web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > disability

HUD withholding $80M from Los Angeles

Westlake Legal Group EricGarcetti HUD withholding $80M from Los Angeles The Blog los angeles HUD homeless grant Eric Garcetti disability

Is this another sign of the ongoing turf war between the White House and California or just business as usual at the Department of Housing and Urban Development? There’s a bit of a face-off going on this week between HUD Secretary Ben Carson and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti. It involves $80 million in grant money that was slated for the City of a Million Rats, designated to be used for the development of affordable housing, but now the cash is being put on hold. The reason? Los Angeles has been repeatedly found in violation of rules requiring their housing projects to be fully accessible to residents with disabilities. (LA Times)

In an unwelcome turn for a city suffering from a homelessness crisis, federal housing officials said they have denied Los Angeles $80 million in funds, citing long-standing failures by local leaders to ensure that properties built with government money are accessible to those who use wheelchairs or have other disabilities.

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson informed Mayor Eric Garcetti in a letter Friday that his agency was rebuffing funding proposals submitted by city officials last month.

“As you have been notified time and again, the city is unlawfully discriminating against individuals with disabilities in its affordable housing program, under federal accessibility laws … and has refused to take the steps necessary to remedy this discrimination,” Carson wrote. He said a more detailed explanation for the rejection would be sent to the city within 15 days.

The requirements in question seem pretty basic. They’re talking about ramps and suitably wide elevators for people in wheelchairs and grab rails to assist in getting up and down. You also need to make sure that closets are wide enough to be accessed from a wheelchair and kitchen counters aren’t too high to reach. The repeated failure to pass inspections for such features in Los Angeles public housing is cited as the reason for denying the funds.

Some might see the evil hand of the Bad Orange Man in the background, looking to deprive the sanctuary city of more money, and it’s certainly possible that the Trump administration could see that as a side benefit. But the reality is that this dispute predates both Trump’s time as President and Garcetti’s time as Mayor. This fight has been going on since 2012 when the Obama administration went after Los Angeles for exactly the same reasons. And seven years later they are still failing inspections.

There’s more than a bit of irony in the idea that one of the most woke cities in the country is getting hammered for being insufficiently sensitive to the needs of the disabled. But this is no laughing matter. The City of Angels is being crushed by an epidemic of homeless people and toxic trash and human waste piling up in the streets. And a lot of the homeless are disabled themselves. If they’re going to get them under a roof, they will need to practice what they preach and ensure that the facilities are accessible to everyone, and not just those who are physically able.

The post HUD withholding $80M from Los Angeles appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group EricGarcetti-300x159 HUD withholding $80M from Los Angeles The Blog los angeles HUD homeless grant Eric Garcetti disability   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Maria Caulfield: Damaging, opportunistic, anti-democratic. Why the Commons should reject these abortion amendments to today’s Northern Ireland Bill.

As my Parliamentary colleagues will have now realised, the Government has been ambushed with abortion amendments to the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill.

Here are ten reasons why MPs should oppose these damaging, anti-democratic and opportunistic proposals.

1. Northern Ireland considered change in 2016 and clearly rejected it.

The Northern Ireland Assembly was the most recent UK Parliament to consider abortion. It voted against any change by a margin of voted 59 to 40. This represented rejection on Northern Ireland’s own democratic terms, not as a part of a proposal from Westminster, with all the added controversy that brings.

2. The old law = bad law argument is a ridiculous fallacy.

The core argument made in favour of these amendments is that the law governing abortion is old, and should therefore be changed. This is self-evidently preposterous. The same Act of Parliament that criminalises abortion also criminalises murder and manslaughter. Should we repeal those, too? Magna Carta is pretty old. Shall we do away with that? Let’s have a proper debate about what these changes would mean, not rely on deception, transparent sloganeering, and fallacious rhetoric.

3. If anything is old and obsolete, it is the 1967 Abortion Act.

The Abortion Act permits abortion up to 24 weeks – double the EU 12 week average. This law was formed when we knew comparatively little about fetal development. It allows abortion for almost any reason beyond the point at which babies can survive independently outside of the womb. It is a law which flies in the face of reason and contradicts everything we now know about the humanity of the unborn child. There is a reason why socially liberal countries such as Denmark impose a 12 week limit, and a reason why Jeremy Hunt supports such a limit. Our law is brutal as it stands, and if there is to be any reform, it should be focused on bringing our upper time limit in line with the EU average.

