Making rights a reality for disabled people
Introduction
Labour should take some credit for extending the
rights of disabled people during its thirteen year tenure of office. Let's take
a quick look at some of the positives introduced by Labour in the period
1997-2010:
- Labour legislated to protect
people who may be unable to make decisions for themselves, through the
Mental Capacity Act which provides safeguards to help people make their
own decisions about their daily lives and to be supported to do so where
they need that.
- In 2004 Labour gave new
rights to disabled people through the Disability Discrimination Act, and
has signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Removal of small
employer exemption (for employers with less than 15 employees). One of the
major changes was the removal of the small employer exemption which meant
the DDA would apply to all employers irrespective of size including
employment in private households.
- Labour made families with
disabled children a priority, with a total of £770 million in new funding
for local authorities and primary care trusts to support disabled children
and their families, to transform short break services, and to improve
disabled children’s services and children’s palliative care.
- Over the last decade the
employment rate for working age disabled people has increased from 42 per
cent to 47 per cent, with the gap between the rates for disabled people
and the general working age population decreasing from 32 per cent to 26
per cent.
- The Access to Work budget was
increased from £15 million in 1994/95 to £69 million in 2008/09 and £81
million in 2009/10. Access to Work is likely to help around 35,000
disabled people take up or stay in work in 2009/10.
- The introduction of free
nationwide off-peak travel on local buses for the over-60s and eligible
disabled people in England.
- The establishment of the
Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to act as a strong,
independent champion to tackle discrimination and promote equality for
all.
Without a doubt a good record. However, we know Labour
could have done so much more during their three terms in government. Sadly, Labour
become distracted; market forces and neo-liberal economics drove their political
and then social agendas, allowing areas such as welfare to become soft targets
for cuts.
The
Right to Work
By removing the small employer exemption, where
employers of 15 or less employees could refuse to employ disabled people,
Labour undoubtedly made it a bit easier for people with disabilities to gain
employment. However, as the laws tightened so bosses, and human resource
departments in larger concerns, conjured up more inventive ways of not
employing disabled people.
In March 2006 Bert Massie, the then Chair
of the Disability Rights Commission, told a parliamentary inquiry into Incapacity Benefit and the government’s
Pathways to Work programme, that employers needed an 'attitude adjustment'
towards recruiting disabled people. He went on to state that the green paper
concentrated too heavily on the measures required to get disabled people back
into work, without adequately addressing the responsibilities of employers to
help bring that process about.
Tougher talking from Bert may have made
more of an impression. Instead of adjusting the attitudes of employers who
circumvent the law by not employing disabled people; why not toughen up the
law, even making harsh examples of employers found guilty of discriminating
against disabled job applicants.
Unless a future Labour government
recognises that employers are discriminating against both disabled workers and
job applicants, it will be business as usual.
Labour during its time in office wasted a
small fortune on 'quick'-remedy, fast-track schemes for getting disabled people
into work. For the most part these schemes were, and continue to be, a waste of
money. They have proven to be expensive and open to corruption.
Instead of pouring millions into the bank
accounts of private individuals, the government should use the resources that
already exist. They are called Job Centre Plus. Given the right inward
investment and support from the DWP JCP's can carry out the process of
marrying-up job seekers with jobs.
Matching disabled people to suitable
employers can offer greater challenges. Yet, the process is possible. JCP's
will need to employ people who have both an understanding of disabled peoples'
employment needs (which are as diverse as the group itself); and they would
need to be able to empathise with disabled peoples' other, different, needs and
capabilities. We cannot apply the one-size-fits-all attitude so commonplace
amongst, especially, ministers from the DWP, past and most decidedly present.
Access to Work, regarded as the best kept
secret in the DWP, is an invaluable resource that pays for itself, as for every
£1 spent out on A2W somewhere in the region of £1.40 is recouped by the state -
the gift that keeps on giving. And yet, in real terms this government is
cutting back on Access to Work spending; that is the government is only
reinvesting around 6% of the subsidy it will save from the Remploy closures and
Residential Training Courses. It's like cooking the goose that lays the golden
eggs...
Many within the disability movement agree
that a scheme such as Access to Work is essential to offset those extra costs
employing disabled workers may incur. Similarly, we also identify the extra
costs incurred by disabled job seekers. Therefore, why not put in place an
Access to Seeking Work scheme?
The idea that this government is making
work worthwhile for disabled job seekers is simply a lie. Tax credits for low
earning disable workers have been driven down in the past two years. For
instance, the credit for those disabled people over 50 has been scrapped, so
that some disabled people saw a £90-£100+ per week cut in their tax credits
this year. Hardly an incentive for those to whom life is already a struggle.
