Feeling pretty bushed. Had two hustings yesterday -
Lambeth Pensioners Action Group and
Stop the War Coalition later in the evening. Both went quite well I think, and it was interesting that the issue of the war and the costs of it and Trident etc, also emerged at the Pensioners hustings where the Labour candidate for Streatham, Chukka Umunna, sometimes called 'The British Obama' very unprofessionally lost his temper and began to berate some of the pensioners as he did not like the way they questioned him. Lost a few votes there I think. Whatever one thinks of a voter's question it is not in order for a politician seeking office to insult them.
Turnout was high for the Stop the War hustings and interesting that both Kate Hoey and Chukka Ummunna sent apologies and statements to the meeting. Not surprisingly Kate Hoey was against the war and Chukka in favour. The Tories also sent apologies and the Lib Dem Chris Nicholson, who was also at the pensioners hustings, fielded for the yellow team, complete with his own film crew! Issues ranged from Afghanistan to Iraq, Palestine, Iran and civil liberties and Guantanamo. I finally met up with Onionbagblog and he interviewed me after the hustings. At least he is a bit more aware of my views now and we did discuss the connection between the local and the global. He has given me a fair minded write up.
Finally, today it was off to the Pan London Disability hustings organised by Inclusion London. Questions ranged from hate crime against disabled people to equality legislation, education and employment for disabled people and welfare benefits. A number of activists and organisations from across London were represented. When the Tory candidate attacked the Human Rights Act and said that they would repeal it, I replied that this was what I expected from the Daily Mail and the 'unreconstructed Tory Party', adding that I was all in favour of the Act but concerned about the ability of disabled people to access legal aid and redress when their rights were infringed. I also added that the Equalities and Human Rights Commission needed to be much more proactive about disability issues than it had been so far. I finally added that I had placed my opposition to hate crime against disabled peopel on my election leaflet delivered to the voters of Vauxhall and it is a huge issue for the disabled community with many horrific stories recently in the media.
Here is the statement which
Inclusion London issued after the meeting. I would like to add my condolences on the death of Dave Morris, the former Mayor of London's Advisor on Disabilities who passed away on Sunday. Dave was a passionate campaigner for the rights of disabled people in London and will be sorely missed. As a disabled candidate myself I totally support the calls for equality of disabled people in London and Vauxhall.
Deaf and Disabled Londoners and the elections
Many disabled people say they feel excluded by the political process and that disability discrimination needs to be taken more seriously. Deaf and disabled people continue to experience widespread discrimination. The results include poorer experiences in education and employment, greater likelihood of being in poverty, exposure to hate crime, under-representation in all parts of public and political life and a greatly reduced quality of life.
A lot of progress has been made in the last decade, but much remains to be done. And it is important that changes are build upon, not set back. Are the political parties aware of what disabled people want and need? Do they know how their policies will affect disabled people?
The disability movement says ‘Nothing about us, without us’ – which is a particularly crucial principle when deciding who is going to be the next government and next local government. These bodies wield tremendous power over our lives. We hope our meeting will mean politicians from the four parties represented will have a better understanding of what Deaf and disabled people want.
Key facts
There is no room for doubt about the inequality that blights disabled people’s lives and the role of discrimination in producing that inequality. Disabled people:
• Are more likely than non-disabled people to have no qualifications[2].
• Are much more likely to be out of the labour market or unemployed[3].
• When employed, are likely to be lower paid: median hourly earnings for disabled men are 20% and for women 12% lower than for their non-disabled peers[4].
• Have a net income 30% than other working age adults – and much less than this if disability benefits are taken out of the calculation[5].
• Are less likely to be called to interview when disclosing a disability than others with identical CVs[6].
• Are more likely to live in non-decent accommodation[7].
• More likely to live in unsuitable accommodation: 53% of disabled 0-15 year olds lived in unsuitable accommodation in 2005/6[8].
• Face a higher risk and greater levels of targeted violence in comparison to non-disabled people. Within the disabled population, people with learning disabilities and/or mental health conditions experience higher levels of targeted violence[9].
The discrimination represented in these facts is linked to, and in turn entrenches, poverty and inequality. Eradicating disability poverty and inequality through a strategic equality programme has to be central to politics. While there has been progress in some areas in the last decade, these and similar facts show how much more needs to be done.