4. It would impose an extreme abortion law upon NI – likely the most extreme in Europe.

The 24 week time-limit comes from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. For abortion, this doesn’t apply to Northern Ireland. So, if these proposals succeed, abortion would be allowed for any reason up to 28 weeks and possibly beyond – and let it be remembered here that at 38 weeks pregnant women are at term. Unlike England and Wales, there would be no requirement for doctor’s approval. I cannot think of anything more retrograde, more “medieval” than a law which allows for the taking of human life more than two thirds into pregnancy.

5. Disabled people would be particularly exposed by this change…

As research consistently demonstrates, the majority of late-term abortions are performed on disabled children. These changes would remove any scrutiny around the motivations for the abortion, giving carte blanche to disability-selective abortion.  Already in England and Wales only ten per cent of babies with Down Syndrome diagnosed in the womb make it to term. 90 per cent are selectively aborted. Northern Ireland has a very different approach to disability. Disability-selective abortion for Down’s syndrome is not permitted and there is a culture of welcoming and supporting people with this disability rather than eliminating them.

6. …As figures for Northern Ireland confirm.

This is reflected directly in figures available from the Department of Health in Northern Ireland showing that there were 52 children with Down’s syndrome born, in the same year only one child from Northern Ireland with Down’s syndrome was aborted in England and Wales. Does Northern Ireland want a law which permits the eradication of disability?

7. These opportunistic proposals show contempt for the devolution settlement and due process.

These proposals are using Northern Ireland as a pretext to liberalise the law across England and Wales. Leaving aside the question whether or not these amendments should be considered in scope for this Bill (which is highly debatable), it is indisputably the case that such serious social change deserves appropriate consideration and appropriate debate. This is especially the case when the change envisaged is of such a significant and dramatic nature. In the Irish Republic, a referendum took place. In England, the Abortion Act debates ran all night on a number of occasions. This Bill will complete all of its Commons stages in two days. This is clearly and obviously wrong. It is an arrogant abuse of the legislative process, dreamed up by people who want to avoid the usual safeguards, presumably knowing that this change would expose that 100,000 people are live today in Northern Ireland who would not be if it had the same laws as the rest of the UK.

8. These changes would permit sex-selective abortion.

As explained above, decriminalising abortion would remove any requirement for the person seeking the abortion to give reasons for seeking it. So those wanting boys rather than girls are free to go ahead and terminate their female pregnancy. Anyone who has been through the 12 week scan (which includes the driving force behind these proposals, who is currently pregnant) knows that the gender can be revealed early on through chromosomal tests. At the 12 week scan they see that what is growing inside them is not an alien or merely an ancillary part of their body. As the midwife says during the scan: “here is your baby”.

9. This move would set the devolution settlement back.

There has been no consultation with those who live in the part of the UK that these changes would affect. The people of Northern Ireland have been left out of this entirely, except via some polling commissioned by pro-abortion organisations with a largely unknown pollster that is not a British Polling Council member, and which has not released the data tables from the survey or revealed the questions asked in the poll. This is a project of the Westminster elite backed by the well-funded pro-abortion community.

10. Even if Northern Ireland wanted abortion reform, these proposals go too far.

Even if it were the case that Northern Ireland would tolerate some abortion reform imposed from Westminster – which this ComRes poll contradicts – they would be going from the most pro-life country in the EU to the most liberal abortion law in the EU overnight on the basis of rushed legislation. Most people in Northern Ireland do not understand what is about to be done to them. This is not only offensive to the constitutional settlement, but to the principles of democracy.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Mark Harper: Our social care policy should be more ambitious

Mark Harper is MP for the Forest of Dean, a former Chief Whip, and former Minister for Disabled People.

When social care is discussed in the media or in Parliament, the conversation almost always focuses on the needs of older people. What is not widely known is that just over half of the adult social care budget in England is actually spent, not on older people, but on working age adults with some form of disability. And I am going to talk about both.

A lot of the discussion on social care for older people is about how it is paid for, that is to say how you split the cost between the individual and the taxpayer. That is because many older people will have accumulated significant assets by the time they need social care, and it is reasonable that the cost is shared between them and the taxpayer. The debate is about the balance between the two.

For the last two years, the Government has been talking about how to fund social care. However, the Dilnot Commission in 2011 confirmed that the public agreed that the cost of social care for older people should be shared between the individual and the taxpayer.

We have already put down the foundations for some of the recommendations from Dilnot in primary legislation with the Care Act 2014. All that remains is to draft the secondary legislation to put the figure for the cap in. This could be done very quickly – taking action beats more talking.

Britain has a proud record of being a leading country on enabling disabled people to be more independent and get into work. I am familiar with this policy area because I was the Shadow Minister for Disabled People for almost three years, between 2007 and 2010, and the Minister for Disabled People between 2014 and 2015.

