory Employment and Support Allowance is a benefit given to people who have had to stop work due to ill health or disability, but who are well enough to return to work at some point. It is only given to those who have paid sufficient National Insurance Contributions during their working life.

Some disabled people will be able to return to work, but many will need more time and support to do so. The Department for Work and Pensions estimate that 94 per cent of disabled people will take longer than a year to find work. This means that many who remain unemployed after these 12 months will lose all benefit support. That would mean that, by 2015/16, 700,000 people would be affected and 280,000 would lose their entire benefit payment – currently £94.25 per week.

We are deeply concerned that the Minister, Chris Grayling, has already indicated he intends the Welfare Reform Bill to pass without the amendments on cESA when the Bill returns to the commons.

At Federal Conference we passed a motion which said we should not have an arbitrary time limit on cESA. Although the amendment extends the current proposal from one to at least two years, we do not believe we should let the best be the enemy of the good.

We, including many who stood as Liberal Democrat candidates at the last election, some who have been selected on the Lib Dem leadership programme, councillors and selected 2012 London candidates believe you and Lib Dem Parliamentarians should uphold party policy and principle and only support the Welfare Reform Bill with the amendments passed in the House of Lords.

It's clear that this isn't a north south thing either - this letter has the support of candidates from Linlithgow to Poole, from Coastal Suffolk to Wirral West.

I had precious few replies from my e-mails to our Peers, but Shirley Williams told me she had had over 500 e-mails on the subject of the ESA time limit.

This isn't enough, though. A letter from candidates trailed in the media won't make the difference. Our MPs need to hear that we want them to get the Government to pull back from the brink and not to overturn the Lords Amendments.

It's time for Liberal Democrat members to start contacting MPs in much larger numbers. The crucial votes take place next Wednesday. Will you do your bit in trying to persuade our MPs to oppose the measures that our Conference voted so strongly against? In fact, if you have a Lib Dem MP, tell them how strongly you feel about these changes. They will take notice if their inboxes and mailbags are full of correspondence on this issue.

Please contact our MPs yourself and spread the word to ask others to do the same if you feel that these reforms are way too harsh on sick and disabled people.

Why are Paddy and other Lib Dem Peers picking this Welfare Reform fight?

So, Liberal Democrat peers are preparing to stage a second major rebellion on the Welfare Reform Bill. The first, before Christmas, helped to defeat the Government's plans to cut Housing Benefit for those in houses with one spare bedroom.

Paddy told Sky News yesterday that he was intending to vote against the Government's plans to introduce a cap on the amount of benefits a family can receive of £26,000 in a year.  Nick Clegg presented this yesterday as fair on the Andrew Marr programme. He said that it the system had to be seen to be fair to taxpayers, many of whom would find it hard to imagine that someone on benefits was given the same amount as anyone else earning £35,000.

Well, for a start, someone on benefits would have to have a pretty large family and live in a very expensive area to come close to getting the full £26,000 in benefits. What annoys me most about this is that Child Benefit, which the family earning £35,000 don't have to pay tax on, will be taken into account as income for benefit recipients. That to me is pretty regressive.

The tabloid press love to show examples of large families living in expensive houses getting a fortune in Housing Benefit. Well, what if you and your large family rent a house that suits your needs and then you lose your job. Now, you could be out of work for over a year in today's climate, no matter how hard you try. My husband couldn't have tried harder way back in 1994, and it still took him 10 months to find a job at half his previous salary. Bear in mind that if you're on Housing Benefit you don't automatically get all your rent paid. You only get a Local Housing Allowance based on average rents in the area, and you only get the amount for the size of property you are deemed to need up to a maximum of 4 bedrooms. The rates for Local Housing Allowance have already been cut by the Coalition. It used to be based on an average of the lowest 50% of rents and this has been reduced to 30%. We, the taxpayer, are not financing very many palaces, you can be sure of that.

