Cuts to Disability Living Allowance (DLA) - Outrageous

It is well known that Government and political parties like to “hide away” bad news in the hope that little will find its way into the wider spectrum of reporting. So it was therefore not surprising that the Coalition Government announced proposed changes to the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) in a similar fashion.

Hidden away on page 69 of the comprehensive spending review in October 2010 was the announcement that the mobility component of the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) would be removed from people living in residential care. During his explanation to Parliament, George Osborne omitted to explain this benefit reduction and it has slipped under the radar of most of the media who have been far more interested in the other spending cuts announced. Therefore, in our world of “who shouts loudest is likely to be heard”, it remains a much hidden element of the public spending cuts. For those unconnected with disabled people, it will seem irrelevant and unimportant but for those disabled people it will impact on, it will have drastic affects. It could fundamentally revert our care system back to the dark ages of institionalisation. Scaremongering – I think not.

The DLA mobility component allows disabled people in residential homes to meet some of the extra costs incurred when they travel – be it to see family, friends or just a trip to the theatre. The government proposal to cut this element for those who are living in residential care will affect in the region of 60,000 to 80,000 disabled people taking away some of their independence. It is therefore hard to believe that during the election process both David Cameron and George Osborne were keen to assure the public that the most vulnerable people in our society would not be affected by potential benefit cuts.

The government has stated that this allowance will be removed in October 2012. Their explanation is simply that they believe that it is a duplication of funds already allocated by local authorities to fund transport needs. Their shortsightedness does not reflect the fact that funding to local authorities is also being cut and therefore funds are already being stripped to the bare minimum.

Richard Hawkes, Chief Executive of Scope, has called the decision "callous" and has questioned its fairness. "Disabled people and their families do not have 'broad shoulders', so why are they bearing the brunt of these cuts?" he asked.

In a statement, the Department for Work and Pensions said: "Currently some people in residential care receive support for their mobility needs through disability living allowance and mobility support funded by their local authority. We want to remove that duplication and make sure that the system is fair. These changes won't come into effect until October 2012 and we will continue to work with disabled people and organisations to ensure benefits meet the needs of disabled people. The government expects that the cut will save £135m a year by 2014-15."

In the scheme of things, this saving to the Government is a small drip from a tap but the affects are like a tidal wave. For those affected, this removal will reduce their independence and quality of life – a significant change for those already marginalised by society as a whole.

I, like many other disabled people and disability charities, can only urge the Government to rethink this proposal. This is definitely a cut too far for many and I suspect will remain under the radar for many people until it is too late. Now is the time for the shout of disabled people to be heard above the crowd.

Spending Cuts

David Cameron says the government has a "credible plan" for restoring economic confidence – let’s hope so!

The government's spending cuts are necessary and not driven by ideological zeal, Prime Minister David Cameron has insisted in his new year message. He said the economy was now out of the danger zone, but warned of much "heavy lifting" ahead in 2011. In his message, Mr Cameron said: "We have a credible plan for restoring confidence in our economy, but we have to see it through. A lot of the heavy lifting will happen in 2011.

The cuts we have all witnessed recently have been tough and I think we will continue to see the harsh reality of them over the coming months. In addition, the affect of the VAT rise yesterday from 17.7% to 20% will hit all of our pockets.

As a small VAT-registered business, I certainly understand the implications this rate rise will have on the financial security of my business. Small businesses have been hit particularly hard during the downturn and many have struggled to keep on an even keel. Like households, it is the hidden costs that will hit the small businesses the most – the increased VAT on our utilities i.e. telephone costs and supplies of electricity and heating. It is also inevitable that some businesses will be forced to increase costs due to the recent rise in fuel costs which have been hit not only by the VAT rise but also the added duty tax – as many of our goods rely on the transportation system, the operating costs of many companies continue to rise whilst the take-up of services and goods continue to plateau or in some cases decrease.

Whilst I do accept that the cuts and VAT rise is necessary as part of the Government’s plans to tackle the deficit, I, like many other small business owners, realise that hard-hitting challenges are ahead for this year and the first quarter of the year may well determine just how tough things are going to be.

Human Rights Act 1998

The Human Rights Act 1998 received Royal Assent on 9th November 1998 and, for the most part, came into force on 2nd October 2000. Its aim of this Act is to "give further effect" in UK law to the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act, therefore, makes available in UK courts a remedy for breach of a Convention right, without the need to go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

From its introduction the Human Rights Act 1998 has been somewhat controversial and there have been many high profile cases that, through media exposure, have given the Act a bad name. For many, the Human Rights Act has been seen to be legislation that helps only the villain to the detriment of hard working honest citizens.

Cases such as:-

Venables and Thompson v. News Group Newspapers – The James Bulger murder case tested whether the Article 8 (privacy) rights of Venables and Thomson, the convicted murderers of Bulger, applied when four newspapers sought to publish their new identities and whereabouts, using their Article 10 rights of freedom of expression. Dame Butler-Sloss granted permanent global injunctions not to publish the material because of the disastrous consequences such disclosure might have for the former convicts, not least the possibility of physical harm or death;

Afghan hijackers 2006 - In May 2006, a politically controversial decision regarding the treatment of 9 Afghan men who hijacked a plane to flee from the Taliban. It was ruled by an Immigration Tribunal, under the Human Rights Act, that the hijackers could remain in the United Kingdom; a subsequent court decision ruled that the government had abused its power in restricting the hijackers' right to work;

and most recently

Abid Naseer and Ahmad Faraz Khan - won the right to stay in Britain even though the court accepted they were planning an “imminent” attack in Manchester when they were arrested last year. The judge said he was “satisfied” that ringleader Naseer, in particular, “still poses a serious threat to the national security of the United Kingdom” but his hands were tied by the Human Rights Act because the two men might be tortured if they were sent home to Pakistan;

have done little to enhance the general opinion of The Human Rights Act.

However, in my opinion, it is the interpretation of the Human Rights Act that is the problem not the Act itself. In its purest form, the Human Rights Act is a worthy legislation that can provide a strengthen legal foundation for many. It is unfortunate that abuses of its aims have occurred but the law will always be tested to the extreme.

As our Coalition Government begins its working partnership, it will be interesting to see how they address the Human Rights Act. In the past, David Cameron and the Conservatives have stated that they want to see the Act scrapped and replaced with a Bill of Rights but Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats oppose this idea.

One thing is for sure, they need to work on improving the image of the existing Act and we need to see more positive stories of how the Act has been implemented.