Labour must do more for the disabled
worker who, through no other reason than having a physical or mental impairment
that limits their working week, is penalised. If, due to an impairment, someone
cannot work fulltime they should not be financially worse off than their
fulltime counterpart. Disabled people are faced with the same housing, travel,
food, etc costs as other people; in fact, we usually face additional costs.
Of course Remploy was mismanaged. Just as
British Rail endured decades of mismanagement and under resourcing, so it could
be broken up and sold off; so Remploy experienced at least two decades of poor
control and management from the board of directors to the highest reaches of
senior management.
Sadly, Labour played a large part in the
destruction of Remploy. For different reasons, I suspect to this government.
Labour, rather than looking back to the very reasons for the creation of
Remploy, and applying modern day approaches instead chose to listen to the
politically correct brigade within the Party and indeed, on the Left.
For years the 'segregated employment'
mantra played at conferences, at seminars, in papers, on blogs and at
committees. The Left, adopting a Peter purist approach condemned 'sheltered'
employment (they didn't have the decency to give Remploy and other subsidised
schemes, there more accurate description of supported employment) as
segregationist. Even sister trade unions, Unison, NUT and UCU, to name but a
few, up until recently, chanted the segregationist mantra at Remploy.
Four-and-a-half years ago, the anti
supported-employment wing of Labour and the Left got its way. In April 2008
thirty Remploy factories closed with the loss of some 2,500 disabled workers.
Four-and-a-half years on, the Tory led coalition closed another twenty-seven.
What made it easier was the fact that we had shown them the way a few years
previously.
Will, on return to government in
two-and-a-half years time, Labour reopen Remploy factories? I very much doubt
they will. Such processes are rarely ever reversed. But, is there anything that
Labour can do for the workers, betrayed in my view, by both governments?
The greatest thing Labour could do for
ex-Remploy workers thrown onto the scrapheap, and for the countless other
disabled people struggling to find work, is to ensure that the employment
market is made completely accessible for people with disabilities. Labour
should throw out the tried and failed job schemes, so identified by double
counting jobs and the blatant fixing of success rates. In their place, within
the safe and trusted Job Centres, train up adequate numbers of disability
employment officers. While not an absolute prerequisite, perhaps look to take
on and train people who have disabilities; people who have walked in our shoes,
who understand the complexities of disabilities.
The Right to Live Independently
If
Labour really believes that "...the
government’s topdown cuts to disability benefits have been clumsy and badly thought
through, with no account taken for how people actually live their lives.",
then I fear they have learned nothing of the suffering disabled people are
experiencing under this Tory-led regime.
Labour
must either believe in the sanctity of the welfare state, and the right of
disabled people to social security, or they will continue to be regarded as no
better than the Tories by great swathes of disabled voters, their families and
friends.
Yes,
Labour did introduce ESA to replace Incapacity Benefit; and, Labour did roll
out the, almost universally condemned, work capability assessment (WCA). These
things Labour carried out in the face of massive opposition from disability
groups and disabled people - those dependent on the benefit. Labour used
experts such as David, now Lord, Freud to review welfare reform. This is a man
so removed by privilege and wealth from the working classes that he joined the
Tories in 2009, and now sits on their benches in the Lords. This man, Labour
selected to look at a system that provides a safety net and security for
ordinary people!
After
more than two-and-a-half years in use the WCA has been condemned by the BMA (hardly
a Leftist body) as 'callous' and causing 'distress'; calling for its ending “...with immediate effect and be replaced with
a rigorous and safe system that does not cause unavoidable harm to some of the
weakest and vulnerable in society.”
Not
before time, last month, Labour's Liam Byrne called for a review of WCA. While
defending the decision to implement the assessment, Labour will nevertheless
call for a "fast and
fundamental" review of the test that determines who is eligible for ESA acknowledging
that the policy the party introduced while in government is not working.
Come
on Labour. The facts are staring you in the face. 32 deaths every week. £60
million per year wasted on appeals. Thousands of pages exist of testimony stressing
the inherent unfairness of this flawed system. Condemn the WCA as a system not
fit for purpose; and pledge its abolition when you return to power.
WCA
must be replaced by a fairer and more transparent assessment. An assessment
with realistic activity descriptors. The idea that if someone can press a
button this somehow makes them 'fit' for work is both ridiculous, dangerous and
downright insulting. Disabled peoples'
ability to work cannot be assessed by a one-size-fits-all computer programme
operated by healthcare workers with an equally one-size-fit-all mentality to
disability. No, a more sophisticated assessment that looks at the person in
relation to their disabilities and the possibility of them working needs to be
developed; and at some point in the process an adjudicator must have the
authority to say, 'this person cannot reasonably expected to work'.
