The state helps Katie Price care for her disabled child. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

What the Katie Price benefits row reveals about our paradoxical attitudes towards the system

The celebrity model has defended spending taxpayers’ money on care for her disabled son.

Viewers of Celebrity Big Brother have been yanked through their screens into a moral dilemma regarding care for the disabled, welfare handouts, and multimillionaires. And it looks like this unexpectedly stressful viewing experience has revealed a great deal about the nation’s paradoxical thinking regarding benefits.

Katie Price, the model and celebrity formerly known as Jordan, was explaining to fellow housemates on the show how she pays to care for her disabled son, Harvey. She clashed with the rabid rent-a-rightwing pundit Katie Hopkins over the fact that the state provides a car to drive her son to and from school each day: “he has a driver and a nurse who sits in the car with him”.

Hopkins criticised her use of taxpayers’ money on account of her wealth – the Mail describes Price as a “multimillionare”. In spite of Price telling Hopkins that it would probably cost her £1,000 to pay for a trip between London and Sussex herself, the latter insisted: “With the amount you earn, I'd find that tricky when you can afford it yourself . . . if you can afford to pay for something you should pay for it and you shouldn't rely on the government, I think that's wrong.”

Price’s defence was that she pays her taxes, and does not have a set amount of income each year – and what would her son do if she was paying for it herself, something happened to her, and she could no longer to fund his care privately?

She has also put out a statement on her website, calling it the “local authority’s duty” to pay for Harvey's transport, as he attends a special school outside the area where he lives. The statement also criticises the “government’s choice to close the special needs schools”, meaning Harvey has to go to a suitable school so far away.

What Hopkins’ reaction reveals is how nonsensical attitudes can be towards the way handouts are distributed. The disabled and most disadvantaged have been hit by far the hardest under a coalition fiddling around with where welfare lends a hand. And suspicion of state help from right-wing figures like Hopkins is propping up such unfair changes to the system.

The most pressing problem with the principle of universal benefits is that it aids the advantaged, not the disabled children of those who have ill-advised government cuts to contend with. It’s what benefits wealthy pensioners, who are given winter fuel allowance and free bus passes regardless of how comfortably off they are, and gives all infants – including those from well-off families – free school meals.

Granted, these aspects of the system are occasionally used to condemn the government, but it would take far louder opposition to change them, as they are a symptom of the benefits system being used brazenly by a government buying votes.

Changes to pensioners’ perks would mean risking the ever-precious grey vote, and free school lunches are a gesture brought in by a government attempting to appeal to middle-class voters, and – I’ve been told by a frontline source – can actually save the government money on Pupil Premium spending; a system put in place supposedly to help disadvantaged children.

So before commentators jump on Hopkins’ bandwagon of taxpayer tutting, it’s time to think: should we criticise a universal system for aiding disabled children who have to travel miles from home to get an education due to government choices, or should we concentrate our efforts on scrutinising a state using handouts to buy votes, hurting those who need them most in the process?

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.

Public domain
Show Hide image

UK to reconsider blood donation ban for men who have sex with men

Under current rules, men who have had sex with another man in the past twelve months cannot donate blood.

During Women and Equalities questions this morning, Jane Ellison MP slipped in a bombshell: men who have sex with other men may soon be able to donate blood. 

Ellision, who is Undersecretary of State for Public Health, said that Public Health England has carried out a new survey of blood donors which is currently being analysed. Next year, the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood Tissues and Organs (SaBTO), which sets blood donation guidelines, will use the evidence to review the current policy. 

She said:

Donor referrel for MSM [men who have sex with men] was changed from lifetime to 12 months referral in 2011. Four years later it is time again to look at this issue. Public Health England has conducted an anonymous survey of donors and I'm pleased that the advisory SaBTO will review this issue in 2016.

The current ban (which also applies to a range of other groups including sex workers) is based on the fact that MSM are at higher risk of contracting HIV, according to every Public Health England survey ever conducted on the disease. Both HIV and Hepatitis C don't show up in blood tests immediately, so the 12 month rule is based on leaving a "window" for the diseases to develop and be testable. The rules are ostensibly based on sexual activity, not on sexual orientation.

However, as Michael Fabricant pointed out in response to Ellison's announcement, in practice, it also looks a lot like discrimination - there is no ban on blood donation from straight people who have had unprotected sex, for example. Fabricant continued that "equality on this issue" is needed, and clinicians themselves feel a change is "long overdue".

Blood donations in the UK have fallen by 40 per cent in the last decade, a fact which may have contributed to the decision to review the current rules.

A Stonewall spokesperson said:

We’re delighted the Department of Health Minister Jane Ellison has announced this review.

We want a donation system that is fair and based on up-to-date medical evidence. Currently gay and bi people cannot give blood if they have had sex in the past 12 months,  regardless of whether they used protection. Yet straight people who may have had unprotected sex can donate. These current rules are clearly unfair and we want to see people asked similar questions - irrespective of their sexual orientation - to accurately assess the risk of infection. Screening all donors by sexual behaviour rather than by sexual orientation would increase blood stocks in times of shortage and create a safer supply by giving a more accurate, non-discriminatory assessment.

Barbara Speed is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman and a staff writer at CityMetric.