Presentation at Scrutiny The basics of human rights and equality – very quick summary Our starting point must be that any attempt to disadvantage disabled people, by charging large amounts of money to provide essential independent living support, is contrary to the principles of both human rights and equality. Councillors need to consider Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (the ‘Disability Rights Convention’), the Human Rights Act and its legal duty, as a public body, to promote equality for disabled people. Independent living support is a basic human right as it enables disabled people to exercise their human rights to life, to a family life, to privacy and to live in the community with choices equal to others. (Article 19 of the Disability Rights Convention) Charging for independent living support immediately increases the inequality faced by disabled people who have to pay to do what others take for granted, such as having a shower, using the toilet, washing, dressing, eating and drinking. The higher the charges, the greater the inequality, as disabled people are denied a similar standard of living to others because they have no choice but to pay to do what everyone else takes for granted.
The practical effects of each aspect of the proposals 1. � Charging up to 100%, or even 75%, of a person’s available income seeks to leave disabled people in relative poverty, with little more than the basic income support level plus 25%, after housing costs, which for the 2010/11 financial year equals £165.75 per week. Most residents of Kingston live above these levels of poverty, so forcing disabled people needing independent living support to live at this level of poverty is fundamentally unfair and discriminatory.
2. � Charging the full cost of care to those with more than £23,250 in savings will have a devastating effect on severely disabled people who have built their savings to meet the cost of expensive items, to give them some security in later life and to fulfil their aspirations. A disabled person needing independent living support costing, perhaps, £600 per week, will never be able to save for anything costing more than £23,250, thus excluding them from the housing market and preventing them from being prudent and saving for their future. Many disabled people need to build up savings to purchase or replace mobility vehicles costing maybe £40,000 or more, to purchase or replace expensive but essential communication aids, to make adaptations to their homes, to purchase or replace expensive equipment not provided by the NHS or social services and many other items. People who are unable to work or need to stop work when their condition deteriorates also need to build up savings to protect themselves for the future.
3. � Removing the cap on care charges will have a catastrophic effect on the finances of people with high care needs, particularly those who have saved for the future. The current cap is £151.41 per week; if this is removed, people who have been prudent and need their savings and income to cope with their complex lives could be forced to pay several hundred pounds per week merely to carry on living. If people in this position decide they cannot afford to pay several hundred pounds for their care it is very likely they will end up costing the public purse more due to serious ill health and hospital admission. This goes completely against the principles of prevention and will almost certainly lead to deteriorating health and in some cases death.
4. � Charging people the full amount of their personal budget is a strong disincentive to accepting services, as for a disabled person to take a personal budget in these circumstances will result in them having to agree with Kingston over how to spend their own money - ridiculous. This will mean many people fall out of the system and no-one will be keeping an eye on them to check they’re receiving appropriate support.
5. � Paying people’s personal budgets net of charges, or contributions is an appalling proposal, albeit suggested by the Department of Health, which is not compatible with accountability and transparency. It means that the penalty for non- payment is the removal of basic care to sustain life. If someone refuses to pay their Council Tax, they are not denied the right to go to the toilet, get out of bed or have a shower - so why should people who refuse to pay their care charges be denied these rights? Charges for social care, if they are in fact levied despite their contravention of the principles of human rights, equality and fairness, should be subject to civil enforcement procedures in the same way as for any other charge or tax.
6. � Final thoughts Quotes from members of the public out on the streets: • � ‘We would be happy to pay more tax’ • � ‘Why did we not know about the consultation?’ • � ‘ All the residents of the borough should have been asked for their views and involved in the consultation process’ Draft EQIA: Would recommend that it takes on board the suggestions I’ve made in the document, to look at all the equalities effects, not just a select few. The EQIA is a legally required document and it should look at all possible effects, including those which are uncomfortable for the council.
Case studies Young disabled person Think if you are a relatively young newly disabled person with a spinal injury just starting out in life, who needs support 24/7. This policy would mean that you will never be able to accrue enough savings to buy a house, provide for your family’s more expensive needs, save for adapted vehicle. Your life chances are gone, condemning you to a life of subsistence whatever your talents and abilities. Is this fair or equal? Does this fit with the coalition government's legislative commitment, to provide disabled people with the same life chances as non-disabled people? The mother of a severely disabled adult writes: ‘I have had a number of challenging conversations with the person connected with financial assessment. When we had a social worker she stepped in at the point when I was told 'well if you have to have to have a luxury car!'. That was describing our Renault Traffic! There appears to be very little understanding of just how expensive the 'basics' are. ‘Andrew has 2 major expenses, his communication aid and his car. We try to save his Disability Living Allowance Mobility Component just for car replacement and expenses but are finding that is becoming increasingly difficult. Trying to put aside money for expenses in connection with his communication aid is nigh on impossible. If he were able to save for both items his savings would be in excess of £23,250 and there's our problem which I tried to express in the response. I also said that he has to rely on us subsidising his everyday expenses. ‘Long term I am seriously worried as to what lies ahead for Andrew. Having retired, it is far more difficult to try to see how we can plan ahead for his financial security.’ Ali Kashmiri Ali will do a presentation on aspects of his own life so you can understand how complex and expensive it is to live as a disabled person and how devastating will be the consequences of the current proposals.
Recommend
More recommend
