More disabled people should be exempted from the Social Sector Size Criteria

The House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee has published a report looking into Support for Housing Costs in the Reformed Welfare System.

We draw particular attention to the section on what the report describes as the Social Sector Size Criteria (SSAC). More commonly, this is known as the Bedroom Tax and in Government publications, the Department for Work and Pensions and Coalition MPs refer to it as the spare room subsidy.

Regardless of what it is called, we were shocked at some of the regional differences in the impact of the policy shown in the report. The evidence gathered in the report estimated that 60 to 70% of households affected in England have a disabled tenant and 80% of affected households in Scotland have a disabled tenant. It is particularly distressing to hear that 4 out of 5 households affected in Scotland are tenanted by a disabled person.

The report says ‘We are deeply concerned that the policy is causing severe financial hardship and distress to people with disabilities, many of whom will not be easily able to move.’

Particular attention was drawn to the estimated 100,000 households around the country affected where the property was adapted specifically to accommodate the needs of a disabled person.

The report recommends that the government should exempt households where a disabled person receives the higher rate of mobility or care component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA), and its Personal Independence Payment (PIP) equivalent. Aspire has consistently called for people who receive DLA or PIP to be exempt from SSSC.

At the very least, Aspire believes the government should follow the recommendations made in this House of Commons Committee report.  

Social Security - Aspire and World Human Rights Day

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Two contentious areas of disability benefit reform relate to Employment Support Allowance (ESA) and Disability Living Allowance (DLA). Both areas are being severely criticised by disability groups and disabled people. DLA is a non-means tested benefit that recognises the barriers that disabled people face and the extra costs they incur because of their impairment. DLA is set to be replaced by Personal Independence Payments (PIP). PIP will still have the same aims to support disabled people. However, the government’s own projections show that they expect the case load, that is the numbers supported, to decrease. Within their own figures, they have also predicted that less people will receive higher mobility support.

ESA has had its problems stretching back to its creation. We have had negative reports over the years on the accuracy of assessments, assessment centres being inaccessible and the success rates of appeals.

Another damaging development has been the new under-occupancy penalties. This has been more commonly described as the Bedroom Tax. As a result of this welfare reform, we have found couples unable to share a room and people with heavy machinery being penalised for having what the government deems to be a spare bedroom.

Aspire believes that state should contribute and support disabled people if needed to live independently in society. Doing so has an overall positive effect on that person and will empower them to contribute to society too. We work with decision makers to get this argument across and we will continue to strive for this Human Right for disabled people.

UN and Grant Shapps at odds over bedroom tax

This morning UN special rapporteur on housing, Raquel Rolnik, released her initial findings of an investigation into the impact of the government’s spare room subsidy policy, or bedroom tax as it's come to be known.

Rolnik said her, "immediate recommendation is that the bedroom tax is abolished", citing testimonies that led her to believe the UK was, "going backwards in the protection and promotion of the human right to housing". However, housing minister Grant Shapps has hit back strongly, claiming Rolnik is biased, that her evidence is anecdotal and that she had not met with any government officials.

Aspire has previously written about the problems with this policy and the impact it is having on disabled people. Grant Shapps may say that Rolnik has different political views to the government, but this does not address the problems she, and many others, have raised. It does not make the experiences of the hundreds of people Rolnik interviewed, the countless people who have contacted Aspire in fear of what will happen to them and their families, nor those surveyed by organisations such as the Papworth Trust, cease to exist.

There are simply not the required numbers of smaller properties to allow everyone deemed to be over occupying to move. This problem is compounded for many disabled people as it is even less likely that someone will be able to find accessible accommodation to move into. Research commissioned by Aspire found that twenty per cent of spinal cord injured people are already being placed in care homes after leaving hospital due to a lack of accessible housing.

Where the government have tried to address people's concerns about the policy their response has been inadequate. As Rolnik said, "The mechanism that they have in place to mitigate it – the discretionary payment that they provide the councils with, it doesn't solve anything, it's for just a couple of months, and the councils cannot count on that on a permanent basis, they don't know if it's going to be available next year, so it's useless." This is not to mention that research has suggested that 3 in 10 disabled people applying for discretionary payments have been refused them.

Aspire welcomes Rolnik's comments and is very disappointed that instead of addressing her concerns Shapps decided to question why a woman from Brazil, a country with their own housing issues, was lecturing the UK.  Aspire would have hoped that Shapps realised that Rolnik was investigating on behalf of the UN rather than the Brazilian authorities and would prefer to see the government address the issues raised rather than just trying to shout these legitimate concerns down.