Iain Duncan Smith says nobody will be made homeless by these changes. He is talking utter nonsense. He is not in a position to guarantee that. Is there really sufficient affordable housing for everyone who'll need it? Will market rents come down as the Government wants or will landlords just not bother renting to people on benefits. How often do you see "no DSS" on adverts for rented properties?

So, Paddy is right and our peers have good reasons for opposing this measure. I just find the whole thing a bit inconsistent, though. Why are they making a fuss about this and not on cuts to Employment and Support Allowance. 40 percent of people in the Work Related Activity Group will lose their benefit of £94 a week come April if their partners earn more than £7,748 a year after tax OR work for more than 24 hours a week. Explain to me why a cap at £26,000 is not justified while it's acceptable to take nearly £400 a month off a family on a low income?

I really, really don't get it. Not only have our peers voted in favour of time limiting ESA, against very recent party policy, but they haven't come forward to explain why and that annoys me, to be honest.  At Conference, they should be closely questioned as to why they have made the choices they have. People I like, respect and trust voted in favour of these measures, but I really don't understand why.

The way it's looking the cap will be defeated in the Lords. I'd be surprised with any other outcome. This will no doubt spawn a whole load of scrounger stories in the Daily Fail, written by journalists who have probably never had to live on benefits, or had difficulty finding somewhere affordable to live.

+++Breaking News Lords reject one year time limit for ESA

As you might know, I have been very concerned at the Government's proposals to limit contributory Employment and Support Allowance for those in the Work Related Activity Group to one year.

Well, the BBC News Channel has just reported that the House of Lords have defeated this proposal - and by a fairly whopping majority, 234 to 186.

Let's hope the Government has the sense not to try to bring this back and finds another way to save the money that doesn't involve taking it off people who are too sick to work.

I don't know if and how many Liberal Democrats were involved in this, but as soon as I found out, I'll let you know.

Ok, an update. It turns out the Government were defeated 3 times tonight on the time limit (which appears according to the Guardian to have been increased to 2 years), to exempt cancer patients from the limit and to ensure that young disabled people are allowed to claim Contributory ESA even though they've never worked. The Government had wanted to remove that entitlement.

There were fewer Liberal Democrat rebels than I would have liked to see. I am particularly disappointed that 51 peers voted against the express wishes of our Conference for a one year time limit. I suspect that they will say that the 2 year limit was as arbitrary as the one year limit, though.

Bearing in mind that these votes may well be repeated in the Lords, I would advise that we need to be very nice to them, because we want to change their minds. So let's not be too angry, listen to what they have to say, because they are good people.

Anyway, the rebels on the time limit were Jenny Tonge and Dee Doocey, on the Cancer exemption Eric Avebury, Jenny Tonge, Shirley Williams, Tim Clement-Jones and Dee Coocey and on the disabled youth entitlement Roger Roberts, Dee Doocey and Jenny Tonge.

My e-mail to Liberal Democrat Peers on ESA #wrb

I knocked this up in about ten minutes in between getting the kids' breakfast yesterday morning and taking them to school.

I am writing as a Liberal Democrat member to ask you to vote against the Government’s proposal to impose a one year time limit for contributory ESA for people in the Work Related Activity Group when it comes up in the House, currently planned for Wednesday of this week.

I believe that this is wrong for a number of reasons. I spoke at a fringe meeting on this issue, run by RNIB Scotland, at Scottish Conference last November. Their incoming chair, Ken Reed, asked us to imagine being blinded in an accident tomorrow. He said it would take a year to get used just to being blind, let alone having to compete in an ever more difficult labour market.  Four years as an MP’s caseworker convinces me that there are many people, with quite serious conditions who are not well enough to work, who have been put into WRAG, despite the Harrington reviews.

I personally know a number of people who have worked for their whole lives, only to fall ill in their 50s. They stand to lose £400 a month which they can’t afford to lose. Had they been on benefits when they fell ill they would still qualify for income related ESA. This does not fit in with the Government’s stated aim that work should always pay.

