Campaigners against the Bedroom Tax, a measure that could add to the financial burden of disabled people. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Debt and disability: the real cost of being disabled in Britain

Disabled people have seen their dignity and their budgets shredded under this government; Labour is looking to challenge this.

During the 2010 election, David Cameron proudly claimed, "the test of a good society is you look after the elderly, the frail, the vulnerable, the poorest in our society. And that test is even more important in difficult times, when difficult decisions have to be taken, than it is in better times".

Disability has always created a premium that makes making ends meet harder. Scope’s recent report Priced Out shows how disabled people pay on average £550 a month extra for everyday living costs. These come from having to buy more of everyday things, such as heating or taxis, as well as the costs of specialist items to help manage their impairment or paying more for regular goods and services, like insurance, than non-disabled people.

Yet four years on, life for disabled people in David Cameron’s Britain is harder than ever as they have been amongst the worst affected by the decisions his government have made. At the same time as he has presented millionaires with a tax cut, disabled people have seen their dignity and their budgets shredded. Whether it’s the introduction of the unfair bedroom tax, the undermining of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, or changes to legal aid funding, disabled people have borne the brunt of austerity.

Little wonder Scope’s report showed that they are also twice as likely to have unsecured debt – such as payday loans, log book loans or credit card debt – totalling more than half of their household income. Even the Government’s own research shows this group is over-represented among high cost borrowers, with 18 per cent reporting using this credit compared with 5% of non disabled people. In Cameron’s Britain, a group already vulnerable to financial pressure is being "looked after" by the legal loan sharks and doorstep lenders, not the government. Indeed, Scope found that disabled people are three times more likely to take out doorstep loans than those without.

Debts don’t just make day-to-day living harder; they also narrow your horizons, as it is impossible to plan for the future if you can’t be sure you can keep a roof above your head or feed your family. The spiral of debt many disabled people now face from loan repayments and rising household bills is compounded by the additional difficulties of finding work that can work for them. We believe every person’s contribution to society should be valued, regardless of whether or not they can work. Yet we also know that confronted with second-rate employment support, many disabled people who want to work are missing out on the chance to boost their incomes. Characterised by delays, incompetence and unacceptable levels of inaccuracy, both the work capability assessment and the work capability programme have lost the trust of disabled people.

It isn’t right that those who face the greatest barriers in society are expected to shoulder the biggest burden. That’s why, together with disability campaigners, Labour called on the government to undertake a cumulative impact assessment that will assess the full impact of austerity on disabled people. Now we must understand their debt profile too. Payday lending is recognised as so toxic to consumers that the entire industry has been referred to the Competition Commission. Yet we are only at the start of understanding just how badly particular groups within our society have been affected by the delay in tackling this industry, and the consequences for society as a result. The government must conduct urgent research to get a clear and accurate idea of the impact on disabled people, and use this to inform the developing role of the Financial Conduct Authority in protecting vulnerable customers.

A Labour government would take determined action to tackle the additional financial pressures faced by disabled people – repealing the bedroom tax, freezing energy prices and a root-and-branch reform of the Work Capability Assessment to ensure it becomes a genuine route into work for those who’re able to take up employment. We also know we will have to find creative solutions to support disabled people with the additional living costs they face, whilst maintaining our commitment to the cap on social security spending. Many of the recommendations in Scope’s report, along with the work of the independent disability and poverty taskforce that has contributed to Labour’s policy review, will be useful to us in exploring these solutions further. Cameron has failed his own test to look after the elderly, the frail, the vulnerable, the poorest in our society. Labour is determined to rise to the challenge.


Stella Creasy is Labour MP for Walthamstow and shadow minister for competition and consumer affairs; Kate Green is Labour MP for Stretford and Urmston and shadow disability minister

Show Hide image

Will Euroscepticism prove an unbeatable advantage in the Conservative leadership race?

Conservative members who are eager for Brexit are still searching for a heavyweight champion - and they could yet inherit the earth.

Put your money on Liam Fox? The former Defence Secretary has been given a boost by the news that ConservativeHome’s rolling survey of party members preferences for the next Conservative leader. Jeremy Wilson at BusinessInsider and James Millar at the Sunday Post have both tipped Fox for the top job.

Are they right? The expectation among Conservative MPs is that there will be several candidates from the Tory right: Dominic Raab, Priti Patel and potentially Owen Paterson could all be candidates, while Boris Johnson, in the words of one: “rides both horses – is he the candidate of the left, of the right, or both?”

MPs will whittle down the field of candidates to a top two, who will then be voted on by the membership.  (As Graham Brady, chair of the 1922 Committee, notes in his interview with my colleague George Eaton, Conservative MPs could choose to offer a wider field if they so desired, but would be unlikely to surrender more power to party activists.)

The extreme likelihood is that that contest will be between two candidates: George Osborne and not-George Osborne.  “We know that the Chancellor has a bye to the final,” one minister observes, “But once you’re in the final – well, then it’s anyone’s game.”

Could “not-George Osborne” be Liam Fox? Well, the difficulty, as one MP observes, is we don’t really know what the Conservative leadership election is about:

“We don’t even know what the questions are to which the candidates will attempt to present themselves as the answer. Usually, that question would be: who can win us the election? But now that Labour have Corbyn, that question is taken care of.”

So what’s the question that MPs will be asking? We simply don’t know – and it may be that they come to a very different conclusion to their members, just as in 2001, when Ken Clarke won among MPs – before being defeated in a landslide by Conservative activists.

Much depends not only on the outcome of the European referendum, but also on its conduct. If the contest is particularly bruising, it may be that MPs are looking for a candidate who will “heal and settle”, in the words of one. That would disadvantage Fox, who will likely be a combative presence in the European referendum, and could benefit Boris Johnson, who, as one MP put it, “rides both horses” and will be less intimately linked with the referendum and its outcome than Osborne.

But equally, it could be that Euroscepticism proves to be a less powerful card than we currently expect. Ignoring the not inconsiderable organisational hurdles that have to be cleared to beat Theresa May, Boris Johnson, and potentially any or all of the “next generation” of Sajid Javid, Nicky Morgan or Stephen Crabb, we simply don’t know what the reaction of Conservative members to the In-Out referendum will be.

Firstly, there’s a non-trivial possibility that Leave could still win, despite its difficulties at centre-forward. The incentive to “reward” an Outer will be smaller. But if Britain votes to Remain – and if that vote is seen by Conservative members as the result of “dirty tricks” by the Conservative leadership – it could be that many members, far from sticking around for another three to four years to vote in the election, simply decide to leave. The last time that Cameron went against the dearest instincts of many of his party grassroots, the result was victory for the Prime Minister – and an activist base that, as the result of defections to Ukip and cancelled membership fees, is more socially liberal and more sympathetic to Cameron than it was before. Don’t forget that, for all the worry about “entryism” in the Labour leadership, it was “exitism” – of Labour members who supported David Miliband and liked the New Labour years  - that shifted that party towards Jeremy Corbyn.

It could be that if – as Brady predicts in this week’s New Statesman – the final two is an Inner and an Outer, the Eurosceptic candidate finds that the members who might have backed them are simply no longer around.

It comes back to the biggest known unknown in the race to succeed Cameron: Conservative members. For the first time in British political history, a Prime Minister will be chosen, not by MPs with an electoral mandate of their own or by voters at a general election but by an entirelyself-selecting group: party members. And we simply don't know enough about what they feel - yet. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog. He usually writes about politics.