English councils handing huge extra care bills to disabled and mentally ill adults

Charities draw up list of charges they describe as ‘care tax’ resulting from national underfunding

By Robert Booth

Adults with a disability or mental illness are receiving extra care bills running into thousands of pounds that they say could force them to cut back on food and heating and threaten their social independence.

Amid a care funding crisis, some English councils are quietly increasing charges to people with learning disabilities and mental illness, in effect clawing back welfare payments and leaving some working-age adults with little more than £3 a day to spend.

People facing the charges fear they will be unable to afford enough clothes and worry that basic pleasures like swimming trips will have to stop. One single man living with bipolar disorder said he may have to put down his dog because he will be unable to afford to look after it.

Care charities have drawn up dossiers of charges they describe as a new “care tax” and say it is a result of national underfunding of social care. The Health Foundation has estimated that at least an additional £6bn a year is needed to meet growing demand, rising to £14bn if the country wants to improve access to care and pay more to staff, many of whom earn minimum wage.

Mencap, the learning disability charity, said it had received dozens of “concerning” calls to its helpline about the issue, and its chief executive, Edel Harris, said it was “causing huge distress for them and their families, ​and leaving many without enough money to cover their additional needs”.

Some people are refusing to pay and are considering legal challenges. Care Act guidance says charges must be “reasonably practicable” for people to pay and that the approach to charging should promote “independence, choice and control”.

One of the councils levying increased charges, West Sussex county council, said that while it had previously charged working-age care recipients less than Whitehall rules allowed, increases were now necessary because of “decreased funding from central government”.

Care recipients in the county have seen weekly charges rise sharply, in one case from £5.59 to £83 a week, and in another from £40 to £151 a month. Matthew Welch, 22, who has cerebral palsy, has seen his care contribution more than double to £77, leaving him with just £23 a week from his welfare benefit, a move his mother, Sarah Welch, described as “appalling”.

Sue Livett, the managing director of the Aldingbourne Trust, a charity in West Sussex that provides care for people with learning disabilities and autism, said at least 50 families had complained about increased charges.

A council spokesperson said: “Our charging arrangements follow national guidance and are based on an individual assessment of a person’s financial circumstances. We have asked people to contact us if they will find it difficult to pay so we can work with them on an individual basis.”

A parent in Staffordshire said their family had been hit with a backdated bill exceeding £20,000 for their adult children with learning disabilities.

“It’s disgraceful,” they said, requesting anonymity. “They have no opportunity to go out and earn money on their own. They rely completely on benefits.”

Also in Staffordshire, a young adult with complex learning difficulties who needs round-the-clock care was sent a bill demanding he pay £88 a week towards the costs, equivalent to £4,500 a year. It has to be taken from his universal credit payments and leaves him with just £25 a week for other expenses.

His mother, a hairdresser unable to work during the pandemic, said she was “absolutely furious” and it meant they would not be able to afford enough clothes for her son, which is a particular issue owing to his incontinence, plus it could prevent him from going to the cinema or the swimming pool with his carers.

“It’s a huge effect on his quality of life,” she said. “He won’t have any variety in his day. We are not acknowledging that people are individuals and have needs in their lives.”

Dr Richard Harling, the director of health and care at Staffordshire county council, said the amount people were asked to contribute was “based on what they can afford to pay while still being left with income to meet their living costs”.

He added: “If a person feels they are contributing too much, they can contact us to appeal their financial assessment.”

Social Care Futures, a coalition of care givers and receivers, has received more than 150 reports of rising charges. “Escalating charges must be capped and there must urgently be a significant investment in social care, our lives and freedom,” said Anna Severwright, the coalition’s convener.

The Department of Health and Social Care has been contacted for comment.

David Jones, 60, lives alone in West Sussex with bipolar disorder, which 10 years ago rendered him unable to work.

The former newspaper subeditor relies on two hours of support a week to help him keep his flat in order but is facing an increase in his contribution for this from £40 to £151 a month. The money would have to come from his personal independence payment (Pip) and would take up a third of that budget. He said that would leave him choosing between “heating and eating” and it would affect his budget so much that he will have to consider putting down his 14-year-old dog, Megan, which he said would be “beyond awful”.

Pip is supposed to help people with illness, disabilities and mental health conditions maintain norms of everyday life. He said clawing this money back was “just ridiculous”.