The income limit for income related ESA is not very high – well below average earnings. Being ill can be costly – for example, if you can’t move around much, you’ll need to keep your house warmer. If you  need regular hospital treatment, transport costs can quickly mount up.

Liberal Democrat conference has made its position on this issue quite clear. Last September a motion was passed overwhelmingly which called on Liberal Democrats in Government to oppose arbitrary time limits for contributory ESA.

I hope that you will agree that the above factors make a compelling case for voting against the proposed time limit.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Best wishes
Caron Lindsay

Have you done yours, yet?

If you want to know why, read my post at Diary of a Benefit Scrounger and you can use the list of e-mails that some helpful soul has put in the comments. It literally couldn't be simpler and it could make the difference.

ESA Time Limit - 2 days to act! Write to a Lib Dem Peer now

Diary of a Benefit Scrounger has picked up my post from the other day about writing to Lib Dem peers ahead of the vote on time limiting contributory Employment and Support Allowance in the House of Lords, scheduled for this coming Wednesday. What's really useful is that a lovely and beautiful person has, in the comments to that, put in a list of peers' e-mail addresses, ready to cut and paste.

We know that this can be effective - the votes on the Welfare Reform Bill have been very tight, and changing the minds of even a couple of them could make the difference.

There are two main reasons why I feel they should change their minds:

Firstly, entitlement should be on need, not an arbitrary time limit. The threshold at which you are no longer entitled to income related ESA is very small and well below average income. To take nearly £400 a month away from people who are sick is simply not on. Remember what Ken Reed, chair of RNIB Scotland, said last year at our Scottish Conference. If you were blinded by an accident today, it would take you a whole year to get used to that, let alone thinking about finding a job.

Secondly, Liberal Democrat Conference has made it clear that it wants Liberal Democrats to oppose arbitrary time limits.

Mike German, our leading peer on this issue wrote an article on Liberal Democrat Voice the other day which didn't tackle this issue at all, nor has he come back and attempted to justify it. Maybe because that's simply not possible.  If you read the comments on that piece, you'll see one man describe how his wife, who had a stroke 3 years ago, has been put into the Work Related Activity Group against opinion of every professional who works with her. They will lose £400 a month from April. He makes the point that had she been on benefits prior to her stroke, she would still be entitled to ESA, so their income must be really low for her to lose it now. So much for this Government's aim of making work pay.

We have very little time left to make a difference. Write to those Lords now.

Six days to get rid of the 12 month time limit to ESA

Next Wednesday, 11th January, the House of Lords will be debating the Welfare Reform Bill. It's expected that the controversial clause time limiting contributory Employment and Support Allowance to one year for those in the Work Related Activity Group, those people who are judged to have a limited capacity to work. This change does not affect the sickest and most disabled people in the Support Group.

At the moment, if you receive contributory ESA (based on your NI contributions), you get around £90 a week and are eligible for that until you reach State Pension age. Now, you will lose your entitlement to it after a year. So, if you work for 40 years and pay tax and NI for all that time, you will only, when you need it most, get a year's support if the Government plans become law. This will take effect in just 3 months' time.

That means that people who are too ill to work will effectively have to rely on their families to support them. Being ill is a pretty expensive business - if you need to have regular medical treatment there's transport costs affected with that. Also if your mobility is affected, you will need  your house to be warmer. Not want. Need. 

I think depriving sick people of the support they get from the State based on an arbitrary time limit is wrong. It flies in the face of everything I believe as a liberal in terms of looking at the person and what they need. 