Are public spending cuts compatible with disabled people’s rights?
How are the savage cuts in public spending that some political parties talking about going to affect disabled people? What would harsh spending cuts mean for the public sector and for the facts outlined above?
Would they threaten the kinds of funding and support essential to facilitate independent living?
Will spending cuts threaten the action needed to remove the discriminatory barriers that deny many disabled people education and employment? Would cuts encourage greater discrimination, weaker enforcement of equality law or worse access to justice?
It is easy for politicians to talk about savage cuts but the unfair results of this kind of rhetoric are already being felt in some local London councils.
While trying to outbid each other on the level of public spending cuts that they will make, political parties have been quite vague about what exactly they would cut – which is not surprising as savage public spending cuts are unlikely to be popular. The billions of pounds of spending cuts that some politicians are threatening could not be achieved by tinkering. They could mean large-scale cuts in jobs, in wages, in public service provision, education and welfare, legal advice or social care. They could threaten the moves to greater control and independence, to social representation and to enforcement of our rights.
These kinds of cuts in the public sector are likely to have big implications for disabled people. Is this fair? Disabled people have not caused the economic crisis or the problems in the banks and financial sector. Would it be fair to try to resolve the deficit by public spending cuts, particularly in areas that could hit the lives of Deaf and disabled people hard?
Inclusion London does not support cuts in public spending that will unfairly impact on Deaf and disabled people.
What disabled people want
In response to a survey earlier this year[10], Deaf and disabled Londoners told us what some of their priorities were for the next government. The priorities fell into five main areas and we present a summarised version of them here.
• Independent living
Disabled people want real rights to choice and control through a properly resourced independent living support system, with portable, joined up services which boost participation in society.
Such a system needs to be underpinned by a sustainable and funded network of centres for independent living, an Independent Living Act, delivery of more accessible and affordable housing for rent as well as to buy, available and user-friendly public services and a wider society that is designed for access and inclusion. Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance need to be protected and extended and the full additional costs of disability to individuals recognised and supported.
• Full inclusion and representation in society
Disabled people want a range of steps including a fully inclusive and non-discriminatory education system from pre-school through to higher education and training, ability to access all courses and establishments, and full and practical support for Deaf children to learn and work in BSL including a Bi-Lingual Education Act and with equality training compulsory for education professionals.
Stronger rights and firm enforcement of rights against discrimination and for equality in employment are needed: disabled people remain far less likely to be in employment and far more likely to be in low status and low paid employment.
Action to continue to remove barriers to employment, career development and involvement in public life is needed, including by extending successful supports like Access to Work and making it available for candidates for political office.
We also need much stronger action to tackle stigma and prejudice and radically improve media representations of disabled people. More financial support for Deaf and disabled people’s organisations (DDPOs) is essential as a vital link to Deaf and disabled individuals – and no cuts in existing central or local government funding. We need delivery of the resources necessary to attain the goal of a User-Led Organisation in every locality – and local authorities to work with ULOs.
Action is essential to improve the representation of Deaf and disabled people in public life, including implementation of the 2010 Speakers Conference report recommendations on financial support to remove disabling barriers to political engagement. Action is also needed to allow Deaf and disabled councillors to carry out their work.
• An end to disability poverty
Disability poverty must be eradicated: this requires a strategic approach which understands why disabled people are more likely to be living in poverty and sets out steps to end this fact. Action required includes recognising and compensating for the extra costs of disability to the individual – Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance must be retained and additional costs recognised, for example by extending winter fuel payments to those receiving higher rate DLA.
Specific steps required are well resourced public services, benefits and supports, real action to facilitate access to quality and non-discriminatory education and pre-education childcare, and training support.
A national social care system is needed that is: consistent everywhere in the country, is rooted in respect for the independent wishes of the individual and where access is based on need not ability to pay.
We need an equitable health care system, with free provision of disability aids, no post code lottery and an education process to eliminate prejudice and discrimination against both health service users and employees.
• Full equality before the law – and laws that are enforced
Disabled people need comprehensive anti-discrimination and equality rights in law – which are monitored and strongly enforced. Strong and precise Specific Duties for the public sector duty in the new Equality Act are essential to continue to programme of improving equality.
Full incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) into UK law and withdrawal of the UK reservations to the Convention is needed.