“I simply can’t afford it,” Jones said. “This extortionate demand represents 20% of my monthly income from benefits. It has to be outright unfair and a national scandal that the Department for Work and Pensions awards us Pip with one hand, and the county council takes up to a third of it away with the other.

“I would have to cut my food budget drastically and might end up having to go to a food bank,” he said. “I have a dog and if I was going to try and budget for the amount of money [I have left] the dog would have to go.”

He said Megan had been a “lifeline to sanity” during the pandemic and had been “incredibly helpful for my mental health”.

“This [demand] has caused me incredible distress and anxiety,” he said. “There are people in an even more vulnerable position than me suffering with mental health illnesses, autism and learning disabilities and it must be extremely difficult for them to cope with this. It’s really heartless and cruel. I don’t think it’s going to raise an awful lot for the county council but it’s a vast amount for us.”

The council has said central government cuts precipitated the increased charges and it has asked “people to contact us if they will find it difficult to pay”.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/apr/08/english-councils-huge-extra-care-bills-disabled-mentally-ill-adults

Fury at ‘do not resuscitate’ notices given to Covid patients with learning disabilities

Vulnerable people have encountered ‘shocking discrimination’ during pandemic, says Mencap charity

by James Tapper

People with learning disabilities have been given do not resuscitate orders during the second wave of the pandemic, in spite of widespread condemnation of the practice last year and an urgent investigation by the care watchdog.

Mencap said it had received reports in January from people with learning disabilities that they had been told they would not be resuscitated if they were taken ill with Covid-19.

The Care Quality Commission said in December that inappropriate Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) notices had caused potentially avoidable deaths last year.

DNACPRs are usually made for people who are too frail to benefit from CPR, but Mencap said some seem to have been issued for people simply because they had a learning disability. The CQC is due to publish a report on the practice within weeks.

The disclosure comes as campaigners put growing pressure on ministers to reconsider a decision not to give people with learning disabilities priority for vaccinations. There is growing evidence that even those with a mild disability are more likely to die if they contract the coronavirus.

Although some people with learning disabilities such as Down’s syndrome were in one of four groups set by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) which the government promised would be offered the vaccine by tomorrow, many were classified lower categories of need and are still waiting.

NHS figures released last week show that in the five weeks since the third lockdown began, Covid-19 accounted for 65% of deaths of people with learning disabilities. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that the rate for the general population was 39%, although the two statistics are drawn from different measurements.

Younger people with learning disabilities aged 18 to 34 are 30 times more likely to die of Covid than others the same age, according to Public Health England.

Edel Harris, Mencap’s chief executive, said: “Throughout the pandemic many people with a learning disability have faced shocking discrimination and obstacles to accessing healthcare, with inappropriate Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) notices put on their files and cuts made to their social care support.

“It’s unacceptable that within a group of people hit so hard by the pandemic, and who even before Covid died on average over 20 years younger than the general population, many are left feeling scared and wondering why they have been left out.

“The JCVI and government must act now to help save the lives of some of society’s most vulnerable people by urgently prioritising all people with a learning disability for the vaccine.”

More than 14m people have received a first vaccine dose so far, and care providers who spoke to the Observer said many people with learning disabilities had been vaccinated in the last week. But some are still waiting. One woman from the West Midlands who has a rare form of Down’s syndrome told the Observer she had not yet been given a date.

“It’s really frustrating – it’s been a fight and it shouldn’t have been a fight,” she said. Her condition means she is in category four – people who are clinically extremely vulnerable – but her GP did not have details of her condition on record – a common problem, according to Mencap.

“I had to call them lots of times,” she said. The practice accepted last week that she needed to be vaccinated, she said, but she was still waiting. “For people in a similar situation to me, they won’t have been badgering them as much as me.”

A lack of badgering is part of the reason why people with learning disabilities may be more likely to die from Covid-19 than the rest of the population, according to Dr Keri-Michèle Lodge, a consultant in learning disability psychiatry in Leeds.

“Doctors often don’t understand that someone with learning disabilities may not be able to communicate their symptoms,” she said. “Carers are sometimes not listened to – you might notice something is wrong, but that is often written off as part of their behaviour.

“People with learning disabilities already get a raw deal from the health services. Fewer than two in five people with a learning disability live until they are 65.”

