John Kelly performing in Graeae’s production of Reasons To Be Cheerful. (Photo: Alison Baskerville)
Show Hide image

Back to basics: the government’s grim decision to kill off the Independent Living Fund for disabled people

Two years ago John Kelly, an artist and long-term wheelchair user, was singing at the Paralympics Opening Ceremony. Without the ILF this would never have been possible.

“My feelings are all over the place. Worry at not knowing what I’m likely to lose, not knowing or being able to try out what might go in its place to see if it works… not being involved in change that is about how I live my life. I worry about others, my loved ones, friends hoping I can maintain relationships and not have to rely more on them for help.”

It’s been a week since John Kelly heard that the government is going ahead with its closure of the Independent Living Fund – the standalone fund that helps him and 18,000 other people with severe disabilities to live in their own homes.

The Court of Appeal had quashed the government’s first attempt to do so, when five ILF users secured a widely celebrated victory in November. But despite the court ruling that the DWP had breached the Equality Act’s public-sector equality duty – finding that briefings given to the then disability minister Esther McVey by officials didn’t adequately make clear “the potentially very grave impact” the closure of the ILF could have on those using it – in fact, the judgment only meant the government had to reconsider its decision (this time paying “proper attention” to its legal obligations). Mike Penning, the current minister for disabled people, announced last week that this has now been done – and has simply moved the closure date for ILF back by three months to allow for time lost following the Court of Appeal judgment.

John, 44, has been relying on the support of ILF for over 20 years. He has a long-term joint impairment that means he uses a wheelchair. Like other ILF users, John needs help with aspects of day-to-day living: getting out of bed in the morning, going to the bathroom, getting something to eat.’

John Kelly performing at the Liberty Festival, Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, 2013. (Photo: Sarah Murrison)

Before ILF, John tells me he relied on his mum for care and when she became ill with cancer, a care agency.

“It was very basic and a bit impersonal, run by the clock fitting all my needs into an hour here, an hour there,” he says. “The workers were lovely but often I wouldn’t know who was coming in [to my home] and obviously they didn't know much about me, where things were in my house, or how I did things.”

John describes ILF as “completing changing” his life. On top of the basic care costs his local council provides, ILF gives him 65 hours a week: allowing him to hire three to four personal assistants.

“I have choice and control over the basic but fundamental things”, he says. “I no longer have to fit my life into boxes and hourly care slots, I don’t have to worry as much about how long it takes me to shower or get dressed or go to the toilet.”

ILF means the basics of health and dignity: getting to the bathroom when you need it, having a hot meal, and living as an adult in your own home. It also means having the parts of life that can actually be defined as living: nipping to the shops, seeing friends, going to work.

John is an artist and has built a successful career working as a facilitator and musician. To the applause of David Cameron, two years ago he was singing Ian Dury’s 1981 song “Spasticus Austisticus” at the Paralympic Opening Ceremony as fellow performers waved placards for “Equality” and “Rights”. 

“I don't know what the future holds,” John tells me. “Not in the insecurities we all share, but… the basics. How many hours support I’ll have, will I have to decide between a shower and a meal because the care clock is ticking once again?”

“All because someone who doesn’t even know me has decided they know a better way for me to live independently,” he adds. “They consulted but the problem is they haven’t listened.”

 

John Kelly and the Graeae Theatre Company perform at Ronnie Scott's in London, 2011. (Photo: David Sinclair)

As John Pring noted on Disability News Service, when the Government consulted ILF users on its original decision to close the fund, the responses painted a chilling picture. “ILF allows me to do, as closely as possible, what normal human beings do. I do not do ‘activities’ or ‘access the community’ – I go out for a drive, for a picnic, to visit people, the kind of things ‘real’ people do,” described one respondent. “Before I was introduced to the ILF I was looked after by the local authority. I had no life at all, just a horrible existence. I didn’t get out of bed for months at a time. I was not encouraged to take part in life with the children. My care was extremely basic – to be kept clean, fed and medicated,” said another.

The closure of ILF means that people currently supported by it will, from 2015, be transferred to this local authority care provision. The money, crucially, won’t be ring-fenced – meaning local councils will have no obligation to spend it on current recipients. 