Most people, thankfully, do recover from illness within a year but some don't. It certainly took me two years after contracting Glandular Fever to feel remotely human again and it's left me with continuing health problems. Luckily I didn't need to claim ESA, but if I had, I am fairly sure I'd have had problems proving eligibility because of the fluctuating nature of the condition. If Sue Marsh, who suffers from really severe bowel disease, has trouble convincing the authorities that she's ill, then we have to suspect that the system is very flawed. Sue isn't my only example. Four years of working as an MP's caseworker provided me with many examples of the wrong decisions being taken and overturned after a lengthy and stressful appeals process.

The best argument I've heard against the time limit was put forward by Ken Reed, the new Chair of RNIB Scotland. He and I were speakers at a fringe meeting on welfare reform chaired by Secretary of State for Scotland Mike Moore at the Scottish Lib Dems' Autumn conference. Ken said that if you became blind as the result of an accident today, it would take a year just to get used to being blind, let alone being ready to get back into the labour market.

At our Federal Conference last Autumn, we passed a motion which called upon ""Liberal Democrats in Government to oppose an arbitrary time limit on how long claimants can claim Contributory ESA". To me, that means that our people in the Lords should vote against the time limit. The views of Conference are pretty unequivocal and the motion was passed with very little opposition.

If you haven't done so already, please get in touch with Liberal Democrat members of the House of Lords. A full list is here.  Tell them briefly why you think this time limit needs to go. 

Bear in mind that previous votes on the Welfare Reform Bill, including the one where 14 Lib Dem peers defeated an element of the Housing Benefit proposals, have been very, very close. It is possible for this vote to be won. We members can encourage that process so I would urge you all, again, to write to as many peers as you can, to give them an indication of the strength of feeling in the party. Please feel free to copy and paste this post into e-mails, tweet it, share on Facebook and spread the word in as many ways as you can think. 

We don't have long, but if we don't get rid of this time limit, sick people will start to suffer in less than 3 months' time. That should be enough motivation for us to devote some time to this today.

Former MP John Barrett speaks out against ESA assessments for Cancer patients

Regular readers will be aware of mine and George Potter's campaign against the Government's proposals to put Cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy and chemotherapy through work capability assessments.

At the moment, if you have Cancer and are undergoing IV chemo, you don't have to undergo the assessments, but if you're on oral chemo, you do. Macmillan Cancer Support and others highlighted this discrepancy and the Government decided to make the system the same for both groups. Unfortunately, they've done it the wrong way round. Instead of extending the exemption to the people on oral chemo, they've taken it away from those on iv chemo.

Now, both types of treatment are pretty hardcore. Cancer cells respond only to the most heavy duty of toxins. Anyone undergoing chemo is unlikely to be able to work while they're having the treatment because of the nasty, debilitating, dramatic side effects which can range from ulcers to vomiting to exhaustion and just about everything in between.

Just after I launched the petition, John Barrett, our former MP for Edinburgh West contacted me and said that he supported what we were trying to do and said he was happy for us tell that to the world, or at least the small part of it which reads our blogs.

Many of us in Scotland knew at the time that John had just undergone surgery to remove a cancerous tumour from his colon and was waiting to hear whether he'd have to undergo chemotherapy himself. It turns out that he does and will be starting this next month. Two weeks ago, he told the Scotsman about what he'd been through and how he wanted to tell everyone to use the NHS bowel cancer screening kit and not leave it gathering dust.

John has now told the Edinburgh Evening News that he wants the Government to rethink its plans for ESA. After objections from Macmillan, they were already undertaking a further consultation which will hopefully lead to them issuing an automatic exemption to everyone while they are undergoing treatment for Cancer.

He said:

“I’m speaking to my former parliamentary colleagues to say when this comes up they need to stop it.

“Macmillan are the experts. We should listen to what they and other charities are saying.”

I was not encouraged by the response from the DWP spokeswoman, however. She said:

“However, we do believe that assuming work is not an option for all cancer sufferers is not the right way ahead.”