An analysis by the Office for National Statistics last week showed that six in 10 Covid deaths were of people with a disability.

“The biggest factor associated with the increased rate of death from their analysis was living in care homes or residential settings,” Lodge said. “They prioritised people in care homes for vaccinations, but that was only for older adults. They completely forgot about people with learning disabilities in a really similar setting. I don’t know if the government were blindsided or just neglectful.”

Professor Martin Green OBE, Care England’s chief executive, said: “As the largest representative body for independent providers for adult social care, Care England remains concerned that the government has not given individuals with a learning disability a higher level of priority for the Covid vaccine.

“We urge the government to remove the arbitrary distinction between prioritising those with a severe or profound learning disability and those with a mild or moderate learning disability, and prioritise all those with a learning disability in priority group four. People with learning disabilities must not be overlooked at any time.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/13/new-do-not-resuscitate-orders-imposed-on-covid-19-patients-with-learning-difficulties

UK coronavirus rules relaxed for people with autism and learning disabilities

Policy updated after lawyers challenge ‘discriminatory’ lockdown measures

People with learning disabilities or autism can leave the house for exercise more than once a day and can travel outside of their local area under current lockdown measures, the government has said.

The guidance, which had previously stated that non-essential workers should only leave their homes once a day for exercise or to shop for basic necessities, was amended on Wednesday.

The updated advice reads: “If you (or a person in your care) have a specific health condition that requires you to leave the home to maintain your health – including if that involves travel beyond your local area – then you can do so.

“This could, for example, include where individuals with learning disabilities or autism require specific exercise in an open space two or three times each day – ideally in line with a care plan agreed with a medical professional.”

Although those with autism and mental health conditions are advised to limit their travel, and stay as close to their local area as possible, carers and support workers who do not live in their household can accompany them.

The change comes after lawyers from Bindmans LLP and 39 Essex Chambers were asked for help by two families with children on the autistic spectrum.

Bindmans said one of the children, whose conditions mean it was necessary for them to leave the house more than once a day for their wellbeing, was deliberately taken to a quiet location outside of their local area because of their particular needs.

The firms argued that the “inflexible policy”, which also says people should stay two metres apart from anyone outside of their household, disproportionately impacted those with certain health conditions and was “therefore unlawful and discriminatory”.

After the amendment was made to the guidance, one of the affected families said they were “delighted” they could support their son’s needs “without breaking the rules”.

A spokesperson for the Cabinet Office said the most important action the public could take during the pandemic was to stay home to prevent the spread of Covid-19.

But, it added: “We understand that this will be more difficult for some, that is why we clarified the guidance regarding the needs of those with specific health conditions such as learning disabilities or autism.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/14/uk-coronavirus-rules-autism-learning-disabilities-lockdown

Welfare surveillance system violates human rights, Dutch court rules

Government told to halt use of AI to detect fraud in decision hailed by privacy campaigners

A Dutch court has ordered the immediate halt of an automated surveillance system for detecting welfare fraud because it violates human rights, in a judgment likely to resonate well beyond the Netherlands.

The case was seen as an important legal challenge to the controversial but growing use by governments around the world of artificial intelligence (AI) and risk modelling in administering welfare benefits and other core services.

Campaigners say such “digital welfare states” – developed often without consultation, and operated secretively and without adequate oversight – amount to spying on the poor, breaching privacy and human rights norms and unfairly penalising the most vulnerable.

The UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, applauded the verdict and said it was “a clear victory for all those who are justifiably concerned about the serious threats digital welfare systems pose for human rights”.

The decision “sets a strong legal precedent for other courts to follow”, he added. “This is one of the first times a court anywhere has stopped the use of digital technologies and abundant digital information by welfare authorities on human rights grounds.”

The verdict will be watched closely by welfare rights campaigners in the UK, where the government is accelerating the development of robots in the benefits system in a digitisation drive that vulnerable claimants fear could plunge them further into hunger and debt.

A Guardian investigation in October found the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) had increased spending to about £8m a year on a specialist “intelligent automation garage” where computer scientists were developing more than 100 welfare robots, deep learning and intelligent automation for use in the welfare system.

The Dutch government’s risk indication system (SyRI) is a risk calculation model developed over the past decade by the social affairs and employment ministry to predict the likelihood of an individual committing benefit or tax fraud or violating labour laws.

