Government ‘must tear up national disability strategy’ after high court defeat
Disabled campaigners have called on the government to tear up its “fundamentally broken” National Disability Strategy, after the high court ruled that the much-criticised document was unlawful.
The high court found that a botched consultation had made it “impossible” for disabled people to “shape” the content of the strategy.
Mr Justice Griffiths found this week (PDF) that the consultation, launched early last year through a national survey, was unlawful because the thousands of disabled people who took part were not given enough information about the government’s proposed strategy to allow them “intelligent consideration and response”.
The government had argued that the survey was just an information-gathering exercise, but the court had heard how the Disability Unit’s own website listed the survey at the time as an “Open Consultation”, while it was hosted on the unit’s “Consultation Hub”, with the promise that responses would inform the strategy’s development.
The court also found that the survey’s multiple-choice format, and the word limit on the small number of questions that allowed free-form responses, “did not allow for a proper response even to the issues canvassed in the Survey”.
Because the court has found that the consultation was unlawful, so is the strategy, which was published last July.
It is not yet clear what action the government will take following the ruling, although a spokesperson said it was considering its next steps.
Doug Paulley, one of the four disabled campaigners who took the judicial review* against work and pensions secretary Therese Coffey, said it was “entirely clear” that the consultation had not been “fit for purpose”.
He called on the government to withdraw its “fundamentally broken” national strategy and “start afresh with disabled people’s organisations (DPOs) and disabled people at the heart of it, as they always should have done”.
He said: “What I would hope for is they would actually go to DPOs and disabled people and do a proper consultation and focus on what disabled people actually want, which is enforceable and genuine rights.
“What I think they will actually do is appeal the judgement.”
But he said the judgement meant there was “a very clear ruling that the strategy is now unlawful and will remain so until something is done”.
One of the four claimants, disabled activist Miriam Binder, died last month, and her family said today (Thursday) that they were “incredibly proud” of the part she had played in the legal victory.
Her daughters said in a statement: “It is a bittersweet moment for us as a family that our mum is not here to see this, but mum didn’t do this for just herself, she took on this fight for every disabled person in the UK.
“We are so incredibly proud of her and her courage.
“She has always been a stalwart campaigner for justice, particularly for disability rights and equality.
“We are elated with the judgement and hope this makes a difference to the lives of those living with a disability.
“This is an extremely fitting bequest and we take comfort in the knowledge that she made a difference.”
In-depth analysis of the government’s strategy by Disability News Service after it was published last summer showed it had been padded out with scores of pledges to “discuss” or “consider” further action, to commission lengthy research, and to carry out reviews of existing policies.
At the time, Inclusion London called it “a cynical re-packaging of current polices and current budgets”, while the DPO Forum England, a network of many of the country’s leading DPOs, said it had ignored bold action on increasing benefit levels, supporting inclusive education, combating the disability employment gap, increasing accessible housing, and reforming social care.
This week, Inclusion London said it was “shocking” that disabled people “have to go to court to force the government to properly and meaningfully engage with us on a central disability strategy which is meant to improve our lives”.
Svetlana Kotova, Inclusion London’s director of campaigns and justice, said the “damning” ruling was a “wakeup call to the government” that it can “no longer get away with [its] unlawful, dismissive, patronising and discriminatory approach to engaging with disabled people and DPOs”.
Kamran Mallick, chief executive of Disability Rights UK, said that a “disability strategy formulated without deep listening to the voices of disabled people is doomed to failure.
“The government must now go back and do what it should have done the first time round: dedicate time and resources to enable disabled people to speak freely and fully on our lived experience, demonstrate we have been fully heard, and share draft strategy proposals with us for discussion and comment.”
Another of the four claimants, Jean Eveleigh, said: “If the secretary of state genuinely wishes to place disabled people’s lived experiences at the heart of the strategy, then she must do so through proper and lawful consultation that provides a meaningful opportunity for disabled people and their organisations to contribute their views.”
The fourth claimant, Victoria Hon, added: “For too long disabled individuals have been infantilised and our views ignored.