These are the same local councils that just last week have been found to be enduring such deep cuts that the UK is breaching the European charter of local self-government. Local authorities do “not have adequate financial resources” and this is likely to “get worse in years to come”, the Council of Europe said

“Local authority support for social care’s in crisis and things are going to get worse as central funding for local authorities is slashed,” Ellen Clifford, from Disabled People Against Cuts, the campaign who supported the legal challenge against ILF’s closure, tells me. “Social-care packages are ever diminishing, and increasingly stretched local authorities can’t fulfil the same outcomes as the ILF… We’ve seen [this already] with the impact on disabled people who missed out on ILF support following its closure to new applicants in December 2010.”

“Just today I attended a case conference with a disabled woman who has serious physical and mental health impairments and due to the fact that her needs are not being met [by her local authority] her children are being put on the ‘at risk’ register… Still with no forthcoming appropriate increase in support,” she says. “Disabled people's fundamental human rights are being infringed left right and centre by the increasing failings in local authority support.”

It was a year ago that Alan White and Kate Belgrave reported for the New Statesman that local authorities were already tightening care eligibility criteria so that they only fund people who have “substantial” or “critical” needs. The council facing a judicial review for capping care costs in a scheme where some disabled people were being told to find cheaper means of support such as receiving “their care in a residential or nursing home”. The woman who has cerebral palsy and is in the “substantial” needs band and has to stay in bed at the weekend, because her care hours don’t stretch to weekends. Research by the Financial Times this month declared there’s now a £20bn black hole in the public finances  – suggesting that even greater cuts will have to be made to social security and cash-strapped local government because other key areas of spending (such as the NHS and schools) are protected. Things are getting worse, not better.

As Kate put it: “Anyone who says councils will be able to finance these complex care packages [of ILF users] in this appalling funding environment, with these monumental care funding gaps, is either dreaming, or lying.”

Perhaps the worst thing is that this isn’t news to the Government. It knows exactly what closing the ILF will mean for the people relying on it. Just last week, its own analysis admitted that it’s “almost certain that closure of the ILF will mean that the majority of users will face changes to the way their support is delivered, including the real possibility of a reduction to the funding they currently receive”. [My italics] This could mean “the loss of a carer or personal assistant”, it adds.

I speak to John from the road, travelling from his flat in South London to the first date of his tour. He’s performing in The Threepenny Opera this month; enabled, as always, by the system of support he has built with ILF over years. “Imagine a world where evil goes unpunished and lowly souls remain on the poverty line,” the promotional blurb of the show reads. John suggests it seems fitting for the times we’re in.

“I’m worried about losing what I’ve worked so hard to achieve in order to manage my own life,” he tells me. “I’m fearful of enforced, rushed, ill-considered changes for political point scoring, fearful of the experiments with my life…”

“I’m angry [too],” he says. “We shouldn’t have to be fighting for such basic things in 2014, in the UK, in a civilised, democratic, ‘world leading’ country…. [But I will do. I’ll] fight for the same choice and control to be able to participate, contribute and live a full meaningful life.” 

John Kelly performing. (Photo: Patrick Baldwin)

The fight continues,” Ellen says. “We’re seeing… how local authority support is failing to meet the needs and rights of disabled people under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The strength and resolve of grassroots disabled people got us this far and we’re not giving up now. This has never just been about protecting support for existing ILF recipients, however important that certainly is, but it’s also about the fundamental right to independent living for all disabled people.”

“I’m not fighting for more or extra, just for the same,” John tells me. “The only time usually a government or society takes these kinds of freedoms away are when we’ve broken the law and go to prison,” he adds. “And it isn’t me that’s robbed the bank.” 

Frances Ryan is a journalist and political researcher. She writes regularly for the Guardian, New Statesman, and others on disability, feminism, and most areas of equality you throw at her. She has a doctorate in inequality in education. Her website is here.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

As long as Jeremy Corbyn's Labour opponents are divided, he will rule

The leader's foes have yet to agree on when and how a challenge should take place.

Labour MPs began plotting to remove Jeremy Corbyn as leader before he even held the position. They have not stopped since. From the outset, most regarded him as electorally and morally defective. Nothing has caused them to relinquish this view.

A week before the first major elections of this parliament, Labour found itself conducting a debate normally confined to far-right internet forums: was Hitler a Zionist? For some MPs, the distress lay in how unsurprised they were by all this. Since Corbyn’s election last September, the party has become a mainstream venue for hitherto fringe discussions.