Deployed primarily in low-income neighbourhoods, it gathers government data previously held in separate silos, such as employment, personal debt and benefit records, and education and housing histories, then analyses it using a secret algorithm to identify which individuals might be at higher risk of committing benefit fraud.

A broad coalition of privacy and welfare rights groups, backed by the largest Dutch trade union, argued that poor neighbourhoods and their inhabitants were being spied on digitally without any concrete suspicion of individual wrongdoing. SyRI was disproportionately targeting poorer citizens, they said, violating human rights norms.

The court ruled that the SyRI legislation contained insufficient safeguards against privacy intrusions and criticised a “serious lack of transparency” about how it worked. It concluded in its ruling that, in the absence of more information, the system may, in targeting poor neighbourhoods, amount to discrimination on the basis of socioeconomic or migrant status.

The system did not pass the test required by the European convention on human rights of a “fair balance” between its objectives, namely to prevent and combat fraud in the interest of economic wellbeing, and the violation of privacy that its use entailed, the court added, declaring the legislation was therefore unlawful. The Dutch government can appeal against the decision.

Christiaan van Veen, director of the digital welfare state and human rights project at New York University School of Law, said it was “important to underline that SyRI is not a unique system; many other governments are experimenting with automated decision-making in the welfare state”.

Van Veen cited Australia and the UK as countries where such concerns were particularly acute. “This strong ruling will set a strong precedent globally that will encourage activists in other countries to challenge their governments,” he said.

Alston predicted the judgment would be “a wake-up call for politicians and others, not just in the Netherlands”. The special rapporteur presented a report to the UN general assembly in October on the emergence of the “digital welfare state” in countries around the globe, warning of the need “to alter course significantly and rapidly to avoid stumbling, zombie-like, into a digital welfare dystopia”.

In the UK, as well as contracts with the outsourcing multinationals IBM, Tata Consultancy and Capgemini, the DWP is also working with UiPath, a New York-based company co-founded by Daniel Dines, the world’s first “bot billionaire”, who last month said: “I want a robot for every person.”

His software is being deployed in an effort to introduce machine learning to check benefit claims, which suggests welfare computers will autonomously learn and alter the way they make decisions with minimum human intervention.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/05/welfare-surveillance-system-violates-human-rights-dutch-court-rules

Has welfare become unfair – a new report by the Disability Benefit Consortium

Today’s report by the Disability Benefits Consortium (DBC), ‘‘Has welfare become unfair – the impact of changes on disabled people” looks at the financial impact and lived experiences of welfare reform on disabled people.

Changes to the welfare system over the past ten years have left disabled adults four times worse off financially than non-disabled adults, according to new research commissioned by the Disability Benefit Consortium.

While many people who receive welfare support have experienced cuts of an average of £300 as a result of changes to the welfare system, disabled people have typically lost around £1,200 per year.

The research funded by the Three Guineas Trust and conducted by the University of East Anglia, the University of Glasgow and Landman Economics is the first comprehensive study looking specifically at the cumulative impact of welfare changes on disabled people. The research also found:

The more disabilities you have the more you lose out, for example someone who has six or more disabilities loses over £2,100 each year on average, whereas someone with one disability loses around £700 each year
Households with one disabled adult and one disabled child lose out the most, with average losses of over £4,300 per year
As part of the research, 50 people living with a variety of conditions and disabilities were interviewed about their experiences. People said that they found the application and assessment processes highly stressful, and that they did not feel trusted, and constantly challenged.

The report also states that the current system has become so complex and dysfunctional, that many disabled people have found it has had a devastating impact on their wider health and wellbeing.

You can find the full report here.

Blue Badge (disabled parking) scheme eligibility consultation

Blue Badge (disabled parking) scheme eligibility consultation: summary of responses and outcome

Outcome to the Department for Transport’s consultation on proposals to extend Blue Badge eligibility to people with non-physical conditions.