“This judgment sends a clear message that the government cannot claim to consult with disabled people if in practice we are not given the proper opportunity to share our views.
“It is time the government listened and learned from what disabled people have to say about our own experiences and lives.”
Vicky Foxcroft, Labour’s shadow minister for disabled people, said: “Once again, the government has been forced into a humiliating defeat, even though disabled people raised their concerns numerous times.
“They shouldn’t have had to be taken to court for them to have corrected the failings from their shoddy consultation process.
“Ministers need to urgently clarify how they will correct these failings and ensure disabled people are consulted properly.”
A government spokesperson said: “We engaged with disabled people, disabled people’s organisations, carers and others as part of the National Disability Strategy.
“We remain committed to improving the everyday lives of disabled people, and the National Disability Strategy has already made significant inroads.
“We are disappointed with today’s judgment and we will consider our next steps carefully.”
*The four claimants were represented by Jamie Potter, Shirin Marker and Amy O’Shea of solicitors Bindmans, and barristers Steve Broach and Katherine Barnes, of 39 Essex Street chambers
27 January 2022
Government’s easing of COVID rules ‘is populist, dangerous and irresponsible’
The government’s decision to ease COVID regulations is dangerous, populist and irresponsible, while ministers have forgotten those people who have spent much of the pandemic shielding from the virus, say disabled campaigners.
There has been widespread alarm this week after the prime minister and the health and social care secretary announced that the so-called “Plan B” protective measures in England* – introduced last month to slow the spread of the Omicron variant – would end today (Thursday).
This means an end to criminal sanctions for those who fail to wear masks in public places, while the government is no longer asking people to work from home if they can.
Ministers have also ended the requirement for face coverings to be worn in classrooms.
As well as concern at the easing of the restrictions, there was anger and frustration at the confusion over guidance for those seen as clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) to coronavirus.
Many of those who have been told they are CEV have now spent nearly two years taking careful precautions to protect themselves, but say they were not told about new advice published on 24 December, or that that guidance remains in place despite the latest announcement.
Disability News Service has seen an email to the disabled Liberal Democrat peer Baroness [Sal] Brinton from the office of the junior health and social care minister Lord Kamall, which confirms that the 24 December guidance remains in place.
Baroness Brinton, who herself is CEV, has raised concerns about the failure to publicise the guidance, and even had to correct the Conservative leader of the House of Lords, Baroness Evans, after she claimed last week that there was now no such guidance in place.
Among those speaking out this week was disabled campaigner Doug Paulley, who is CEV and has been seriously ill with COVID-19 over the last 10 days.
The virus outbreak has infected 11 of the residents and many of the staff in the Leonard Cheshire care home where he lives in Yorkshire.
He says there are already severe pressures on public services, including delays with providing results of PCR tests, and three GPs off sick at his local surgery.
Although he has not had to be admitted to hospital and intensive care, he has been “proper ill, gasping for breath”, although he is now recovering.
He said: “I don’t have a choice of saying I want everybody else to wear masks so I can go out, I can only choose whether I wear one or not.”
Paulley said the government’s decision to ease the rules was “bloody dangerous and irresponsible and populist, and people will suffer and die because of it, and disabled people disproportionately so in my opinion”.
Even so, he said, it was “nothing compared to the way they just openly threw disabled people, and especially care home residents, to the dogs back when this all started.
“It’s a remnant of that same attitude, and it’s not just disabled people in care homes either.
“Nobody wants to have restrictions, it is an imposition on our rights, but it’s a bloody necessary one for the sake of people’s suffering and life.”
Another prominent disabled campaigner, Fleur Perry, who has had to shield through the pandemic, said it was “pointless” to ask those who were CEV to socially distance if the government was not asking other people to do so.
She said: “Asking one person to social distance is like asking one hand to clap – it doesn’t work.
“You need everyone around you in a public space to co-operate in order to successfully social distance.
“I don’t understand why we’re also expected to know that we need to follow Plan B without being informed.”
She added: “I’ve heard from many other shielders that they have felt ‘forgotten’ at various points during the pandemic.
“This time, there is no sign that we were remembered at all until after [last week’s] announcement was made.
