The Care Bill presents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for disabled rights

The Care Bill returns to the House of Lords this week. The Government has put down some welcome changes. But political leaders have to be visionary, be bold and think beyond the next election. So do councils – and so, too, do organisations like Scope.

Here’s why social care is so important. Disabled people want to live independently. Sometimes they need support to do so. That could be a personal assistant to help them get up, get washed and dressed. In 2013, I think most people would agree that this support should be in place. But independent living also means disabled people having a say in where they live, who they live with and how they go about their day. This means not being forced to get up the same time every day, eat at the same time every day and go to bed at the same time every day. Again, in 2013, I think most people would back that aspiration. Unfortunately, this doesn’t reflect the reality of many disabled people’s lives.

Take Martyn Sibley, a young disabled internet entrepreneur. He runs Disability Horizons and has just trekked from John o' Groats to Lands’ End in his electric wheelchair. He also still has to argue with his social worker about getting support to go to the toilet. This is unacceptable.

During party conferences Nick Clegg talked-up capping care costs; Ed Miliband backed whole person care and Jeremy Hunt championed integration of health and social care. In the summer the Chancellor found £3.8bn in June’s spending review to start to tackle the crisis.

The Care Bill returns to the House of Lords this week. It’s a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reform the care system. The Government has put down some welcome changes. But political leaders have to be visionary, be bold and think beyond the next election. So do councils – and so, too, do organisations like Scope.

I’m Chair of the Care and Support Alliance, a coalition of 75 organisations working together to improve the social care system in this country, so I know how important these issues are for older people, their carers as well. At the moment, there are two fundamental problems.

First, the London School of Economics estimates that 69,000 disabled people who need support to live independently don’t get it. Cash-strapped councils have been upping the bar for eligibility, with 83% of councils now setting the threshold at a higher level than they once did. Under the Government’s plans, all councils could set eligibility at the higher level. Experts say this will leave 105,000 disabled people outside of the system altogether. The Care Bill gives political leaders the chance to be take bold steps to reform the system.

The second problem is that even if you’re lucky enough to be in the system, it can be a struggle to get support that genuinely promotes independent living. In one recent survey, 40% of disabled people said that local care doesn’t meet basic needs like getting up, getting washed and dressed and getting out of the house.

Getting social care reform right will provide the groundwork. But councils need to place independent living at the heart of commissioning. Every disabled people should have a say in what support they receive, and how, when and where they receive it. Meanwhile, organisations like ours can’t just shout from the sidelines. We have to work together to show what’s possible. This means looking to the future, piloting and testing new ways of working, and making tough decisions about the services we provide.

As an example from our own organisation, Scope runs care homes. Our staff do a great job, but many were opened in the 70s, aren’t located in the heart of the community, and are simply not set up to offer disabled people enough choice and control in the 21st century. In the last five years, Scope has changed or closed ten of these services; last year, we decided to review all of our residential services for disabled adults because of these concerns. We’re now proposing to change or close more over the next three years. This will always be done in consultation with those most affected: disabled people who use them, their families and our staff, and we’ll always do our best to support all of those involved. But if we want to give disabled people the same say over where they live and how they live as everyone else, change is unavoidable.

I believe we can build a society where disabled people can genuinely live independently, but we have to think big. That starts this week with the Care Bill.

Will the Government put their money where their mouth is? Image: Getty

Richard Hawkes is chief executive of the disability charity Scope.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.