In our 2017 general election manifesto, we set out an ambition to get a million more disabled people into employment over ten years. That is the right direction of travel, but I would like to see us be more ambitious about both the destination and the speed with which we intend to reach it.

I have a suggestion: perhaps we should re-adopt the commitment we made in our 2015 manifesto that ‘we will aim to halve the disability employment gap’. The Social Market Foundation has said that the 2015 commitment would see between 200,000 to 500,000 extra disabled people in work compared to our 2017 promise. In the interests of transparency, I should explain that, as the Minister for Disabled People in the run up to the 2015 election, I may have had a hand in drafting said manifesto commitment myself!

The Social Care Green Paper offers an opportunity to set out some of the Government’s thinking and some of the options it has for action for working age adults with some form of disability. Publishing it would kick off the necessary debate about the right solutions. The Government would have an opportunity to listen to valuable feedback from disabled people, expert organisations involved in this field and the wider public. It would then be able to set out specific actions it is going to take, legislating where necessary. The sooner we begin, the sooner we can see real change taking place and the sooner disabled people will feel the benefit.

I chair the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Learning Disability, and recently chaired a joint meeting with eight other relevant APPGs to talk about what we wanted to see in the Green Paper. This meeting was attended by a number of disabled people and campaigners for change. A summary of the meeting will shortly be sent to the Health and Social Care Secretary.

One clear theme that emerged was to see better joined-up working between the social care, health, and welfare systems. There is quite a lot of support available already, but it does not always work well together as a package. For example, if someone acquires a disability, the rest of their life (their work, their family) keeps going at the same pace but things can go wrong because the support they need, like social care, home adaptations, and financial help, do not get going quickly enough.

The funding of social care for working age adults is very different from funding social care for older people, as they often have few, if any, assets. Any kind of means testing for social care support for them runs the risk of creating further barriers to getting into work.

Looking at the system overall, there may be areas where an increase in spending is required but that may lead to savings elsewhere. For example, more resources available to enable somebody to work is likely to lead to better health outcomes as well as that person making a financial contribution to the public finances.

Conservatives want to enable disabled people to live their lives as independently as possible to reach their full potential. We should be ambitious about our commitments, so I would like to see us improve our goal for getting more disabled people into work, reverting to the better target we had in our 2015 general election manifesto. We need to see more effective joined up working between the social care, health, and welfare systems. To that end, publishing the Social Care Green Paper now would kick off the necessary debate. There are millions of disabled people in our country who will welcome us gripping this issue and making rapid progress to deliver real improvements to their lives.

And for those older people needing social care, swift implementation of a cap as recommended by the Dilnot Commission would lead to a much fairer system.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Robert Halfon: Under our new leader, we must prize social justice above social mobility

Robert Halfon is MP for Harlow, a former Conservative Party Deputy Chairman, Chair of the Education Select Committee and President of Conservative Workers and Trade Unionists.

Compassionate Conservatism courses through the veins of this Party. I know – I speak to colleagues and members every day. From educational attainment to lack of in-work progression. From family breakdown to fragile social care. From addiction to defunct housing. These concerns, and many more that disproportionately affect society’s most disadvantaged individuals, are deeply troubling for us all.

We are the Party of high school standards and aspiration. The Party that introduced the National Living Wage, the Modern Slavery Act, the Pupil Premium. Compassionate Conservatives believe in a strong safety net, but also in a dynamic welfare system that is ambitious for individuals, rather than one that writes them off.

Our Party is the champion of free trade and enterprise – the engine of prosperity for us all. But, we also recognise the state’s vital role in helping disadvantaged individuals overcome adversity so that they, too, can prosper.

All too often, however, our concerns about the most disadvantaged are not reaching the light of day. According to a recent poll by the Centre for Social Justice, just five per cent of low-income voters think the Conservative Party is “compassionate”. 72 per cent say the Party is not concerned about people on low incomes. 52 per cent believe that we “don’t understand what it is like to struggle”. And 57 per cent say Conservatives “only care about the rich”. These are damning statistics, and do not reflect my colleagues’ natural sentiments.

Meanwhile, the Left hoovers up recognition, despite the mirage of its self-declared monopoly on compassion. Take its proposals on welfare, which focus more on parking people on benefits than on encouraging aspiration. Or Corbyn’s plan to scrap tuition fees; an enormously wasteful and regressive measure that would suck precious resources out of the pot – resources that could instead be used to support the most disadvantaged. Or Labour’s misconceived notion that helping poorer individuals can only be achieved by taking down the rich.