Let's be realistic here. Cancer sufferers in the middle of treatment are unlikely to be able to work. They have enough to do dealing with the effects of the treatment. A medical certificate from a GP saying they're undergoing Chemo or Radiotherapy at the moment is all that should be needed for them to claim ESA. Once that treatment has finished, then, ok, resume the normal assessment system, but for goodness sake leave them alone while the toxins are doing their thing.

It bothers me that failure to return an ATOS form on time could mean that people lose their benefits. If that deadline falls at the wrong time in the treatment cycle and someone's too ill to complete the form, they will get a nasty shock next benefit day and they shouldn't have to go through that stress, and the stress of having to sort it all out, when they are so sick.

We also know that ATOS make mistakes. There's every possibility that they could decide that someone in the midst of chemo is fit for work and make them lose their benefit. Appealing that takes a long time and is also very stressful - not to mention they'll be expected to show evidence of job hunting if they're put back onto Job Seekers' Allowance or lose their benefit completely.

Asking for an exemption is not about writing people off forever, it's about recognising the debilitating effects of Cancer treatment while it's happening. Hopefully most people, once their treatment is over, will be fit enough to resume work and get on with their lives. If you agree with us that Cancer patients undergoing Chemo or Radiotherapy should be automatically exempt from these extra assessments, please sign our petition here and if you're a Lib Dem member, write to Party President Tim Farron (tim.farron@libdems.org.uk) and tell him how you feel. I know he's already looking into this, but I want him to be able to go to Nick Clegg and say he's had thousands of e-mails from party members who want us to stop the Government's proposals.

 Can you do that today, please? Also please spread the word as widely as you can. I'm hoping that this should be winnable because there is literally no sense in wasting time and energy putting people through assessments when they're clearly too ill to work by the very nature of what's happening to them. It's the right thing to do.

Former Liberal Democrat MP John Barrett backs campaign to exempt all cancer patients from work assessments

I was pleasantly surprised to receive a text from John Barrett, the former Liberal Democrat MP for Edinburgh West, yesterday morning as I was tootling round the supermarket. He wanted to let me know that he was "happy to support your campaign on chemotherapy proposals" and that I could put his support on my blog.

I wanted to leave yesterday to Joshua's appeal, but I'm really grateful to John. I know that he will also be advocating behind the scenes on this one as well.

Just to recap the situation, at the moment, if you are receiving intravenous chemo for Cancer you are automatically exempt from all assessments to see if you're fit for work that come along with claiming Employment and Support Allowance. However, if you are receiving oral chemo or radiotherapy, you have to go through them, even though your treatment can have just as horrendous side effects. Macmillan Cancer Support and others presented evidence to the Government to ask for all chemo patients to be exempt.

Unfortunately, the Government, while agreeing that there was a discrepancy, went the other way, and decided that all patients undergoing chemo should be assessed. This to me puts an unacceptable burden on people. Having hardcore poisons circulating in your system in near fatal quantities is more than enough for any one person to deal with at any one time. Having to deal with filling in complex forms from ATOS is just asking too much. Of course, if you miss the deadline for filling it in, you'll end up losing your benefit which could be a nightmare to sort out - and clearly impacts the most on those without family support or another income in the household.  The easiest thing would be to put everyone who files a certificate saying they are undergoing chemo for Cancer into the support group for the duration of their treatment and simply leave them alone.

Macmillan, perfectly understandably, are not happy with this. To its credit, the Government has suspended hte proposals and put them out for further consultation. What the petition George and I have set up aims to do is add weight to the case put forward by Macmillan. I don't want to put words into George's mouth, but I certainly believe it is the only humane option.

If you agree with George, John Barrett and hundreds of others, please sign here and share as widely as you can.

It's also good to see Party President Tim Farron say he's going to look into this. In response to George's article on Lib Dem Voice yesterday,  he said on Twitter last night:

It would be fabulous if he could come back and tell us that under no circumstances will Cancer patients undergoing chemo be required to undergo any work capability assessments.