“We need clear, workable guidance from the government, and we need our safety to be considered.
“Removing layers of protection when there’s more than 80,000 cases per day is gutting.
“I was looking forward to being able to go to visit friends and family as soon as the weather warms slightly.
“Each time a layer of protection is removed, the things I want to safely do move further away.
“The government needs to consult with disabled people and consider our needs when thinking about policy changes that affect our safety and way of life, not remember us after-the-fact. They also have a legal duty to do so: the public sector equality duty.”
Among issues being raised by Perry and some of her CEV friends are the failure to send them priority PCR tests, which they need to access anti-viral medication; problems with accessing the anti-virals; CEV people being forced back into unsafe workplaces; the risks being faced by CEV children, parents and teachers; and concerns over access to lateral flow tests and personal protective equipment for personal assistants.
Fazilet Hadi, head of policy at Disability Rights UK (DR UK), said the government’s announcement would be seen by those who are CEV or cannot have the vaccination as “another sign that the government has abandoned them”.
She said: “Despite disabled people accounting for at least 60 per cent of all COVID-related death so far, the government is doing nothing to protect and support people at greater risk of serious illness.
“We are particularly concerned that these rule changes will negatively affect working-age people who will be forced to return to work.”
DR UK’s policy and campaigns officer, Dan White, added: “The government needs to stop washing their hands of people who are still at severe risk from COVID.
“It must recognise that there are still disabled people who are clinically extremely vulnerable or who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons who still need a strong ring of protection.
“It must reinstate employment protections, financial support, and provision for essential supplies such as food and medicine.
“The current guidance changes too often, is causing constant confusion and is adding un-needed stress to individuals’ lives.”
Dr Sarabajaya Kumar, co-founder of the disability caucus of the Women’s Equality Party, who has been shielding for the last two years, said CEV people were now “expected to take individual responsibility to protect ourselves, without a policy in place to support our actions”.
She said: “Rather than keeping the work from home advice in place, we are expected to speak to our employers ‘about what temporary arrangements they can make to reduce your risk’.
“I understand that we need to open up the economy, and I too very much look forward to the day I can return to working with colleagues in person and get out and about to shop, visit the theatre, art galleries, museums, etc, and socialise safely, but I do not understand why the government is not continuing to protect those of us who are most at risk in the meantime.
“Even if we are able to negotiate with our employers to continue to work from home, my family members (who also have underlying conditions) are not allowed to do so, putting me at huge risk each day they go to work or university, as protective measures are no longer required in public places, workplaces or on public transport.
“As we live together, we are wondering how to best to continue to protect me.”
She pointed out that about 60 per cent of deaths from COVID-19 are of disabled people, many of whom were CEV, while working-age disabled women with higher support needs, like her, were 91 per cent more likely to have died from COVID-19 than non-disabled women of the same age, even after allowing for factors such as underlying health conditions, and whether they lived in poverty, or in a care home.
She said: “I would like government to review policy in relation to this group of people, as the current policy position puts us at even greater risk.
“We are not, nor should we be, collateral damage.”
Meanwhile, the government this morning released new guidance that further eases COVID restrictions in adult social care.
*Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales all have their own restrictions
27 January 2022
Commission calls for ‘transformational’ change to social security system
A user-led commission has called for a “transformational” reboot of the social security system to replace the current “inadequate, demeaning, inefficient” structure that “deliberately scapegoats” unemployed and disabled people.
In its final proposals, following more than three years of work, the Commission on Social Security says it wants to see a new system that puts an end to the “hostile environment” claimants face when they deal with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and instead has “dignity, respect and trust” at its core.
Its proposals for a “streamlined and much simpler system” have been shaped from thousands of contributions, most of which came from people with lived experience of the current social security system.
The report says it offers “a hopeful vision of the future and a way of setting the agenda on social security”.
Among its proposals, the commission would scrap universal credit and replace it with a new guaranteed decent income (GDI) of £163.50 a week, the equivalent of half the minimum wage, with an extra 20 per cent of the minimum wage for a single householder.