Labour
knows that often with disability come greater expenditure; for some as much as
24% on top of normal expenditure. Come winter and many of us are deciding can
we afford to eat and heat our homes; it really can be that stark a choice.
Disabled people are amongst the lowest earners in this country as well as being
the poorest. Yet, when we shop we pay the same prices as everyone else - except
when it comes to specialist items, which cost decidedly more.
There
is no special queue at the petrol pump that gives preferential prices to
disabled drivers; despite the fact we depend on our cars more than others. Our
utility bills still need paying; and as some of us spend more time at home,
these bills are greater than that of the average family. We also attract bills
for things such as care and support, outlays not usually required by most other
people.
This
government knows we have these extra costs to meet. They also know the cost of
rents, food and fuel are rising beyond the earnings and incomes of most
disabled people. Armed with this knowledge they are still intent on introducing
a new disability benefit, the Personal Independence Payment to replace DLA,
that will take out 20% of recipients.
Changing
from DLA to PIP is not as is claimed a fairer way to ascertain the validity of
a person's claim for disability benefit. No, it is an ideologically motivated
means to save money at the expense of those who can ill-afford the loss.
The
people who gave us 'Reasonable Reform' (better known as the Spartacus Report)
have put out another damning exposé which examines the costs to our economy
over and above peoples' loss of benefit. 'Reversing from Recovery: The Hidden
Economic Costs of Welfare Reform'. http://wearespartacus.org.uk/reversing-from-recovery-report/
reports:
- 280,000 Motability customers set to
lose their vehicles by 2016
- More than 3,500 jobs lost to the
economy
- More than 30,000 car sales lost
annually
- A loss of £342 million GDP annually
- Almost £80 million in lost taxes
But it isn't only industry that will take the hit.
Thousands receiving current High Rate Mobility Component of DLA, who depend on
a Motability vehicle to get them to and from work, shopping, and everyday
living will be hit. For many their specially adapted vehicles are the only
means of transport they can use.
Disabled people stripped of the Care Component of DLA
will not be able to function properly.
For scores of thousands personal support is necessary for the basics of
day-to-day living such as getting out of bed, toileting, bathing, dressing and
cooking meals. Without this support many will be unable to work, as Access to
Work only operates from front door to workplace and workplace to front door.
Once again the lies and hypocrisy of this government
are exposed. Taking away vital personal care support from a disabled worker is
not the action of a government that is seriously concerned for the well-being
of disabled people, or helping us into or remaining in work.
Currently disabled people undergo a spate assessments
for ESA, DLA, social care provision, ILF and Access to Work; eligibility for
free wheelchairs, accessible housing, Freedom Passes, TaxiCard and Blue Badges
can also be a postcode lottery.
Instead of undergoing several assessments for these
benefits and resources there should be a universal assessment that covers the
applicant for all benefits and resources. Unlike the Universal Credit live Pathfinder scheme planned to start in March or
April 2012, we need in place a scheme that is not punitive, but rather offers
applicants real social security.
It is clear that social care is an area that requires
great consideration. On average, we are living longer today. Which is of course
as a direct consequence of our NHS. Thus, improvements in medicine and medical
treatment free at the point of delivery have produced a population that, on
average, live well into old age; and of course, with longevity come age-related
infirmity, illnesses and disability, for which greater numbers need personal
care and support.
Labour must address the 'crisis' in social care for
elderly and disabled people. Rather than taking the Condem route of slashing £1.3
billion from older people's care; or resorting to massive hikes in personal
charges for care; or simply taking people out of care provision by changing the
eligibility criteria, Labour should fall back on its tried and trusted 'problem'
solving, and create a National Care Service to be run on the same principles of
the NHS, which is to provide care free at the point of delivery.
While Dilnott's proposals place the onus on
individuals contributing towards their social care; this is no more than
another tax on the poor, just as with taxes such as the congestion charge and
VAT, those at the bottom are always hit hardest.
Working class people have already to find extra money
to pay towards less generous money purchase pensions; higher costs of housing;
fuel costs that are spiralling out of control; with unprecedented food rises;
while undergoing wage freezes, for several years in many sectors. Can the state
then seriously expect an underpaid, often debt-ridden, workforce to find more money
to fund their care in old age!
Care packages and disability benefits must be made
more portable. People in receipt of care packages should not fear being
reassessed downwards because they move from one geographical location to
another.
