FOR THE ATTENTION OF: Baroness Hollis of Heigham House of Lords Thursday 28 February 2013 arileyleeds@hotmail.

com Dear Lady Hollis of Heigham, i am writing to you to highlight what i believe is an anomaly in the restructuring and cut backs in benefits that i am sure will affect other people in much the same way it affects me. i am disabled, with Multiple Sclerosis and Diabetes and a single man of 46. until 2011 i lived in a one bedroom bungalow as provided by the local council. However, in 2011, in recognition of the development of the MS condition and need for extra room with equipment, wheelchair and potential for the need of overnight care, the council kindly allowed me back on the housing application register and duly awarded me the two bedroom bungalow in which i now reside. nevertheless, today i received a letter detailing the case that under the new rules and as a result of government cut backs, i am now deemed to be in an unsuitable property. that is, the letter states that as a single man i should only be entitled to a one bedroom property and as such my housing benefit will be reduced by 14%. thus, it would seem that the kind gesture of the council in 2011 is now deemed too generous and i should be penalised for the privilege. Of course the rules do state that (and as was the original reason behind awarding me the current property in anticipation of): "if a carer or team of carers who do not live with you but provide you or your partner with overnight care," the property would still be suitable. i do have a team of carers but, unfortunately i am not quite disabled enough at the moment to merit overnight care. i am sure that this will be rectified in the short term and i can luckily meet the said criteria that would oblige the desires of the Exchequer but in the meantime do you think there is any way in which they might allow me to keep the extra 11 a week soon to be deducted? it seems ridiculously unfair to punish an individual for not quite satisfying a criteria that is perhaps imminent and that met the previous criteria for awarding the said property. it is my understanding that in Law, a person can not be prosecuted for something in retrospect that becomes illegal which was previously lawful. i believe this is called an absurdity and would be an affront reason and justice in common law. yet where a disabled person is concerned is there to be no fair handedness? similarly is it believable that the council would go to the expense of moving me back to a one bedroom place for a period that could be as little as a few weeks or a few years but on deterioration then immediately move me on to a two bedroom place again. this is presuming that the housing stock would still be available to meet this process, something that is worrying in itself as there is a lack of evidence of new builds. i mention the last point because the letter glibly indicates that it may be my "choice" to simply move to a smaller property or even through a Mutual Exchange programme. conveniently, the wording is skillfully laid out to seem empowering but is really a relinquishing of any responsibility to acknowledge either the financial burden needed when moving that is impossible for most on benefits to raise or in the dearth in stock to make the

move. perhaps the 11 can be found elsewhere? maybe from a percentage of the interest that banks will be charging the taxpayer to pay back on the money the chancellor gave them through quantitative easing. everyone remember that, the money that didn't exist, created from thin air, given to the banks, that they subsequently refused to lend to the taxpayer but which the tax payer must ultimately reimburse? or perhaps the heads of business could be revisited, the ones that were so generously pardoned from billions in taxes owed and just for the sake of a nice dinner. actually, if that's all it takes, i can manage to make a decent stew. it may not be full of the best ingredients but barring the oddly dubious cheap cuts that may be Equine in origin, it will fill a hole. i can assure the Exchequer that the extra 11 will not be gambled away or lavished on expensive skiing holidays or dining out at The Bullingdon Club. it may contribute to keeping the heating on a little longer or go toward the fuel for the car that seems to increasingly swallow greater amounts of money per week in order to keep hospital/medical appointments and to buy in provisions. again, regarding the car, both the Chancellor an the PM can sleep easy in the knowledge that they will probably be taking it away next year, anyway as part of the PIPS initiative. so the greater savings made there might merit awarding the councils an extra 11.(Funny how PIPS, so Dickensian and twee sounding is really just another Ripper-esque dagger of contempt.) this is another frightening prospect for disabled people; the very thing that affords us a little independence and actually saved my life on one occasion is the next charitable concession for which we must be drawn and quartered. Your Ladyship, i write to you in utter desperation and in sadness at what the present model of society is. i sincerely hope that none of the comments above can be taken as a sign of disrespect or as implicating you in anyway. it has been difficult not to become totally carried away. i and a great many others simply do not believe that in a world where economies are not based on any measurable standard, where all is effectively quantitative easing; that any austerity is real. Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said: "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way."

however, that aside, this is the first time i have ever contemplated writing to a member of the House of Lords but like most of the public, i now realise the utter futility of bringing anything of a humanitarian or compassionate nature to the attention of those who are Members of Parliament.

however, i have had the opportunity to watch BBC Parliament on a regular basis and have noticed that some members of the house of Lords have seemed genuinely concerned and shocked by the draconian measures being splashed through society like acid over an antique varnish. i therefore hoped to find a more concerned adviser. Perhaps if the M.P's did a little community service at some of the centres frequented by disabled people they may be re-awakened to their own humanity and realise that as they don't give life, they shouldn't judge it merely on how much they can squeeze out of their fellow man. i would like to finish with two quotes: "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi "...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey. I scoured the internet but was not able to find any similar quotes attributed to an English politician. Perhaps that in itself is telling. i apologise for the length of this enquiry and if i allowed my concerns and frustrations to colour the argument, it was not my intention to be so carried away. i also feel i must point out that it took over five hours to complete and i will now be sleeping for a further five or six hours, as evidence of fact in case a government minister decides to set ATOS upon me to demand the immediately cessation of any benefits on the grounds that i could be described by some as still being moderately literate. i understand that ATOS receive bonuses for every person they can disqualify. i hope you can find the time from your busy schedule to answer some of these concerns, Yours sincerely, andrew riley