Scottish Liberal Democrats demand answers from Ruth Davidson over mental health cuts to PIP

The Conservatives have not covered themselves in glory on social security issues recently. The removal of Housing Benefit from young people, the totally immoral restriction of benefits to two children and the deeply objectionable 8 page form that women have to complete if they want to claim for a third child conceived by rape, the cuts to disability benefits and cutting back eligibility to Personal Independence Payments for those suffering psychological distress have all shown a cruel lack of understanding of real life.

Let’s not forget the five year benefit freeze imposed by George Osborne in 2015. With Brexit bound to increase prices, that is simply unsustainable.

The cuts are significant, but even more reprehensible is the inhumane stripping of dignity from those who need our help. A civilised society supports those in need. If that makes me a bleeding heart Liberal, as Tim Farron declared he was on Question Time the other night, then I’m proud to be so.

Ruth Davidson’s Scottish Conservatives may pretend that they are nicer than their Westminster counterparts, making the right noises on mental health recently, but we can’t forget that they are the same party. Every awful thing that Theresa May’s Brexit government does reflects on them.

As health and social security spokespeople for the Scottish Liberal Democrats, Alex Cole-Hamilton and I have written to Ruth Davidson asking her to state her position on the cuts to PIP. Our letter says:

Dear Ruth,

We were pleased to see your party last week join the Liberal Democrats and campaigners in declaring that the SNP Government’s new mental health strategy lacked ambition. It was the right thing to do because the new strategy will not deliver the transformation we desperately need to see.

However, we were deeply concerned to see that, in the very same week, your colleagues at Westminster were voting to restrict personal independence payments to people with mental health and anxiety conditions, affecting tens of thousands of people both in and out of work.

This shows little understanding of the complex needs of some of the most vulnerable people in our society, for example those trapped in their homes because they are too anxious to leave without someone. These people can need help to leave their home every bit as much as someone suffering from a physical condition.

Can we ask if you will urge, or already have urged, your colleagues to drop these proposals, in the interests of people suffering from mental ill health in Scotland and across the UK? Are you willing to take on those in your own party who are set to discriminate against those suffering from mental ill health? And do you agree that we cannot afford to increase the stigma surrounding these conditions, say to people that their conditions are not serious, or backtrack on work to give parity of esteem to physical and mental ill health?

We look forward to your reply.

Time and again it has been shown that you can’t trust the Tories with mental health. South of the border, mportant initiatives have been abandoned and cash meant for mental health has been diverted to plug gaps elsewhere.

Now they are looking to make a deplorable attack on some of the most vulnerable people in our society, showing no understanding of the support needs of people such as those trapped in their homes, too anxious to leave. Ruth Davidson needs to admit this is fundamentally wrong and at least try to do something about it.

* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings

Read more by or more about , , or .
This entry was posted in News.
Advert

3 Comments

  • Harold A. Maio 8th Apr '17 - 2:05pm

    — we cannot afford to increase the stigma

    While you are musing about “increasing the stigma”, I worry about accepting any.

  • Obviously we don’t think there should be any and stand up against it but the actions of the Tories in Government make it worse for people.

  • Ruth Davidson has on more than one occasion publicly challenged, albeit very politely, a policy or approach of her Westminster colleagues, and I’d like to think this will be another time. However, she usually keeps conveniently quiet unless challenged, so I’m pleased to see Alex putting her in the spotlight.

    We deserve to know if she supports it, but if not, it will be very helpful for her to say so. Davidson is seen as a rising star of the Tory party, and has earned the right to speak out, albeit politely, without fear or repercussions, so if she does, then it might encourage a few more to join in.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarTony Greaves 18th Nov - 10:47pm
    Why does LDV not report the results properly with the votes cast? Just putting %%% is less than half the story. They are available easily...
  • User AvatarKatharine Pindar 18th Nov - 10:41pm
    Arnold, that was a magnificent piece of prose writing, so well articulated, so reasonable, and yet so passionate and sad at the same time. It...
  • User AvatarPeter Martin 18th Nov - 9:08pm
    @ JoeB, I normally agree with Stiglitz but not this time. A two tier, or a multi tier, euro wouldn't really solve anything. In every...
  • User AvatarRichard Easter 18th Nov - 8:51pm
    And that is why people voted for Kennedy in 2005, Clegg in 2010 and now Corbyn.
  • User AvatarGlenn 18th Nov - 8:49pm
    The cut price less sonorously Machiavellian British Kissinger, but only because he as a squeaky voice.
  • User AvatarPeter Martin 18th Nov - 8:46pm
    @ Andrew Melmouth, You could be right about John Lanchester. There are those who do understand what a complete cock up the introduction of the...