Similarly, disabled people who move home or into the
workplace should not have to undergo repeated reviews of DLA. Moving home or
getting a job should not put disabled people under undue pressure wondering if doing
the right thing is actually doing the right thing.
If cross party agreement isn't forthcoming on the
future of social care, then we must make brave decisions, as our predecessors
did in 1945, when against the will of the opposition parties and vested
interest within the health profession they went ahead and started our NHS.
The
Right to a Roof Over Your Head
Speaking to people who work in the advice sector,
especially those who advise on benefit uptake, there is a real sense of
foreboding with regards to the new Universal Credit, which will be piloted starting
March or April 2013. I've been told by such experts in the field that we are
sleepwalking into what could be the most socially damaging changes to the
benefits system ever.
The rules will change, so that people of working age
living in social rented properties will see housing benefit linked to the size
of the property it is felt they need. Therefore, a couple living in a two
bedroom flat could be penalised by £13 per week; and this 'room tax' would
increase with the amount of 'extra' rooms in the property.
Disabled people will be hit by the new caps on housing
benefit. As many as 11,000 young disabled people, those under 25, could be left
homeless. Many people with disabilities will have to leave the areas in which
they live; thus losing support networks made up of family and friends.
If forced to move long distances from their support
networks, people will turn to social services in ever greater numbers seeking
support and care. Those who aren't in a position to properly fend for
themselves could end up in hospital, their conditions worsened due to a lack of
decent care provision.
Some facts on disabled people and housing:
- Disabled people are more likely than non-disabled people to live in poor housing. There is a clear shortage of housing that is specifically designed to meet disabled people’s needs.
- Disabled people are twice as likely as non-disabled people to be social housing tenants.
- In 2007-08 over 6 million households contained at least one person with a disability or serious medical condition. Of those 6 million people, there were 1.5 million individuals in England who required specially adapted accommodation because of a ‘disability or medical condition’.
- There are approximately 4.5 million households which include one or more people with a reported mobility problem. The majority of those people are aged 60 years and above.
- Suitable accessible housing is required for people with mobility problems, who may find that their current accommodation limits their independence and social life as well as presenting increased safety hazards.
- 1 in 5 disabled people requiring adaptations to their home believe that their accommodation is not suitable.
- Although the gap in non-decent accommodation has narrowed over recent years, 1 in 3 households with a disabled person still live in non-decent accommodation.
- Less than a third of people with a learning disability have some choice of who they live with, and less than half have some choice over where they live.
- At least half of all adults with a learning disability live in the family home - meaning that many don't get the same chances as other people to gain independence, learn key skills and make choices about their own lives.
- Around a third of all disabled adults aged 25 to retirement ago are living in low-income households. This is twice the rate of that for non-disabled adults.
- Children and older people tend to be more at risk from poor housing conditions in terms of their health and safety.
- 53% of disabled children under the age of 15 live in unsuitable accommodation.
These facts and figures demonstrate the very real need
for a massive government investment in council, mixed social landlord and
affordable 'to buy' housing across the country.
Back in 2007 Gordon Brown made a commitment to a £1.5
billion social housing, in order to provide housing for families on low incomes
and on council housing lists. Labour will need to resurrect such a programme,
but on a larger scale.
The Tories have recently 'relaxed' section 106 rules,
thus giving house builders an 'affordable housing holiday'. Remember the
'pensions holidays' enjoyed by bosses in the 1990s that saw companies stopping
their pension contributions to occupational schemes; and just how these have
come back to haunt us? I predict similar disasters occurring in housing.
However, Labour can change this. It is imperative that
Labour has a progressive social housing programme. No. Make that council
housing policy to regenerate house building in the UK.
Meanwhile, Labour council authorities can alleviate
the dire housing shortages experienced by disabled people. Currently too many
councils and social landlords do not have up-to-date registers of their housing
stock that identify mobility or wheelchair accessible properties. All too often
when such properties become vacant the landlord's builders enter the premises
and remove all access fixtures and facilities. Stair lifts are removed; wet
rooms ripped out and replaced with, often, inaccessible baths or shower units.
What a waste!
There is an urgent need for social landlords,
including councils, to first identify properties that are mobility and
wheelchair accessible; and second, to ring fence such housing for disabled
tenants use only.
Finally, getting on to and negotiating council housing
lists are becoming increasingly Byzantium and tortuous. A simplified and fairer
scheme needs to be formulated and applied universally.