Child benefit would be paid at £50 a week per child.
Personal independence payment would be replaced with support for disability-related costs that would range from £83.70 to £230.77 a week (£1,000 a month) for those disabled people facing the highest extra costs.
One of the commission’s “fundamental” principles is that no disabled person would be worse off under its plans than they are currently.
There would be no job-search or work-related conditions for those on GDI and all benefit sanctions would be scrapped.
The commission has also made clear this week that introducing such a system would mean scrapping the “toxic” DWP, although it has not produced proposals for how it would be replaced.
Although the commission did not have the resources to produce figures for how much its proposals would cost and how they could be funded, it stressed this week that “social security is an investment and there is more than enough money to ensure social security for all”.
It says in the report that the government “can borrow money, make money or set higher taxes for rich people or businesses” and that “social security helps the whole country to do better”.
More than 1,000 individuals and organisations submitted evidence to the commission, through a public call for solutions, 17 workshops across the UK, a public consultation on its draft proposals – which secured widespread approval – and other activity.
Disabled activist Ellen Morrison, co-chair of the commission and co-author of the report, said: “This is not a system fit for purpose.
“How can I be assessed as eligible for a higher rate of employment and support allowance but now I’m in a relationship, the government expects me to rely on my partner’s income.
“It’s incredibly regressive to take away disabled people’s independence and autonomy in this way.”
Another commissioner, Mike Tighe, said: “The public are unaware of the truth about how the benefit system works.
“People are treated with suspicion and distrust. It leads to frustration, anxiety and hurt for ordinary people.
“It’s not that the people working for the DWP are monsters, but the system they are being asked to enforce is definitely monstrous.
“Everyone is entitled to dignity, including with social security.”
Trust for London awarded funding for the project in 2018 and the commission began meeting later that year, with a brief to develop a new social security system in which claimants would be treated with dignity, trust and respect.
Every one of the commissioners has been or is on benefits, and all of them represent grassroots, user-led organisations that fight for the rights of benefit claimants and disabled people.
The idea for a grassroots, user-led project on the future of social security was first suggested by Dr Michael Orton, the commission’s secretary and the report’s co-author, a researcher at the University of Warwick and himself a disabled person with experience of claiming benefits.
He said: “The pandemic showed that when times were tough it was unpaid carers, supermarket workers and others on low incomes who kept our society going.
“It also showed that if we choose to, we can provide social security for everyone.
“However, the recent cut to universal credit means the government is headed in the wrong direction.
“With a cost-of-living crisis looming in 2022, it doesn’t have to be like this.”
A report on the project, also released this week, found that the commission’s work “debunks” the view that the work of “experts by experience” like its commissioners is only relevant to “describing and understanding one’s own biographical situation”.
Instead, the report says, the project demonstrates “that when the voices of those who are usually excluded from debate are heard, it leads to new insights, ideas and solutions”.
27 January 2022
Questions over strength of new BSL bill, as government signals support
Deaf people will show their support outside parliament tomorrow (Friday) for legislation that would secure legal status for British Sign Language (BSL), after a wait of nearly 20 years.
The rally is taking place on the day that Labour MP Rosie Cooper, whose parents were both Deaf and whose first language was BSL, presents her British Sign Language bill for its second reading in the House of Commons.
Last night, the government told Disability News Service that it would be supporting her bill.
Cooper’s bill – published for the first time yesterday – would recognise BSL as “a language of England, Wales and Scotland”, but it also makes clear that this declaration “does not affect the operation of any enactment or rule of law”.
It would also impose a duty on the relevant secretary of state to publish regular reports showing what each of 20 government departments had done to “promote or facilitate the use of British Sign Language in its communications with the public”.
And it would impose a duty on the government to issue guidance on the “promotion and facilitation” of the use of British Sign Language.
But the bill that has been published – with government support – appears to be weaker than the one Deaf campaigners were calling for earlier this week.
The bill only refers to government departments, and not other public bodies, and there is no mention of the call from Deaf campaigners for public bodies to have regard to new guidance on how they should meet the needs of the UK’s estimated 87,000 BSL-users.