PART 2 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

7. The Department was delighted to receive over 6300 responses to the
consultation and for the time that individuals and organisations took to provide
considered responses.
8. The Blue Badge scheme plays a vital role in allowing 2.4 million disabled
people in England to maintain their independence through special national
parking concessions. Blue Badges enable their holders to visit their families
and friends, and to access jobs, healthcare and leisure activities.
9. Although the Department considers that people with non-physical disabilities
are not excluded from receiving a Blue Badge, a problem arises from the
wording in the regulations providing eligibility for: “a permanent and
substantial disability which causes inability to walk or very considerable
difficulty in walking”. This does not specify whether the disability is physical or
non-physical – and can therefore be either. However there is confusion
around whether this only means physical difficulty in putting one foot in front
of the other or can include difficulties or challenges when walking, including
safety risks, which may arise from non-physical disabilities.
10. The Government wants to ensure that the rules and guidance are clear. It
wants to give parity of esteem to mental and physical health conditions. It
wants a scheme that is sustainable and works for all who are eligible for it,
whatever their disability. It wants it to be fair, consistent, inclusive and nondiscriminatory.
11. We are delighted that 89% of respondents are, in principle, in favour of our
proposals to amend the eligibility criteria. This support applies to all groups –
local authorities 71%, groups representing disabled people 84%, other
organisations 87% and individuals 89%. The main points raised were more to
do with implementation and consequential impacts. There was a call for
clarification of certain terms and the provision of clear guidance so that local
authorities can administer the scheme consistently. There were also concerns
about administration costs for local authorities, the impact on parking, and
abuse of badges.
12. Based on responses to the consultation, the Department continues to believe
that including people who have very considerable difficulty “when walking” as
opposed to just “walking” as now, will make it clear that people can qualify not
just because of a physical difficulty in walking but for non-physical reason

14. There is one area where the consultation has persuaded the Department to
change its proposals. We had proposed specifically including people who
‘cannot follow the route of a journey without another person’. However, it has
been made clear that this would mean including some people who need
another person with them, but can otherwise physically walk well and also
without psychological distress or challenging behaviours. The Department
believes that where people suffer very considerable psychological distress or
other difficulty when walking, or have a risk of very considerable harm to their
health or safety (including people with dementia), they should be eligible for a
badge. However, where the applicant would not go out alone and the
presence of another person negates the above mentioned issues, then we do
not believe badges should be issued. Needing another person on every
journey does not necessarily equate to needing to park nearby.

15. The primary aim of the scheme is to give disabled people who rely on car
travel but face particular challenges in getting from the car to their
destination, the ability to park close-by. The Department believes the badge
should directly benefit the individual; to ensure the sustainability of the
scheme we do not believe badges should be awarded in situations where the
carer is effectively the beneficiary.

16. For the same reason the Department intends to provide an automatic link to a
badge for people who score 10 points under the ‘Planning and following
journeys” activity of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) because cannot
undertake any journey without overwhelming psychological distress to the
claimant. We had proposed to link to 12 points under this activity, for people
who cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person, but
this would include people who do not have very considerable difficulty when
with another person and do not need to park close to where they are going. It
would not be sensible to award an automatic badge in this scenario.

This PIP criterion is not about needing to park a vehicle near to one’s destination. The
Department recognises that some people with significant challenges who
receive different levels of PIP may not have an automatic route to a badge.
This is because PIP and Blue Badge are different schemes that are not
completely compatible. However under our proposed new and expanded
eligibility criteria we are confident that people who experience very
considerable difficulties because of non-physical disabilities will now have a
clear route to a badge following assessment by their local authority.
17. Since 2012, the Government has required that where eligibility against the
walking criterion is not self-evident and an expert opinion is needed to help
determine eligibility, the local authority must use an Independent Mobility
Assessor who is independent of the applicant.
18. Following consultation, the Department continues to believe this role should
be widened. An independent mobility assessor may not be suitable for
certifying whether or not a person’s mental or cognitive disability has the
impacts that would meet the eligibility criteria. In the first place, the assessor
would not be assessing the physical ability to walk. So we believe the
assessor should become an eligibility assessor rather than a mobility
assessor. Furthermore, whereas a person with a physical disability may be
adequately assessed without the assessor having prior knowledge of their
disability, this may not be the case for a person with a non-physical disability.
Often such an assessment would require knowledge of the person’s
functional limitations when outdoors. We are therefore proposing to remove
the requirement for independence, but that does not mean a local authority
should not use an independent eligibility assessor where deemed
appropriate. This will allow the local authority to use a range of suitably
qualified healthcare professionals with specific expertise. The assessor role
does not have to be performed by a specific person – the authority will have
the flexibility to choose who they recognise as being suitable to provide an
expert opinion and it may vary from case to case, so long as the assessor
has relevant qualifications and experience to assess whether or not the
applicant has an enduring and substantial disability within the meaning set
out in the regulations. Respondents called for guidance as to who could fulfil
the assessor role and what qualifications they should have.
19. Respondents also called for clarity on a number of terms used across our
proposals, including “walk”, “journey” and “enduring” amongst others. The
Department will seek to define what these mean in guidance.

