Are disability benefits worth fighting for?

At the end of July, when no-one was looking, the UK government launched a consultation on the future of Attendance Allowance (AA). This non means-tested benefit is claimed by people over 65 who need support because of long-term chronic illness or disability. If introduced, the proposals will stop direct disability payments to individuals, and the cash will be handed over to council's social services departments instead. Disabilisty Living Allowance (DLA) a benefit for those under 65 is also under threat.

Benefits and Work have an online petition opposing the plans. They say:
"Under the plan, current claimants would have their disability benefits converted to a personal budget administered by local authorities and used to pay for services, not to spend as they wish. We know that many people will take false comfort from the fact that, unlike AA, DLA is not specifically named as being for the axe. But if the government was planning only to abolish AA it is extremely unlikely that they would refer constantly throughout the green paper to 'disability benefits', a term which includes not just AA but also DLA."

Benefits and Work are looking for 1,000 people currently claiming the benefits to get in touch to help with their campaign. The National Autism Campaign (sic) have similar concerns and are asking people to contact them with their views before they submit their response to the consultation.

You can read the green paper here and have your say here.

The UK Labour government are playing a dangerous game. They are desperate to reduce public expenditure, but instead of getting back the estimated £40 billion in corporate tax evasion, their target is one of society's most vulnerable groups. The Welsh Assembly Government have yet to respond in full, but state that the proposals are unlikely to come into force until April 2014. Which party is most likely to be in control of the UK government in 2014? Are Labour irresponsibly paving the way for the Tories to remove a vital safety net?

Do we have to accept a £500m budget cut?

According to news reports Wales could face budget cuts of 'up to £500m' next year. The reason - the bank-bailouts have to be paid for, and so public spending across the UK is expected to be squeezed.

The fallout from the inadequate local government and further education funding settlements was bad enough. 2010 and beyond will be a nightmare. The public sector provides more jobs pro rata in Wales than it does in other parts of the UK and so these cuts will have a bigger impact here. They'll destroy attempts to raise the GDP of the EU's Objective 1 area, West Wales and the Valleys.

The financial crisis has led Governments across the world to rewrite the rules of capitalism, contradicting the economic doctrine that they have been fighting wars over for the past fifty years. Isn't it now time for the rules to be rewritten in favour of working people? Shouldn't jobs should be the top priority? Large-scale long-term unemployment causes deep social problems which can last well into any recovery period, as many of our former mining communities know only too well. Public sector jobs are the easiest ones for the government to save. We simply can't take these cuts lying down.

Mark Serwotka of the PCS Union has said that we need a united front of politicians and trades unions, to challenge Gordon Brown. What is needed is an emergency rescue deal for the public sector. Or will the bankers continue to be the UK government's top priority?

From the Record

Leanne Wood: What discussions has the Minister had regarding private finance initiative projects in Wales?

The Minister for Finance and Public Service Delivery (Andrew Davies): I have had none specifically on PFI projects, but I have had a number of discussions with my Cabinet colleagues, the Wales Trades Union Congress and others about making use of innovative funding approaches in Wales to complement our existing resources, as well as improving our technical expertise in a manner that is consistent with our existing policy.

Leanne Wood: Can you tell us what the thinking was behind the establishment of a new public-private partnership unit, five years after your predecessor, Sue Essex, wound up a similar unit? Do you agree that, at a time when the private sector has become dependent on state handouts, due in large part to its own recklessness and greed, Welsh public services would be exposed to unacceptable risk if anything were done to make them more dependent on private capital now? Furthermore, will you give an assurance that no existing public sector staff will be transferred, under any partnership deal, to either a private or a third sector organisation?

Andrew Davies: I want to make it absolutely clear that there is no change to our existing policy. However, as the Minister with responsibility for finance, I am determined that we will make the maximum and most effective use of our resources, particularly our capital resources. As we know as a result of the recent pre-budget report, it is a possibility that our capital allocation will be reduced substantially. Therefore, it is even more important that we make the maximum use of our resources. The public sector generally, across the UK, has not been good at using capital. In many cases, we do not have the skills and expertise required to make the best use of our capital expenditure, and there is a whole range of programmes, information communications and technology projects, and e-government and other projects where the public sector does not have the skills and expertise required. The idea behind setting up the partnership Wales unit, as I have called the public-private partnership unit, is to ensure that we have that expertise, and are able to deal with the private sector and other public sector bodies in a realistic way, ensuring that we make the maximum use of our resources. To recap, we have not changed our policy; however, it is about making the maximum use of the resources that may be at our disposal.