Members with Disabilities

The following benefit changes include War Pensions to Veterans are set to take place in 2016, some may be subject to change or approval.

Benefit and Tax Credit rates frozen

The main rates of working age benefits and tax credits will be frozen in cash terms for 4 years from April 2016. Pensioner benefits are excluded from the benefit freeze and will be protected by the ‘triple lock’.  Disability benefits, the disability-related elements of tax credits and statutory payments will be uprated in the normal way in line with the Consumer Prices Index; these benefits include: Personal Independence Payment, Attendance Allowance, Disability Living Allowance, Employment and Support Allowance (Support Group only), Maternity Allowance, Statutory Maternity/Paternity Pay and Statutory Sick Pay.

Update: In September the Consumer Prices Index was announced to have fallen in the year to September 2015. This means that those benefits that are increased in line with this measure will not see an increase when the new benefit rates for 2016/17 are released (unless a different measure is used).

 

The government discriminated against disabled people when it failed to exempt some unpaid carers from its cap on benefits, the High Court has ruled.
It comes after two adult carers challenged the way the benefits cap applied to people who care for their disabled adult children or relatives.
Carers can claim about £60 a week for caring for relatives - but claims can be included in the £500 benefit cap.
This indirectly discriminated against disabled people, the judge said.
A Department for Work and Pensions spokesman said the government "values the important role of carers" and was "considering the judgment and will respond in due course".
He said 98% of carers were unaffected by the benefits cap, which was introduced across England, Scotland and Wales in 2013 and limits how much any one household can receive in state benefits.
To qualify for the Carer's Allowance, carers must provide full-time care - more than 35 hours a week - to a severely disabled person who receives Disability Living Allowance (DLA).

Labour’s new shadow minister for disabled people has promised a major overhaul of the work capability assessment (WCA), and no further cuts to disability support, but has stopped short of calling for a return to previous levels of spending.

Debbie Abrahams also signalled that Labour would go on the offensive to defend the need for a strong social security system.

She made it clear in speeches to several fringe events at Labour’s conference in Brighton this week that it was too early to outline any detailed policies, but she provided some clues to her future direction.

She told a fringe event organised by the Employment Related Services Association – which represents the employment support industry – she wanted to see a “more holistic, personalised approach” in supporting disabled people into work.

And she told that event that the WCA was “not fit for purpose”, was “not humane” and was “not effective”, and needed to be “completely overhauled”.

 

 

Disabled people should have to work their way out of poverty and not simply be taken out of it by state financial assistance, Iain Duncan Smith has said.
The Work and Pensions Secretary said it was not the role of government to pay the disabled enough to stop them being poor and that the correct way to escape poverty was by working.
“We don’t think of people not in work as victims to be sustained on government handouts. No, we want to help them live lives independent of the state,” he told the annual Conservative party conference in Manchester.
“We won’t lift you out of poverty by simply transferring taxpayers’ money to you. With our help, you’ll work your way out of poverty.”

The government has “betrayed” people who use social care by deciding to postpone the introduction of a cap on their care charges, according to a leading disabled figure.

Sue Bott (pictured), deputy chief executive of Disability Rights UK, spoke out this week following the government’s decision to abandon the key manifesto pledge, just weeks after the general election.

She said the move provides further evidence that “to all intents and purposes, the state is opting out of social care”.

The cap was due to be introduced next April, but social care minister Alistair Burt announced in a letterto the Local Government Association last month that he had “taken the difficult decision to delay the introduction of the cap on care costs system” until April 2020.

The cap was expected to add £6 billion to government spending over the next five years, but Burt said in his letter that it was “not the right moment to be implementing expensive new commitments”.

The cap would have placed a lifetime limit of £72,000 on the amount an individual had to pay in care charges towards meeting their assessed and eligible care needs.

Bott told Disability News Service (DNS) that the postponement meant that councils would continue to increase care charges.

She said: “The basic problem here is that the Department of Health does not even collect statistics on how much councils are charging for care, so the government has no consistent idea of what councils are charging.”

 

Is it time to stop using the word "disability"?

Rebecca Atkinson . OUCH Blogger writes

After running a campaign to urge toy manufacturers to include disabled characters in their collections, Rebecca Atkinson started to wonder if the word "disability" might also need a positive makeover. 

Cripple, deaf-mute and lame all fell out of favour a long time ago and are now considered insults. By the 1980s and 90s "handicapped" was gradually replaced with "disabled" as a new way of thinking about disability emerged - called the social model. Attitudes change and as a consequence so doeslanguage. 

Recently there has been a shift towards person-first language and now "people with disabilities" is often more popular in general usage over its predecessor "disabled people". I have noticed too that people in the disability community sometimes like to emphasise the "ability" part of the word with hyphens or capital letters: dis-ability or disAbility.