It is time Conservatives claim compassion as one of our own. However, we cannot do so until we are clearer about what we mean by this.

Equality of opportunity should be right at the heart of our thinking. The problem, however, is that this has become synonymous with social mobility – a term that has become increasingly fashionable but loses sight of the bigger picture. At its core, social mobility implies the capability to move up the ladder of opportunity. But it is not enough just to focus on this. There are swathes of people who are not even at the foot of the ladder in the first place; people who are so far removed from the mainstream that the idea of progression and self-fulfilment is a distant fog.

If we are serious about creating opportunity for all, Conservatives also need to have an answer for these individuals and can only do so by thinking about social justice. This means addressing all the personal circumstances in somebody’s life that are shackling his or her ability to enjoy the opportunities that exist in society. In addition, we must tackle the things that cause people to crash into poverty, rather than the symptoms: educational failure, worklessness, family breakdown, unmanageable debt, addiction, disability, exposure to crime, poor housing.

If we fail to grasp this, we will fail the Conservative Party’s moral heritage. We will also, almost certainly, demolish our prospects of a working majority in the next general election.

The Centre for Social Justice has calculated that over 1.4 million poorer voters live in the 100 most marginal seats in the country. And in every single one of those seats, these individuals exceed the majority of the standing MP, in many cases by a considerable margin. Put simply, the Conservative Party cannot win the next general election without winning the hearts and minds of society’s most disadvantaged individuals.

The next leader must deliver Brexit, arguably, the most daunting task faced by a post-war Prime Minister. And he must do so swiftly and decisively. But this cannot define his premiership. Brexit was a symptom of a much broader restlessness in our society: the marginalisation of large numbers of people from prosperity. The answer to that is a bold, assertive domestic agenda that has social justice right at its core.

Whatever the outcome of the leadership contest, the victor must stitch together the ripped fabric of our society. He must reach out to those who are stuck on the side lines of prosperity. And he must reignite the compassionate instincts that lie at the heart of this great Party.

To make a start, our future Government should transform the current Social Mobility Commission into a Social Justice Commission, embedded in the heart of Downing Street. They must address all the concerns I have outlined, and more, to make sure Government brings every single person to the ladder of opportunity, not matter who they are, where they come from, or what difficulties they face.

The Commission should produce social justice impact assessments on domestic policy and legislative proposals. They should not only be a means by which negative effects are flagged but should be used to ensure that everything we Conservatives do is positively helping to improve the lives of those who need looking out for most.

As our Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, has said, delivering Brexit is about more than just leaving the EU. “The hard bit is yet to come. Because we’ve got to reflect why so many people voted the way that they did in the biggest democratic exercise this country has ever seen.”

What comes next is equally important, if not more so, and delivering social justice to all corners of our nation must be a focal part of it.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Potemkin legislation

Westlake Legal Group Screen-Shot-2019-04-17-at-07.25.35 Potemkin legislation Work Women and equality Women wages Treasury ToryDiary Stella Creasy MP sport Sam Coates (The Times) Sajid Javid MP rent Public Sector Northern Ireland NHS Local government and local elections Local Elections (general) Liz Truss MP Julian Assange jobs James Brokenshire MP immigration housing Home and family Highlights healthcare Health football Family and relationships exports employment Elizabeth Truss MP Economy DUP divorce disability Diane Abbott MP David Gauke MP David Blanchflower Conservatives Abortion

The ten most recent subjects covered by the Conservative Party’s Twitter feed are as follows: record employment, the provision of free sanitary products in primary schools, Conservative councils recycling more than Labour ones, more statistics about work and wages, record women’s employment, workers’ rights, an exports increase, more disabled people in employment, an end to no fault evictions, Conservative councils fixing more potholes than Labour ones, banning upskirting, funding more toilets at motorway service areas to help people living with complex disabilities, Sajid Javid criticising Diane Abbott over Julian Assange, kicking out racism in football, and a new law to protect service animals.

One might pick out three main themes, local election campaigning aside.

The first is the vibrancy of Britain’s jobs market and the country’s robust recent record on employment.  The aftermath of the Crash and the Coalition’s slowing of public spending growth, a.k.aa “austerity”, didn’t bring the five million unemployed that David Blanchflower believed possible.  The Government has to keep shouting about our employment rates because people have got used to them.  A generation is growing up that cannot remember the mass unemployment of the 1980s.