Please support Glasgow North's brilliant amendment to the ESA Motion at #ldconf

The Federal Conference Committee has published its Conference Extra which lists last minute changes to the agenda and

If I could choose just one amendment and motion to pass from this year's Conference, it would be the one which, if enacted, would make a huge difference to the seriously sick people who are currently being forced to undergo assessment for Employment and Support Allowance and who face the removal of their benefit after one year.

Glasgow North local party have submitted an amendment to Liberal Youth's motion which really tightens it up and improves it. The text in full is:


After C. (line 25), insert:
D.  That vulnerable cases like this, where a welfare recipient’s income is threatened ,should qualify 
for free legal representation.


Delete 2 (line 35) and insert: 


2.  Liberal Democrats in Government to oppose an arbitrary time limit on how long claimants can 
claim contributory ESA.


In 3. (line 36), after ‘representation’ insert: ‘and expert advice, and for Government to reconsider 
the exclusion of welfare benefits casework such as this from the scope of legal aid.


After 3. (line 36), add:
4.  A presumption that ESA claimants with serious and uncontrollable life-threatening conditions 
should be allocated to the support group rather than the work related activity group.


5  A review of ATOS performance in delivering the Medical Services Agreement contract with 
DWP in respect of the quality of medical assessments.


6.  Effective contract compliance for contractors carrying out ESA eligibility assessments to avoid 
poor performance, and a presumption that in future ESA eligibility will be carried out by the 
public sector or non-profit organisations.


For me, the crucial improvements this amendment makes are:

"Liberal Democrats in Government to oppose an arbitrary time limit on how long claimants can claim contributory ESA" is much tighter wording and would send a very strong message to our ministers about what we expect of them.  If we really are a compassionate society, we do have to ensure that people who are sick are properly supported.

Free legal representation for claimants who are turned down and can't afford to challenge decisions is absolutely vital. I learned in 4 years as an MP's caseworker that Government agencies make mistakes. They are run by humans, after all, so it happens. That's a given. What they do often, though, is dig their heels in and refuse to admit or rectify their mistakes because they know that in the vast majority of cases, they won't be challenged. Often we had to present them with the evidence and be quite robust on several occasions before they would put things right. It's not a coincidence that the percentage of appeals granted goes up to 70% when people have proper representation. You really have to understand some pretty complex stuff and if you are already struggling with a long term condition, that can be very difficult, if not impossible to do. People are being consigned to a life of poverty, unable to work, yet with no support and unable to fight the bad decision that denied them their benefit. That is wrong and we as Liberal Democrats should stop it happening.

A presumption that people with long term conditions will be put in the support group - you do have to look at people as individuals, of course, but there are some people who are clearly never going to get better. It is cruel to keep dragging them in for assessments. I know of a fair few people who were denied Incapacity Benefit (as it was), went through the stressful and lengthy appeals process, got their benefits back and almost immediately were plunged into the whole process again. Putting people under this sort of stress exacerbates their condition and makes recovery less likely. Give them a break.

Finally, the last part, about keeping tabs on ATOS, who, in my opinion, treat people appallingly and make bad recommendations with a flawed assesment tool, is vital. I am very nervous about having such a sensitive system run by a private company anyway. We don't have private companies running courts and the judiciary for a reason. The benefits system should be no different.

I would hope that Liberal Youth, who submitted the original motion, would accept this amendment in its entirety.I think to do so would really strengthen our ministers' position within the Government.

Remember Spring Conference, when Conference put a stop to the unacceptable Tory health reforms? Well, this is just as vital.  Much of the Government's welfare reform programme is to be welcomed, but I can't support and will never even attempt to justify their proposals on ESA. They are unacceptable, pure and simple.

I am really impressed with George Potter who has pushed hard on this issue from the start and is responsible for it being on the Conference agenda. I think the Glasgow North amendment really enhances the motion and I urge every single voting rep to support it.