Feature

A disability is taxing enough

Welfare reform should be concentrating on increasing
– not reducing – the uptake of benefits, argues Joe Korner

In the last few months we have heard a great deal about the need for ‘welfare reform’, but not any detail about what it will mean in practice. For the Royal National Institute for the Blind and many other disability organisations, leaks about possible Government cuts to vital benefits have caused us great concern.

Following those leaks, and the subsequent outcry from RNIB and others, we have had some reassurance from the Government. In December last year, Tony Blair said on BBC news: ‘I didn’t come into politics to harm people who are genuinely disabled or in need. Of course I’m not going to do that.’

And since RNIB started campaigning we have gained a firm commitment from the Government that it will conduct proper consultation with disability organisations on the issue. This is vital if the needs of the 1 million blind and partially sighted people in the UK and the estimated 6.5 million disabled people are to be taken into account.

The majority of blind and partially sighted people are living on the poverty line, relying on benefits to survive. 90 per cent are over the age of 60, and so have no chance of benefiting from Welfare to Work. Blind people face more discrimination in employment than any other group — over three-quarters of blind and partially sighted people of working age are not in work.

But despite the Prime Minister’s statement that ‘what we need to construct is a welfare system for the 21st century where we help people who are genuinely in need and no person who is disabled or in difficulties is going to go without’ (Financial Times, 23 December 1997), there are still real threats to disability benefits. The possibility remains that Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and Attendance Allowance (AA) — which is aimed at disabled people over the age of 65 — may be taxed, means-tested or hived off to local authorities. DLA is a vital benefit for thousands of blind and partially sighted people, which aims to meet some of the extra costs they face because of their visual impairment.

At present, recipients of DLA and AA can choose how to spend the benefit and this choice is empowering. Some claimants use their DLA or AA to pay for care services, but others use the money to meet other costs of their disability such as special aids and equipment, telephone costs, extra heating or laundry costs or extra transport costs such as taxis.

But if claimants are provided with services instead of payments, this choice is removed, and significant improvements would be needed to ensure that care services reached all who need them. As visual impairment is not a ‘community care priority’, few blind and partially sighted people receive adequate formal services related to their disability. As many live on their own, benefits are often a crucial determinant of their ability to stay in their own homes and maintain informal care networks.

Recent research by RNIB and by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation confirms that the community care system is failing blind and partially sighted people, with few receiving the rehabilitation and mobility training they need to maintain their independence. And services crucial to visually impaired people such as cleaning, shopping, and reading mail are increasingly being withdrawn or subject to exorbitant increases in charges.

For those lucky enough to be successful in claiming DLA or AA, the additional income can, in part, compensate for the lack of statutory services and postpone early admission into residential care.

In 1992 the Audit Commission, backed by the Department of Health, strongly advocated measures to enable disabled people to remain independent in their own homes. Before embarking on expenditure cuts on disability benefits, the DSS in conjunction with the Department of Health should consider the role played by disability benefits in supporting independent living.

RNIB is concerned that cutting, taxing or means testing DLA and AA will undermine their effectiveness in delaying or preventing reception into care for older visually impaired people or helping younger visually impaired people to cope with their sight loss and develop their full potential. Withdrawal or curtailment of DLA or AA could reduce the independence of current recipients.

Taxing or means testing DLA and AA would mean that the principle upon which they are based — the creation of a level playing field for disabled people in relation to their able bodied peers, would disappear. In effect, a person’s disability would be taxed.

RNIB’s campaign aims to ensure that DLA and AA remain as they are: benefits that promote independence and a way out of the benefits dependency that the Government wants to put an end to. There has been a lot of media coverage about alleged fraud in DLA, perhaps as a way of ‘softening’ people up for cuts. But the Government’s own investigation into DLA (known as the Benefits Integrity Project) which has been running since May and involves thousands of letters and visits to disabled people has not uncovered any confirmed cases of fraud.

RNIB is all for reform of the welfare state — reform to improve the living standards of disabled people; to increase their independence; and perhaps most importantly, to increase take up of vital disability benefits. Health professionals could have crucial to play in identifying people who could be entitled to benefits but are not claiming.

RNIB provides a series of leaflets about benefits and concessions for blind and partially sighted people and the RNIB Welfare Rights and Community Care Advocacy Service can give advice over the telephone: 0171 388 1266.