Why Baroness Murphy is just plain wrong

Why Baroness Murphy is just plain wrong







Here's what Baroness Murphy had to say on the House of Lord's blog post about why she sided with government in opposing amendments to the welfare reform bill last week..


"I voted with the Government against the amendment by Baroness Meacher to continue ESA for young disabled people who have resources of their own to support them and have not contributed to what is essentially a contributory benefit. The House voted to continue giving benefits to young people even if they inherited a large capital sums or lived in wealthy households. Then I decided not to vote on the other amendments by Lord Patel.

I dislike the singly out of cancer as if it is a special case; there are many physically and mentally ill people with chronic distressing conditions requiring long term treatment but that don’t have the shroud-waving potential of cancer. The other matter that people forget is that 90% of people with cancer are past retirement and are not eligible for any of these benefits; older people have to make do as best they can. These small amendments will benefit very few indeed but those few rather unfairly."


And here's why I think she's just plain wrong to hold such a view...


Baroness Murphy has done a great deal to recognise and represent the needs of our older age population. In siding with government she shows signs of dismissing the equally important needs of the working age and younger population. It is with no disrespect to our retired population that we cannot ignore how the elderly account for nearly 42 percent of the entire benefit spend. In many ways we've become the victims of our own success as improvements in health treatments now mean that many people live to a much greater age. The welfare reforms and many of the Tories pre-election promises were all about giving our 'next generation' a chance. Regrettably, it is today's youth and less protected mid-generation which appears to have become an easy to finger scapegoat when casting blame for the dire economical state we find ourselves in today.

The ethos in protecting the incapacitated in youth was to afford those suffering severe disability some degree of protection. It is in part why the now extinct Severe Disablement Allowance was introduced in 1984. Does it not make sense to ensure that severely disabled youths should be better provided for as they make their way through their turbulent lives? Disabled youths will be at a distinct disadvantage in the labour market for the years ahead. The amendment for Employment & Support Allowance for youths was to support those who have years of struggling ahead of them. Baroness Murphy misses the point entirely by drawing attention to how these youth won't have paid into the system; -by her failure to recognise how they simply would not have had the chance to by virtue of their profound disability. Her support of government in this particular amendment also makes a point that disabled youths should use up any capital or turn to their parents for financial support before relying on the state. Is the Baroness suggesting that disabled youths should not be able to retain a safety net for the future? Furthermore, in suggesting youths turn to their parents; is the Baroness denying them any prospect of being able to find their own financial independence?

I am baffled why Baroness Murphy picks a fight with cancer, she is after all an ardent disability campaigner herself; - supporting the case for Alzheimer sufferers, surely she should have pointed out the shortcomings in the bill by insisting the amendments be extended to protect all types of severe disability? Or is the Baroness only prepared to come out fighting for her own generation; - is that not somewhat selfish?

On a more general note, why is it that those voting for welfare reform appear to have paid little regard to the strict qualifying conditions for disability benefits which have been in place for many years. The regulations have always implied strict criteria; - why is so little said over the DWP's failure to police those left out in the welfare wilderness? Why also is so little attention paid to the fact that qualified doctors signed their patients off sick? - are these reformers casting doubt upon the credibility of the medical profession?

And on a point of correction, those over the age of 65 would be able to claim Attendance Allowance for conditions such as cancer. It is also fair to point out that the personal allowance for a person of working age is considerably less than it is for a person in retirement. Indeed such is the impact of a higher mortality rate on our benefits, that it has been recognised that the biggest growth figures in disability benefits can be related to a 285% growth rate in those age 80+, 146% for those aged 75 - 79 and 79% for those between 70 and 74.
Read more: mylegal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=frontline&action=display&thread=405&page=2#ixzz1jfZj1Wh5

Baroness Murphy seems misinformed as to how the bill will work in practice, she would do well to read and understand the detail before passing her own misinformed judgement upon it. She would also do rather well to read a good report prepared by an academic of the London School of Economics, the report ' The Evolution of Disability Benefits in the UK: - Re-weighting the basket' prepared in 1999 provides an invaluable insight into how the welfare state evolved between 1974 and 1997. I would suggest any peer voting on welfare reform has a read of it before they side with government and blame all of welfare's problems on what happened over the last decade. They can read the report here:
sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cp/CASEpaper26.pdf

Baroness Murphy's blog can be read here:
lordsoftheblog.net/2012/01/13/welfare-reform-again/

The Baroness's blog is entitled 'Welfare Reform Again' - it's a title which almost trivialises the immense impact this bill will impose upon thousands of genuinely disabled people if it passes into legislation. More worrying is Baroness Murphy's reference to batting the bill between the House of Lord's and the House of Commons in what she calls a game of 'ping pong' - I doubt whether those who stand to be affected by the bill see it as the game she does.


Our eminent peers owe a duty of care to those affected to get their facts right before deciding on how to vote in these most perilous reforms; - I sincerely hope they do.