Happy new year everyone!

The government has recently suffered heavy defeats in the House of Lords regarding several of their plans for shaking up the welfare system. Fundamentally, we as a group are relieved, as are many in our position. We are more than willing to accept that something needs to be done; in the interests of fairness cuts need to be across the board rather than in one specific area. But there are certain things that you just don't do or shouldn't go anywhere near.

The proposed plan to move to a Universal Credit System is a good one - in fact it's amazing that this hasn't been attempted or thought of previously. There are so many different types of benefits available that the system is far too confusing and many don't know the half of what they could apply for.

Changing the term to Universal Credits is also crucial in our opinion, as it removes many a stigmatism of individuals being on any one particular benefit type based on personal circumstances, background, injuries and the like. More often than not though, when a name is changed, it is the case that this is more of a screen for a real terms cut in the amount of benefit being received.

We agree with the work related employment benefit changes that are being made. If someone can work and can be facilitated back into the work environment, then they should be. However, setting one or two year time limits is a dangerous and risky precedent that isn't flexible enough to take into account the multitude of variables that it needs to. Mental illnesses for one are difficult enough to diagnose at the best of times. If you add into that the often quickly changing nature of personal circumstances that you get with many classed on benefits (vulnerable, that "d-word" or otherwise), the system simply cannot keep up. What happens if part way through a two year program to get someone back to work they become ill again, does that time limit still apply? Does it get reset? How is this monitored with all the other cases that need equal attention?

But on DLA, they've got things completely wrong so far. Of all the things that should not be messed around with, this comes top of the list. In an ideal world where someone with a high level spinal cord injury (for example) requiring 24 hour care is in a position to be able to work, and take a salary, there are additional costs as a result of their situation which cannot be avoided that they must pay for. ANY changes to this provision, whether under the smoke screen of a name change or otherwise, that results in a real term cut, are wrong. So is cutting the mobility component from anyone in a nursing home. These payments are crucial for people being able to get around with the extra costs they incur. It is just as well that this decision was reversed.

Whatever the benefit, whatever the name, whatever screening process is used, there needs to be a more efficient means of screening out the claimants who don't need these benefits. So far the government has failed to come up with a satisfactory answer to this conundrum, so we strongly encourage them to re-look at their current proposals and "try again".