The Conservative government is proud of pointing to its track record on disability; it was in power when it legislated for the Disability Discrimination Act, under pressure from a Labour opposition. But it is far too easy to pass legislation without tackling discrimination itself or understanding its root causes. Labour in government witnessed the introduction of the Equalities Act, the Human Rights Act, and, accompanied with that, set up the Equalities and Human Rights Commission with enforcement powers – later abolished by the Tories. It also initiated record investment in the National Health Service. A slew of Labour policies were to have a marked cumulative impact on opportunities for, and support for, disabled people.
It is important to set this scene, because disabled people, both in work and out of work, have found themselves substantially worse off under two successive terms of Conservative (and coalition) government. The government has recently announced plans to scrap its funding for disabled students allowance, forcing universities to pick up the cost for basic support in large lecture halls and theatres that enable disabled students to access higher education and access the workplace.
The Access to Elected Office fund, set up to support disabled candidates deal with the cost for standing for elected office, has also been abolished. The distinct Access to Work fund, which supports disabled people in work has imposed increasingly restrictive criteria, and, as personal experience of many Labour member applicants suggests, is increasingly inaccessible for disabled applicants as its budget comes under scrutiny and pressure.
The picture looks even more grim when workplace statistics are analysed: claims have dropped as a consequence of an increase in tribunal fees, stymying disabled people’s ability to raise legitimate claims against employers. But, of course, this has a longer-term effect – it reduces incentives for employers to take disability discrimination seriously and to ensure measures are in place that secure fair and equal treatment in the first place.
Most importantly, we need to recognise that those who are disabled have equal worth, and are as capable of making huge contributions to society as those who are not. So a truly forward-thinking approach to disability in the 21st century should ask not just what society and government can do for disabled people, but also what disabled people can do for government and society.
The role of good government is then to ensure that the support is there for everyone to achieve their true potential. It is a sad fact that, at this moment in time, that support is being eroded.
———————————
Reema Patel is the national secretary of Disability Labour and an executive committee member of the Fabian Society
———————————
Even sadder is Rachel Reeves when Shadow minister for DWP AGREED with the Tories
You need a more positive message. Talk about Encouraging Diversity, rather than Fighting Inequality. By concentrating on the former you will achieve the latter. By concentrating on the latter, you will get nowhere. Perception is reality. Do you want to actually change things?
The Tory Government is doing lots of terrible things, but it hasn’t abolished the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Equality Act or Human Rights Act, as indicated by this article. Ms Patel needs to be factually correct, if even a moderate attack on the Tories is to have any traction.
Further, the Government hasn’t abolished the Access to Elected Office Fund for Disabled People, but suspended it whilst they undertake an evaluation. Labour’s frontbench doesn’t seem to have done anything to press the Government on reinstating this valuable resource. This has the potential for win/win, as the programme emerged from the cross-party Speakers Conference on under representation.
Meanwhile, the Party does little by way of support to disabled candidates. That indicates that it isn’t much interested in addressing the current dismal representation of disabled people at Westminster or in devolved administrations. In fact, the Tories do better than us.
Ms Patel, typically of those progressively minded, poses the question of ‘what disabled people can do for Government and society’, without answering it. I’m all for aspiration for all, but you need to deliver with a ‘slew of policies’. The Massie Review published shortly before the last General Election was designed to inform Labour policy in this area. Despite it having a suite of recommendations for reform, it seems not to have been endorsed and rests on the dusty shelf. It will doubtlessly be replaced by another report in due course.
Emily Brothers, Labour London Assembly Candidate.
Thanks Emily. I wasn’t referring to any of the Acts or the ECHR as having being abolished; I am aware they are still in operation; rather, I was referring to curtailment of the ECHR’s enforcement powers. In addition we all know that a suspension of the Access to Elected Office Fund is in reality abolition and a cut by the back door – so we should refer to it as such. Happy to continue the discussion offline, particularly regarding the Massie Review.
Reema Patel