Blue Badge consultation: summary of responses and government response

Blue badge parking permits to cover ‘hidden disabilities’ in England

Blue badge parking permits are to be made available for people in England with “hidden disabilities” such as autism or mental health problems.

The Department for Transport said people with non-physical disabilities would have an equal right to free parking from next year.

Currently the rules do not explicitly exclude hidden disabilities, but councils’ interpretations can vary.

Similar changes have come into effect in Scotland and Wales.

When the changes to the blue badge scheme in England are introduced, they will extend eligibility to:

people who cannot make a journey without “a risk of serious harm to their health and safety” or that of others, such as young children with autism
people for whom travel causes “very considerable psychological distress”
and those with considerable difficulty walking, meaning “both the physical act and experience of walking”
About 2.4m disabled people in England currently have a blue badge.

The scheme, first introduced in 1970, allow holders to park for free in pay-and-display spaces and for up to three hours on yellow lines.

The badges cost £10 and in London they also provide an exemption from the congestion charge.

Thousands share invisible disabilities
Transport Minister Jesse Norman said: “Blue badges are a lifeline for disabled people, giving them the freedom and confidence to get to work and visit friends independently.”

The change follows a consultation launched in January which saw 6,000 responses.

Three in four disabled people say they would go out less often without the parking permit, the DfT said.

‘Overwhelming anxiety’
Jane Harris, director of external affairs at the National Autistic Society, said the change would “make a massive difference to the lives of many of the 600,000 autistic people in England, and their families”.

Many autistic people experience major challenges in travelling, making detailed preparations and suffering “overwhelming anxiety” about things going wrong, she said.

She said that some can be unaware of the dangers of the road while others can feel panic in busy or loud environments.

Scotland and Wales have already changed their eligibility criteria for the Blue badge scheme to include some mental impairments, where people cannot follow the route of a journey without assistance, but the rules are yet to be altered in Northern Ireland.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44993036

Ken Loach: Tory government ‘callous, brutal and disgraceful’ and ‘must be removed’

Accepting the award for best British film at the Bafta awards in London, the veteran director says politicians speak for corporations – and film-makers must stand with the poor and vulnerable.

Ken Loach has launched an uncompromising attack on the UK government at the 70th British Academy Film Awards.

Speaking as he picked up his award for outstanding British film for I, Daniel Blake, which is conceived as a critique of the current state of the benefits system, Loach touched on accusations by some that his film failed to reflect reality.

Loach thanked his cast and crew, the people of Newcastle and the academy for “endorsing the truth of what this film says, which is that hundreds of thousands of people – the vulnerable and the poorest people – are treated by the this government with a callousness and brutality that is disgraceful.”

Loach continued by making reference to the Tory government’s apparent U-turnon its promise to accept thousands of unaccompanied children fleeing danger in Syria and elsewhere.

“It’s a brutality,” he said, “that extends to keeping out refugee children we promised to help.”

“In the real world,” added Loach, “it’s getting darker. And in the struggle that’s coming between the rich and the powerful, the corporations and the politicians that speak for them, and the rest of us on the other side, the film-makers know which side they’re on.”

Speaking at the press conference afterwards, Loach went further, saying that the government “have to be removed”. He hoped that voters would see his film, but there was little point politicians doing so as “the people actually implementing these decisions know what they’re doing. It’s conscious.”

Their welfare policies, he said, harked back to the Victorian workhouse ethos of telling people that poverty was their fault. “They know they’re doing. We have to change them; they have to be removed.”

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/feb/12/ken-loach-governments-treatment-of-refugee-children-callous-brutal-and-disgraceful

I, Daniel Blake review – a battle cry for the dispossessed

Ken Loach crafts a Cathy Come Home for the 21st century, the raw anger of which resonates long after you leave the cinema.