The bill does not appear to give BSL-users full and equal access to education, employment and public services such as the NHS, and allow them to take part in political debates and play a greater role in their local communities, as Deaf campaigners have called for.
It is not yet clear whether Deaf campaigners and their organisations will support the bill that has been published, and which is now backed by the government.
The British Deaf Association (BDA) said this week that Deaf people were facing discrimination every day, pointing to the case of Francesca Bussey, who – because of the failure to provide them with a qualified BSL interpreter – had to tell her Deaf father in hospital that he was dying.
It also pointed to the campaigning efforts of Deaf schoolboy Daniel Jillings, who was denied the chance to take a GCSE in BSL.
And it highlighted the legal actions taken against the government over its repeated failure to provide a BSL interpreter for televised COVID-19 briefings.
BDA’s BSL Act Now! campaign led last year to nearly 90 per cent of MPs receiving letters from Deaf constituents, asking them to introduce a BSL bill if they secured one of 20 priority slots in the Commons private members’ bill ballot.
Cooper came 20th in the 2021 ballot, which would usually mean that her bill was unlikely to secure enough Commons time to become law.
But a government spokesperson said yesterday (Wednesday) that ministers would be supporting Cooper’s bill.
The Labour government formally recognised BSL as a language in March 2003 and promised then to examine whether it could be given legal status.
Speaking before the bill was published, David Buxton, BDA’s chair, said: “Nineteen years on, we’re still waiting.
“Enough is enough! We are tired of being excluded from playing a full role in society.
“Deaf people still do not have access to the same essential information and services that are available to the hearing population.
“The Equality Act does not cover linguistic rights. We are forced to rely on inadequate disability discrimination legislation to access information in our own language.
“British Sign Language is an indigenous language of the UK and should be accorded the same legal protection as Welsh and Scottish Gaelic.”
Among other BSL-users to support BDA’s campaign is actor Rose Ayling-Ellis, whose success on BBC Strictly Come Dancing last month helped raised the profile of BSL and the barriers Deaf people face.
Aylis-Ellis told The Big Issue earlier this month: “I’m backing it because this is my language.
“The fact that my country doesn’t see it that way is really sad and means we don’t get the respect we deserve, and the language deserves.”
She added: “We have come such a long way – in the olden days, at schools for deaf children, they would make them sit on their hands or whip them for signing.
“There are so many traumas in our history but [it is] also such a rich history. If it becomes an official language, which we’ve been fighting for all these years, it will be so emotional for us.”
A government spokesperson told Disability News Service last night: “We encourage the use of BSL as a vital tool that improves the lives of deaf people up and down the country.
“That’s why we’re supporting the BSL bill on Friday, which recognises BSL as a language in its own right and will see guidance issued to departments across government on the promotion and facilitation of it.”
Cooper said earlier this month: “There are around 90,000 deaf people in the UK that rely on BSL, yet they have to fight every day to be heard or listened to.
“My bill aims to help put deaf BSL users on a more equal playing field with everyone else, to require the government to work with Deaf people to develop guidance on how public bodies should enable the use of BSL across their services.”
Among the organisations supporting BDA’s BSL Act Now! campaign are RNID, Royal Association for Deaf people, Signature, Institute of British Sign Language, SignHealth, National Deaf Children’s Society, National Register of Communication Professionals working with Deaf and Deafblind People, and Black Deaf UK.
The campaign is encouraging Deaf people and allies to attend tomorrow’s rally between 11.30am and 2.30pm.
27 January 2022
Shock and outrage over government’s fire safety guidance contract
Disabled activists are “shocked and outraged” at the government’s decision to commission fire safety guidance from a company that produced a “discriminatory” and “discredited” policy on evacuating disabled people that was in place at the time of the Grenfell tragedy.
Consultants C S Todd and Associates wrote a guide for the Local Government Association (LGA)* in 2011 – six years before the Grenfell Tower fire – that stated that it was “usually unrealistic” to expect landlords to put in place arrangements for disabled people to evacuate blocks of flats in case of an emergency.
