Opinion
In an effort to promote discussion and increase awareness, I am keen to provide other disabled people the opportunity to publish articles on matters of concern to them. The first such article has, very kindly, been written by Jim Elder-Woodward.
I would be delighted to receive similar opinion pieces from other disabled people, so long as it is understood that it may be necessary to edit articles or, in some cases, may not be suitable for publication [in this event, I will try to explain, in private correspondence, why I am unable to publish].
The views expressed in the articles published on this page are those of their authors.
Enough from me...
Walking into the abyss
Jim Elder-Woodward
Vice-Chair of the Glasgow Centre for Inclusive Living and Chair of Inclusion Scotland’s External Affairs and Campaigns Committee
I fear that most disabled people throughout the UK may well be walking into the abyss of poverty and misery; oblivious to the Orwellian double-speak of the Westminster Government’s social care and welfare reforms.
This Government has already instigated David Freud's report on Incapacity Benefit. The report expounded the virtue of employment, with which we all agree; but it was written by an Investment Banker, without consultation with disabled people and, it appears, his recommendations were influenced by the discredited American system of private insurance. On speaking to him, personally, at the launch of his report, he was blissfully unaware of the policy conflict between encouraging disabled people to get a job and the disincentive of “means testing”, which is the basis of local authority community care charging.
Now disabled people on incapacity benefit will have to take part in schemes of re-employment run by private companies, or have their benefits withdrawn. The private companies, it is said, will be paid ‘by results’, but if nothing is done to combat discrimination in the labour market, these private companies will find it difficult to get paid ‘by results’. This situation will not be helped by the demise of the Disability Rights Commission, for its successor, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has even less powers to combat discrimination against disabled people.
By the end of this year the UK Government will be publishing its Green Paper on Social Care. In it, it will be expounding the independent living virtues of ‘choice’ and ‘control’. But at the same time as developing such ‘personalised budgets’, the Treasury is proposing to do away with the Attendance Allowance and Disability Living Allowance.
The Treasury favours the idea of this money being part of the ‘personalised budget’ operated by local government. Many, if not most, of the AA and DLA recipients do not have a social care service; and may not need one.
This obvious cost cutting exercise proposed will result in two things happening.
First, despite the hypothecation of £520m the UK Government proposes to give to English local authorities over the three years of implementing this new policy, due to the low priority given by most local authorities to social care, there is a severe concern that they will not sustain, let alone develop, it beyond that period, especially if the demand for the new provision increases.
Second, since social care priority is presently given to those who are severely at risk to themselves and/or others, those on AA and DLA, who are not within such a ‘life and limb’ category, will be left out. The combined outcome, from both points, will be an increase of poverty and degradation among old and disabled people alike.
There is definitely a developing policy of ‘washing of hands’ by the Westminster Government when it comes to supporting disabled people. They wish to devolve such support to the local level, which will only lead to an increase within the ‘post-code lottery’ of social care and a diminution of disabled people’s life chances and quality of living.
This policy move can be seen within the recent changes to the Independent Living Fund (ILF 2006) criteria for accessing its funds.
The Fund is a UK-wide charity financed by the Department of Work and Pensions. It is dedicated to providing financial support to disabled people, enabling them to make choices over where and how they live; and who should assist them. This support allows disabled people to purchase the personal and domestic assistance that enables them to lead an active, fulfilling life.
One of the eligibility criteria for the Fund is that the disabled person receives a package of personal care support from their local authority that costs at least £200 per week. As of April this year, the amount per week that local authorities have to pay, before an application can be made to the Fund, is to increase to £320 – a rise of 60%. The Fund also warns that it may not have the money to respond to every valid application; and will have to give priority to disabled people working for more than 16 hours a week. Indeed, this is in keeping with the major principle of independent living; that of being able to participate within the economic and social life of society
However, this priority is contradictory to that of many local authorities, which, as said previously, mainly provide services to ‘life or limb’ cases. Very few disabled people will be supported by a local authority to go out to work. Therefore, many of those disabled people who could work may now be unable to access the Fund’s resources.
Many current recipients of the Fund are working, paying taxes and National Insurance contributions. This is supposed to be government policy, anyway. But if new applicants to the Fund can’t get this type of initial support from their local authority, then they won’t be able to live independently in the community, contributing to its general profit and good.
There are also implications for people with severe and complex conditions and high care needs. These people are less likely to be in work, but if the Fund is focussing on those working more than 16 hours a week, they may well end up living in institutions, because that would be the cheaper option for the local authority
The Westminster Government’s recognition of independent living in its policies and strategies is admirable. But independent living for disabled people is not going to be achieved without cogent and conjoined policies and practices, along with reliable resources that recognise the individual’s needs and supports them to live those independent lives.
The right to resources for independent living and the right not to be institutionalised are only two of the new rights disabled people which have been agreed by the United Nations Convention on the Human Rights of Disabled People. Unfortunately the UK Government will not ratify this Convention until the end of this year; and it looks as if it will ‘reserve’ (i.e. not implement) these specific rights.
To give out rhetoric about ‘personalised’ care, rights, choices and control; but at the same time create poverty and misery by withholding money from disabled people; is to treat them with the utmost contempt and disrespect.
There is a further unique issue to disabled people, like myself, living under the devolved Governments of Wales and Scotland. With such fundamental shifts within social care in England, where is the political accountability to those in the devolved countries? Do Welsh and Scottish politicians and government officials agree with shifting responsibility for welfare provision (including AA and DLA) to the local level?
It is really so important that disabled people throughout the UK, along with their organisations, both ‘of’ and ‘for’, wake up to this onslaught on disabled people’s quality of life. We all must work together to challenge both politicians and civil servants in London – NOW!
Because, in today’s age of pseudo-consultation, once that the English Green Paper on Social Care is written, no amount of campaigning against it will make the UK Government change its mind; and social care across the UK will be returned to the days of the 16th century Parish Poor Law outdoor relief.
Note: readers might be interested to read the following Guardian article: Target practice also referred to on this site's 'In the News' section.