To:
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Dear Harriet Harman,
Benefits Agency Medical Services/ All Work Test
(BAMS/AWT)
I am sending this to you on the 38th day of a hunger strike protest against the treatment of disabled people by BAMS and the All Work Test. Hunger striking is a very extreme action to take, but I have few ways in which I can try to make my voice heard and this is the very loudest I can shout. I ask you - in fact, I beg you - to give ten minutes of your time to reading and considering this letter and the enclosed briefing.
BAMS and the All Work Test were set up by the last government with the stated intention of clearing hundreds of thousands of people off Incapacity Benefit. The Test was infinitely more harsh than the DSS tests it replaced, and was widely recognised as such. The Labour strongly and cogently opposed the Test, with Harriet Harman, amongst many, saying it would cause widespread suffering and reform was crucial.
Today, six months into a Labour government, the Test remains in place and I have been unable to gain any clear or consistent statement if the Test may be reformed or abolished. I have found the following:
1. The government is privatising BAMS. This will put BAMS beyond the reach of proper government control, possibly for the remainder: of this Parliament. It suggests that the Government has no reform in view for BAMS.
2. The government is abolishing the Independent Tribunals Service to which those thrown off benefit by the All Work Test make their appeals. It is widely held that the successor to the ITS will not have the same level of independence. Instead of giving Parliamentary time to reforming a bad system, the government is giving time to scrapping a good one. What are the government's priorities?
3. Talk of a review of BAMS/AWT is often in the context of an overall review of "Welfare to Work". This is terrifying for disabled people who cannot work. Also, in a Parliamentary Answer (30th July 1997) John Denham stated that the government's objective was to "help those who can to become financially independent". Where does that "financial independence" come from for those who cannot work? Elderly people are forced to become financially independent by selling their homes; is the same "help" to be given to the disabled?
In short, the government's words seem to be more threat than assurance, and their actions provocative and uncaring. I know of countless people, Labour voters and activists, who are deeply shocked by this ("This ? Under Labour?" is a typical reaction) Anything shocking on a National scale is, by definition, news; yet the National Press, at the time of writing, have remained collectively, continuously, and astonishingly silent. Public opinion remains uninformed, and therefore unexpressed. The only hope for change is for Labour MPs like yourself to act. It is in this hope I am writing to you now.
Yours in Hope,
Keith Rushworth
|