Deaf people want a British Sign Language Act, and specific changes including full rights for Deaf people to serve on juries.
We want repeal of s141 of the Mental Health Act which discriminates against the political representation of people with mental health conditions.
We need stronger duties for inclusive design, manufacture, IT, planning and development.
Action against disability hate crime is needed, including a national register of incidents and collection and promotion of best practice in combating hate crime. Better access to justice through free legal support is essential.
• A fully accessible society
Stronger rights and action are needed to ensure that disabled people can access the built environment – from local shops, to housing right through to parliament – and access and use products, information, services and new technology, so that that everyone can live in a barrier free environment, the lives of disabled people are enriched and our talents and skills fully released into society.
‘Shared surface’ street designs that are unsafe for disabled people are unacceptable and need to be rethought.
The Lifetime Homes Standard should be the basic standard for all new housing, and funding for housing adaptations should not be means-tested.
The improvements in making public transport more accessible in the last decade need to continue – but with a very long way still to go, it is crucial that transport accessibility programmes don’t fall victim to budgetary cuts, as has happened with the Tube station access programme in London. We need a fully accessible transport system, including London Underground, with legally backed targets.
What do the political parties say?
We present below extracts from the manifestos of the Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Green parties where they particularly make reference to Deaf and disabled people or where they have relevance to the issues that Deaf and disabled people have raised. The manifestos were published too close to the date of this meeting for us to be able to offer a fuller analysis and we do not claim to be totally comprehensive. And please note the sections are not always the same because different manifestos set things out in different ways.
The Green Party
• On spending
Would ‘aim to more than halve the deficit by 2013’.
Say the fiscal gap is ‘not caused by too much public spending but by taxation dropping to unacceptably low levels’. So want to ‘rehabilitate progressive taxation’ and ‘raise taxation from its currently very low level of only 36%.
• On public services
Would ‘protect basic public services’ but say ‘modest efficiency savings may be possible (perhaps £2-3bn,or 0.25% over the entire public service each year...)’.
• On employment
Aim to create ‘a million extra jobs and training places within a full year of operation of...the Green New Deal’ and ‘reject workfare and forcing unemployed people into unsuitable jobs by removing benefits’.
‘Oppose discrimination in the workplace [including disability discrimination].
• On welfare benefits
Propose a ‘citizen’s pension’ paid to all independent of contribution record at the rate of the official poverty line (£170) and add that ‘Housing Benefit and disability benefits would continue to be paid’
Propose to increase Carer’s Allowance by 50%, heal ‘the rift between adults’ and children’s social services’ and provide ‘more short breaks to families, including disabled people or those with long term illnesses’.
Want to repeal the Welfare Reform Act 2009, cancel the ‘DWP benefit entitlement assessment contracts with the private sector’ and restore the link between state benefits and earnings’.
• On housing
‘Resume direct investment in council and other social housing and allow local authorities to use receipts from sales to fund new affordable accommodation...provide £2bn in 2010 rising to £4bn in 2011 to local authorities to expand social housing’.
‘End the right to buy and introduce the right to rent’
• On education
Would ‘ensure most children are able to attend a good local school with admissions policies decided locally and applying to all schools’.
• On health and social care
Will ‘oppose NHS privatisation and treating healthcare as a market’ and
‘abolish prescription charges, reintroduce free eye tests and NHS dental treatment for all, and ensure NHS chiropody is widely available’.
Would implement ‘in England and Wales the scheme that provides free social care to the elderly in Scotland’.
‘Provide the right to an assisted death within a rigorous framework of regulation and in the context of the availability of the highest level of palliative care’.
• On transport
Would ‘provide affordable, cheaper local transport that is accessible to those with disabilities by investing in buses and subsidising some routes’.
• On promoting equality
Would ‘ensure that effective action is taken to prevent discrimination against disabled people’
‘Work towards ending stigma against people with mental health problems, including discrimination in employment’
‘Work vigorously towards ensuring that all levels of government are representative of the diversity of the populations for whom they work’.
Would require police forces to have ‘equality and diversity liaison officers whose remit is to tackle and take preventative action on crimes against...disabled people’ and would ‘campaign for...crimes against disabled people, including people with learning difficulties, to be dealt with effectively’.
Defend disabled people’s parking rights in retail developments.