Many MPs believe that Labour will be incapable of rebuilding its standing among the Jewish community as long as Corbyn remains leader. In the 1930s, Jewish support for the party was as high as 80 per cent. “They handed you your . . . membership just after your circumcision,” quipped the father in the 1976 television play Bar Mitzvah Boy. By the time of the last general election, a poll found that support had fallen to a mere 22 per cent. It now stands at just 8.5 per cent.

Corbyn’s critics cite his typical rejection of anti-Semitism and "all forms of racism" (as if unable to condemn the former in isolation), his defence of a tweet sent by his brother, Piers (“Zionists can’t cope with anyone supporting rights for Palestine”), and his description of Hamas and Hezbollah as “friends”. The Lab­our leader dismissed the latter remark as a diplomatic nicety but such courtesy was not displayed when he addressed Labour Friends of Israel and failed to mention the country’s name. When challenged on his record of combating anti-Semitism, Corbyn frequently invokes his parents’ presence at the Battle of Cable Street, a reference that does not provide the reassurance intended. The Jewish community does not doubt that Labour has stood with it in the past. It questions whether it is prepared to stand with it in the present.

MPs say that Labour’s inept response to anti-Semitism has strengthened the moral case for challenging Corbyn. One shadow cabinet minister spoke of how the fear of “enormous reputational damage” had pushed him to the brink of resignation. As the New Statesman went to press, Corbyn’s first electoral test was looming. Every forecast showed the party on course to become the first opposition to lose council seats in a non-general-election year since 1985. Yet Corbyn appeared to insist on 3 May that this would not happen, gifting his opponents a benchmark by which to judge him.

Sadiq Khan was projected to become the party’s first successful London mayoral candidate since 2004. But having distanced himself from Corbyn throughout the race, he intends to deny him any credit if he wins. Regardless of the results on 5 May, there will be no challenge to the Labour leader before the EU referendum on 23 June. Many of the party’s most Corbyn-phobic MPs are also among its most Europhile. No cause, they stress, should distract from the defence of the UK’s 43-year EU membership.

Whether Corbyn should be challenged in the four weeks between the referendum and the summer recess is a matter of dispute among even his most committed opponents. Some contend that MPs have nothing to lose from trying and should be prepared to “grind him down” through multiple attempts, if necessary. Others fear that he would be empowered by winning a larger mandate than he did last September and argue that he must be given “longer to fail”. Still more hope that Corbyn will instigate a midterm handover to the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, his closest ally, whom they regard as a beatable opponent.

Those who are familiar with members’ thinking describe many as “anxious” and in need of “reassurance” but determined that Corbyn receives adequate time to “set out his stall”. One shadow cabinet minister spoke of being “caught between Scylla and Charybdis” – that is, “a Labour Party membership which is ardently Corbynista and a British electorate which is ardently anti-Corbynista”. In their most pessimistic moments, some MPs gloomily wonder which group will deselect them first. The possibility that a new Conservative leader could trigger an early general election is cited by some as cause for haste and by others as the only means by which Corbynism can be definitively discredited.

The enduring debate over whether the Labour leader would automatically make the ballot if challenged (the party’s rules are ambiguous) is dismissed by most as irrelevant. Shadow cabinet members believe that Corbyn would achieve the requisite nominations. Momentum, the Labour leader’s praetorian guard, has privately instructed its members to be prepared to lobby MPs for this purpose.

There is no agreement on who should face Corbyn if his removal is attempted. The veteran MP Margaret Hodge has been touted as a “stalking horse” to lead the charge before making way for a figure such as the former paratrooper Dan Jarvis or the shadow business secretary, Angela Eagle. But in the view of a large number of shadow cabinet members, no challenge will materialise. They cite the high bar for putative leaders – the endorsement of 20 per cent of Labour MPs and MEPs – and the likelihood of failure. Many have long regarded mass front-bench resignations and trade union support as ­essential preconditions for a successful challenge, conditions they believe will not be met less than a year after Corbyn’s victory.

When Tony Blair resigned as Labour leader in 2007, he had already agreed not to fight the next general election and faced a pre-eminent rival in Gordon Brown. Neither situation exists today. The last Labour leader to be constitutionally deposed was J R Clynes in 1922 – when MPs, not members, were sovereign. Politics past and present militate against Corbyn’s opponents. There is but one man who can remove the leader: himself.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 06 April 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The longest hatred