The
Right to a Family Life
The concept of a universal credit is one that has been
around a long time. Politicians, social commentators and people working in the
benefits industry have all criticised our system as being unwieldy and over
complicated. Each year billions of pounds in benefit goes unclaimed.
Of course, it took a Tory-led government to finally
introduce a Universal Credit (benefits) scheme; but of course, it is a system
that plays to the lowest common denominator. Rather than formulating a
structure that would guide a claimant through a logical system whereby with a
minimum of bureaucracy they end up
receiving their full and fair entitlement; this government has introduced a
punitive credit system that penalises disabled people, children, job seekers as
well as people in paid employment.
Aside from the rich and those in well paid jobs,
almost all others will feel the pinch of Universal Benefits. So, a bus driver
with a family, earning £27,000 per annum and living in privately rented house,
subsidised by housing benefit, could be forced out of his home due to a cap on
housing benefit.
The Condem's are aiming to slash by half, from £54 to
£27 per week, the Child Tax Credit paid out to households with disabled
children. Thus throwing scores of thousands of families into poverty; as well
as forcing greater levels of social exclusion on disabled children.
We, that is the Labour Party, should have no
difficulties in doing the right thing here. This policy must be amongst the
first pieces of business that we engage in once back in control. A clear
unambivalent commitment has to be made by us; that we will protect those most
in need of social and financial security in our society.
A Universal Credit fit-for-purpose should be
introduced. A system that eradicates the need to fill out reams of forms. A
system that is understandable to the end user that logically links benefits
together. A system that is designed to help claimants not in place as a
punishment.
The
Right to a Life Free of Fear
For thirteen years I witnessed a Labour government in
power who pandered to the excesses of the scum press. Tony Blair's unholy pact
with the Murdoch empire before and after his elevation to Number 10 is a mark
of shame that will remain on the name of Labour for many years to come.
During those years the likes of Darling, Blunkett, Hain
and Purnell while heading the DWP engaged in the vilification and demonization
of disabled people. Often going to such extremes as feeding the right-wing
press with propaganda which was then printed unfairly showing disabled benefits
claimants as cheats and fraudsters.
There are thousands of disabled who today feel a deep antipathy
to the Labour governments of 1997-2010, and by association to the Labour Party
of today - especially when we Ed Balls gets up on a platform and tells us there
are still hard cuts to be made; and welfare reform will take a massive hit when
Labour return to government.
Unsurprisingly, when given the press received by
disabled people disability hate crime has been on the increase in recent years.
Disabled people report naked hostility directed at them in the streets, often
in the form of verbal abuse, less so by physical violence - though this aspect
of DHC is on the increase.
It is hardly surprising that we, disabled people, as a
group within society are experiencing such anti-social and criminal behaviour
given we have a government that allows its influential members to publicly
blame disabled people for the fiscal deficit, brought about by casino banking
practices encouraged by get-rich-quick neo-lib free market speculation. When
ill-informed members of our society are spoon fed lies about disabled people
receiving new cars; when ATOS carries out assessments on disabled benefits'
claimants that are purposely skewed to throw up erroneous and misleading
results; and, when the DWP takes this flawed data and offers it up to an overly
compliant press as the truth; this further adds to the scapegoating of disabled
people.
However, there are also other factors in play when it
comes to DHC. One factor is better integration of disabled people into
mainstream; whether this is through employment or the opening up of society, a
greater understanding and acceptance by the general public on the whole.
Greater exposure by disabled people to the wider
society also leaves us more vulnerable to the less tolerant within our
communities. The kind that will always endeavour to prey on those they perceive
as weak and easy targets.
Much debate has been generated within the disabled community
and amongst those in the police and crown prosecution service as to whether we
are living through a period of exceptionally high crime against disabled people,
or is it because the reporting mechanisms are easier to access. While there is,
for instance, a greater incidence of reporting DHC in Leicestershire, than the
Met in London experiences; it is widely recognised by all parties that that
disabled people reporting harassment and bullying are beginning to be taken
more seriously by the police - though some forces are more progressive than
others.
Whether it is low level incidence of name calling or
it is physical attacks on the disabled person, Labour must send out a message
that DHC is unacceptable in any form. Labour, working with police forces up and
down the country should ensure that proper procedures are in place for disabled
people to easily access. Disabled people should feel safe in reporting incidents
of DHC.
Labour in government cannot repeat the disgraceful
behaviour of Iain Duncan Smith, nor indeed its own ministers such as Darling,
Hain, Purnell and co, who are, and were, complicit in the demonization and
vilification of disabled people to an extent that caused the rise in hate
crimes against a group of people whose only crime is their inability to
surmount barriers put in place by society.