Mark Kermode

Ken Loach’s latest Palme d’Or winner, his second after 2006’s The Wind that Shakes the Barley, packs a hefty punch, both personal and political. On one level, it is a polemical indictment of a faceless benefits bureaucracy that strips claimants of their humanity by reducing them to mere numbers – neoliberal 1984 meets uncaring, capitalist Catch-22. On another, it is a celebration of the decency and kinship of (extra)ordinary people who look out for each other when the state abandons its duty of care.

For all its raw anger at the impersonal mistreatment of a single mother and an ailing widower in depressed but resilient Newcastle, Paul Laverty’s brilliantly insightful script finds much that is moving (and often surprisingly funny) in the unbreakable social bonds of so-called “broken Britain”. Blessed with exceptional lead performances from Dave Johns and Hayley Squires, Loach crafts a gut-wrenching tragicomic drama (about “a monumental farce”) that blends the timeless humanity of the Dardenne brothers’ finest works with the contemporary urgency of Loach’s own 1966 masterpiece Cathy Come Home.

We open with the sound of 59-year-old Geordie joiner Daniel Blake (standup comic Johns) answering automaton-like questions from a “healthcare professional”. Having suffered a heart attack at work, Daniel has been instructed by doctors to rest. Yet since he is able to walk 50 metres and “raise either arm as if to put something in your top pocket”, he is deemed ineligible for employment and support allowance, scoring a meaningless 12 points rather than the requisite 15. Instead, he must apply for jobseeker’s allowance and perform the Sisyphean tasks of attending CV workshops and pounding the pavements in search of nonexistent jobs that he can’t take anyway.

Meanwhile, Squires’s mother-of-two Katie is similarly being given the runaround, rehoused hundreds of miles from her friends and family in London after spending two years in a hostel. “I’ll make this a home if it’s the last thing I do,” she tells Daniel, who takes her under his wing, fixing up her flat and impressed by her resolve to go “back to the books” with the Open University. Both are doing all they can to make the best of a bleak situation, retaining their hope and dignity in the face of insurmountable odds. Yet both are falling through the cracks of a cruel system that pushes those caught up in its cogs to breaking point.

“We’re digital by default” is the mantra of this impersonal new world, to which carpenter Daniel pointedly replies, “Yeah? Well I’m pencil by default.” Scenes of Blake struggling with a computer cursor (“fucking apt name for it!”) raise a wry chuckle, but there’s real outrage at the way this obligatory online form-filling has effectively written people like him out of existence. Yet still Daniel supports – and is supported by – those around him; from Kema Sikazwe’s street-smart China, a neighbour who is forging entrepreneurial links online (the internet may alienate Daniel, but it also unites young workers of the world), to Katie’s kids, Daisy and Dylan – the latter coaxed from habitual isolation (“no one listens to him so why should he listen to them?”) by the hands-on magic of woodwork. Having lost a wife who loved hearing Sailing By, the theme for Radio 4’s Shipping Forecast, and whose mind was “like the ocean”, Daniel carves beautiful fish mobiles that turn the kids’ rooms into an aquatic playground. Meanwhile, their mother is gradually going under.

A scene in a food bank in which the starving Katie, on the verge of collapse, finds herself grasping a meagre tin of beans is one of the most profoundly moving film sequences I have ever seen. Shot at a respectful distance by cinematographer Robbie Ryan, the scene displays both an exquisite empathy for Katie’s trembling plight and a pure rage that anyone should be reduced to such humiliation. Having seen I, Daniel Blake twice, I have both times been left a shivering wreck by this sequence, awash with tears, aghast with anger, overwhelmed by the sheer force of its all-but-silent scream.

“They’ll fuck you around,” China tells Daniel, “make it as miserable as possible – that’s the plan.” For Loach and Laverty, this is the dark heart of their drama, the use of what Loach calls the “intentional inefficiency of bureaucracy as a political weapon”, a way of intimidating people in a manner that is anything but accidental. “When you lose your self-respect you’re done for,” says Daniel, whose act of graffitied defiance becomes an “I’m Spartacus!” battle cry that resonates far beyond the confines of the movie theatre. Expect to see it spray-painted on the walls of a jobcentre near you soon.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/oct/23/i-daniel-blake-ken-loach-review-mark-kermode