Shortly after the Fire Safety in Purpose-Built Blocks of Flats guidance (PDF) was published, fire safety consultant Elspeth Grant wrote to the LGA to warn that it was unlawful and that it discriminated against disabled people.
She called for it to be withdrawn and amended “before this Guidance leads to an unnecessary tragedy because plans were not in force”.
The Chief Fire Officers Association (CFOA) had also raised concerns, and warned – in comments on a draft version of the guidance – that to “ignore and eliminate advice on disabled access and evacuation is a fundamental error of the document and [it] is recommended that it must be included”.
Six years later, with the guidance and advice still in place, 72 people lost their lives in Grenfell Tower, including many disabled residents who died after public bodies failed to plan how they would evacuate their homes in the event of a fire.
Lawyers for survivors and relatives of those who died have told the Grenfell Tower Inquiry that two-fifths of disabled Grenfell residents lost their lives in the fire.
The inquiry questioned Colin Todd, managing director of C S Todd and Associates, last July about the guidance, the views of CFOA and Elspeth Grant’s letter, although he told the inquiry that he did not remember her letter or its warning.
He said that some of the responses to the draft guidance had been “in the affirmative, some were in the negative.
“[The CFOA submission] obviously falls into the category of in the negative. Others expressed a completely different view.”
He also told the inquiry that he did not think that his company had consulted organisations representing disabled people about the guidance at the time.
Now the Home Office has awarded his company a £210,400 contract to produce new fire safety guidance, part of a series of changes to fire safety and building safety the government is taking following the Grenfell tragedy.
Claddag, a leaseholder action group led by disabled people, said it was “horrified” at the award of the contract.
It said that awarding the contract to C S Todd and Associates had sent a “message of endorsement of this discriminatory approach”.
Claddag co-founder Sarah Rennie, a wheelchair-user who lives in a block of flats in Birmingham, was advised for more than 10 years by the fire and rescue service to “stay put” and not attempt to evacuate in the event of a fire.
After Grenfell, she found an independent expert to help draw up her own evacuation plan, but she says this makes her “one of the lucky ones”.
She said: “I feel sick to my stomach that the authors of the LGA guidance are being commissioned by the government to further influence policy on the lives of disabled people.”
Georgie Hulme, another Claddag co-founder and wheelchair-user, has also had to seek expert advice to prepare an evacuation plan from her flat, and even had to crowdfund for an evacuation chair.
She said: “There is no reason to think any lessons have been learnt and, as is often the case, our lives will continue to be viewed as inferior.
“I feel upset and angry that the Home Office have agreed [this contract], especially considering the history.”
The Home Office is working on a revised version of the 2011 guide, and the three paragraphs relating to evacuation of disabled people have been redacted from the original guidance, which is still available online (PDF).
The section was removed following the threat of legal action from the family of Sakina Afrasehabi, a disabled woman who lived on the 18th floor of Grenfell and died in the fire.
C S Todd and Associates had not responded to a request to comment by noon today (Thursday).
The Home Office says it is implementing the recommendations of phase one of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry and is reviewing the use of controversial “stay put” advice.
Lord Greenhalgh, the fire minister, said: “Keeping the public safe is our top priority and we are determined to ensure the tragedy of Grenfell Tower does not happen again.
“C S Todd and Associates has significant technical experience in complex fire safety matters and is appointed to provide guidance relating to fire safety.
“The company was the successful applicant for the contract after an open and fair procurement process.
“There is strong governance in place, which is kept under regular review, to oversee the direction and detail of the guidance before it’s published.”
*At the time of its publication, the organisation was known as the Local Government Group
27 January 2022
Government silence over ‘discrimination’ of baby vouchers scheme
The government is refusing to say how it justifies the continuing failure to provide vital support to many parents on disability benefits to help with their babies’ nutrition.
Disability News Service (DNS) revealed last week how a disabled mother-of-two had accused the government of “financial blackmail” and discriminating against claimants of legacy benefits*, after she was told she could only claim vital support for her baby’s nutrition if she agreed to transfer onto universal credit.