In April this year I started an online campaign urging the toy industry to include positive representation for the 150 million children worldwide with disabilities. I began making-over toys by marrying princesses with guide dogs or wheelchairs and giving hearing aids to fairies to create a fun and colourful disability aesthetic. I took photos of my creations and posted them on the web under the name ToyLikeMe. 

Changing parlance will do nothing if there is not a shift in attitudes towards disability.Tom Shakespeare, University of East Anglia

The images conveyed not a shred of pity, no hint of inability, no inkling of dependence - the many things that people associate with the word disabled. It went viral and, what had started as a hobby, soon gobbled up my life. I quickly found myself writing post after post on the subject, late into the night. 

But as I typed the d-word again and again, I started to see it in a new light. It felt like a great lump of a word, stout, ugly, cumbersome and dour. Whilst it conveyed the meaning, it did not carry the modern or celebratory sentiment I wanted. It seemed to focus on the negative when the toys I was creating were singing with fun and colour. For the first time I began to wonder if "disabled", had become outdated, and needed a replacement. 

If we don't use the term disabled, though, what do we use to describe someone who has an impairment to set them apart from the majority? 

Reading posts from my followers, many of whom are parents of disabled children, I noticed the words and phrases they use: special needs, differently-able, different, ability not disability, inclusive. It seemed many people were choosing not to use the d-word, or were trying to divorce the "dis" from the ability.

The definition of "dis" in one English dictionary is to "have a primitive, negative or reversing force". To discredit. To disengage. And in recent parlance "diss", with an extra s, has been popularised as an abbreviation of disrespect - "Don't dissme."

"Dis" is not a thing that many people want prefixed on their child or themselves. It is, after all, inherently negative. 

One adult follower wrote to me in outrage after I posted an image of a toy with a facial birthmark under the banner "dolls with disabilities". 

"I am not disabled," she wrote, as if the term was highly offensive. "I have a port wine stain and although it's nice that you create a doll with a birthmark, I think it's a poor choice of words..." 

"A disability is "a physical or mental handicap, especially one that prevents a person from living a full, normal life or from holding a gainful job," she continued. "I have a normal life. I am a teacher. I think you should seriously reconsider the use of the word."

I read her message and agree you should be able to choose your own identifying label but I wasn't sure how to take her rejection of disability. She sees it as separate from the idea of living a "normal life" or having a "gainful job". But, looking at the many disabled people I know and have worked with, they do have these things. 

Perhaps a facial disfigurement or birthmark isn't a disability but, for many people, constant stares and negative remarks are disabling, and I feel there is still a need for children growing up with these differences to see themselves reflected in the toy box to help build self-esteem.

So I began to search for a catch-all term that could be used to describe disability but also include those who wanted dolls with glasses, eye patches, birthmarks and scars - differences that do not always fit under the d-word banner. 

The comedian Adam Hills has a part of his leg missing and, in an interview with the Guardian in 2012, declared "mutant" a much better word than "disabled". "It sounds so much cooler," he said. I have sympathy with this, my sister and I have long referred to me as a mutant in private but I wasn't sure this level of irony would work for everyone. 

The phrase "disability and difference" sprang to my mind as a replacement but felt a little wordy, overly PC and problematic. Humans, after all, are all different from one another so where does normal human difference end and disability begin? 

Disability is a delicate flower around which the public tread with care. People with disabilities are used to being described as unable or hailed as an inspiration but may dislike both. So are disabled people "special"? Or do they span the spectrum of human life from talented to mediocre just like all humans? And does a benign descriptive word, free from negative connotation, actually exist? 

The Australian bio-etheticist Rosmary Garland Thomson came near to a solution when she spoke in April this year of disability as a form of "human variation" arguing that disability should be understood as a reality to be accommodated, not a problem to be eliminated. 

Human variation? It kind of works.

We are all definitely variants of the human race, and the term can indeed encompass everything from a facial birthmark to someone with glasses, and someone with no limbs, but I suspect it's a term wide open to a charge of "political correctness gone mad". 

As the academic and broadcaster Tom Shakespeare said when I met to ask his views: "Negative association will pin itself to any word. Changing parlance will do nothing if there is not a shift in attitudes towards disability". 

This will undoubtedly take more than the evolution of words alone, so for now I'm sticking with the d-word.

Disabled activists have angrily dismissed the attempts of three Labour leadership contenders to win support by suddenly voicing opposition to the closure of the Independent Living Fund (ILF).

They are furious that Andy Burnham (pictured), Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall are now claiming that they oppose the closure, even though they repeatedly failed to support campaigners before the fund closed for good last month.

Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) and Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People (GMCDP) both spoke out in the wake of Burnham’s sudden claim – in response to questions from Disability News Service(DNS) last week – that he was “against the cruel abolition of the Independent Living Fund”.