The Healthy Start scheme provides vouchers for milk, fruit, vegetables, pulses and vitamins for pregnant women and those parents with children aged up to four if they are claiming certain income-related benefits.
But the scheme only applies to pregnant mums receiving income-related employment and support allowance (ESA) until the moment they give birth, at which point they are no longer eligible for the vouchers, despite inaccurate information about eligibility on the Healthy Start website.
Disabled mums must then migrate onto universal credit if they want to continue to receive support with their baby’s nutrition through the voucher scheme, even though this could lead to them receiving a lower rate of benefits.
The apparent push to force disabled people off a legacy benefit such as ESA and onto universal credit was heavily criticised this week by Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC).
A DPAC spokesperson said: “When you’re weaponising people’s babies against them to force them to comply with a harmful failed policy, just to access basic necessities to keep that baby alive – you most definitely are in the wrong job. This is wrong.”
Meanwhile, Vicky Foxcroft, Labour’s shadow minister for disabled people, has attempted to find out how many new parents have been affected by the decision not to allow ESA claimants access to the Healthy Start scheme once their baby has been born.
But the junior health minister Maria Caulfield told her that the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) did not have that information.
Foxcroft told DNS yesterday (Wednesday) that she would continue to push for the scheme to be extended and for ministers to explain why those on income-related ESA are not eligible for the vouchers once they have given birth, even though they are eligible if they move onto universal credit.
DHSC has now commented for the first time on the scheme, although it is so far refusing to explain the apparent discrimination embedded in the scheme.
A DHSC spokesperson said in a statement: “The Healthy Start scheme encourages a healthy diet for babies and young children under four from low-income households.
“As well as receiving free vitamins, vouchers can be used to buy fresh, frozen or tinned fruit and vegetables, fresh, dried and tinned pulses, plain cow’s milk and infant formula.
“Claimants on legacy benefits can make a claim for universal credit if they believe they will be better off.
“The government encourages everyone to check their benefit entitlement using a benefit calculator before making any changes which cannot be reversed.
“We are reviewing the information held on the government website to ensure this accurately reflects the current eligibility criteria for the scheme.”
DHSC suggested that the difference in treatment of ESA and universal credit claimants was due to historic legislation, and said that the department keeps the eligibility criteria under review.
Research by DNS shows that the scheme was introduced by the Labour government in 2006, to replace the Welfare Food Scheme that was brought in during the Second World War.
No changes in eligibility appear to have been made at the time, other than extending Healthy Start to all pregnant women under 18.
But the government’s legislation webpage also suggests that eligibility was extended by the Conservative government to many claimants of universal credit in 2016, although apparently not to those on income-related ESA.
A report on the scheme (PDF) by First Steps Nutrition Trust in 2018 found that eligibility, uptake and government spending on the scheme “rapidly declined” between 2013 and 2018.
*Legacy benefits are those that are gradually being replaced by the new universal credit system
27 January 2022
Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week
Unemployed workers will be forced to take up a job in any sector or face swift financial sanctions, under a crackdown designed to fill hundreds of thousands of vacancies in sectors from social care to construction, ministers have announced: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jan/27/universal-credit-claimants-face-tough-sanctions-in-uk-job-crackdown
The UK government faces a £150 million bill after a court confirmed tens of thousands of severely disabled people were discriminated against as a result of being left financially worse off after being moved on to universal credit: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jan/21/uk-government-bill-welfare-discrimination-universal-credit
Terminally ill benefits claimants in Britain will not have to demonstrate that they are taking measures such as looking for work in order to receive support, the government has said: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/chloe-smith-government-britain-marie-curie-universal-credit-b1999646.html
A mum accused of slowly starving her own disabled daughter to death faces jail after she pleaded guilty to killing her. Elaine Clarke, 49, from Blackpool, admitted the gross negligent manslaughter of Debbie Leitch, 24, who had Down’s Syndrome and died from severe emaciation and neglect: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-confesses-killing-disabled-daughter-26015017
A disabled mum claims she has been forced to live like a recluse for nine years amid a battle to get a ramp installed outside her home: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/disabled-mum-trapped-like-recluse-26026060
27 January 2022
News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com