Then there are a battery of announcements aimed disproportionately at younger women voters, who were more likely to switch to Labour at the last election.  Those of a certain disposition will argue that some of these are trivial, and that women and men both want government to get on with addressing big issues: Brexit, health, the economy, immigration, education and so on.  But part of the point of banning upskirting, say, or providing more free sanitary products is gaining “permission to be heard”, in order to make some voters, in this case younger female ones, more receptive to what Conservatives are doing more broadly and widely.

Which takes us, third, to law-making – not admitttedly the only means, or even necessarily the main one, by which government can act, but indispensable none the less.  Under which category we find a new law to protect service animals and the proposed end to no fault evictions, about which James Brokenshire wrote on this site recently.  The two may seem to have nothing in common but, on closer inspection, tell part of the same story.

Namely that, as Sam Coates keeps pointing out, the Government can’t get any plan which is remotely contentious through the Commons.  Only the most uncontested ideas, such as providing police and other service dogs with more protections, can make it through the House. And this new service animals measure isn’t even Government leglislation.  It came about through a Private Members Bill tabled by Oliver Heald and then backed by Ministers.

Meanwhile, the proposal to end no fault evictions isn’t contained in a Bill at all.  The headline on gov.uk about the plan refers to an “end to unfair evictions” and “the biggest change to the private rental sector for a generation”.  But the text of the announcement refers to “plans to consult on new legislation” and refers to an earlier consultation, on Overcoming the barriers to longer tenancies in the private rented sector, to which it has now published a response.

As with housing, so with divorce.  On ConservativeHome today, Frank Young makes the point, in his article on the Government’s plans to ensure that no fault divorce can take place more frequently, that “it remains to be seen if the Justice Department’s enthusiasm for new legislation will be matched by government business managers and the ability of the current government to get any legislation through”.  For David Gauke has unfurled not a new Bill, but a White Paper.

Ditto Liz Truss’s announcment on a £95,000 cap on exit payments when public sector workers leave their jobs. “Six-figure taxpayer-funded public sector exit payments to end,” gov.uk’s headline declares.  The sub-heading is more candid than the one beneath the housing headline.  “A consultation has been launched outlining how the government will introduce a £95,000 cap to stop huge exit payments when public sector workers leave their jobs,” it says.  The Treasury confirms that legislation will be required.

Now think on.  As Sam goes on to say, Theresa May’s successor may take against these ideas or indeed all of them.  In which case, they will doubtless be quietly put to sleep.  And that successor may be in place soon.  (Regretfully, we have to add: as soon as possible after European Parliament elections, assuming these happen, please.)

Conservative MPs don’t want a general election.  Nor do we.  But the more one ponders the state of this Parliament, the more one sees why one is the natural solution to this impasse – and would be knocking on the door, were it not for the Fixed Terms Parliament Act.  These recent announcements are Potemkin Legislation.  They cannot be put to the Commons without risk of them being amended out of their original intention.

Nor can the Government legislate easily elsewhere.  Consider any proposals affecting women – to take us back to near where we started.  Up would pop Stella Creasy, looking for a means of changing the abortion laws in Northern Ireland.  Which would further strain the Conservatives’ relationship with the DUP, such as it is.  Prepare, when Brexit isn’t before the Commons, for many more Opposition Days.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Potemkin legislation

Westlake Legal Group Screen-Shot-2019-04-17-at-07.25.35 Potemkin legislation Work Women and equality Women wages Treasury ToryDiary Stella Creasy MP sport Sam Coates (The Times) Sajid Javid MP rent Public Sector Northern Ireland NHS Local government and local elections Local Elections (general) Liz Truss MP Julian Assange jobs James Brokenshire MP immigration housing Home and family Highlights healthcare Health football Family and relationships exports employment Elizabeth Truss MP Economy DUP divorce disability Diane Abbott MP David Gauke MP David Blanchflower Conservatives Abortion

The ten most recent subjects covered by the Conservative Party’s Twitter feed are as follows: record employment, the provision of free sanitary products in primary schools, Conservative councils recycling more than Labour ones, more statistics about work and wages, record women’s employment, workers’ rights, an exports increase, more disabled people in employment, an end to no fault evictions, Conservative councils fixing more potholes than Labour ones, banning upskirting, funding more toilets at motorway service areas to help people living with complex disabilities, Sajid Javid criticising Diane Abbott over Julian Assange, kicking out racism in football, and a new law to protect service animals.

One might pick out three main themes, local election campaigning aside.

The first is the vibrancy of Britain’s jobs market and the country’s robust recent record on employment.  The aftermath of the Crash and the Coalition’s slowing of public spending growth, a.k.aa “austerity”, didn’t bring the five million unemployed that David Blanchflower believed possible.  The Government has to keep shouting about our employment rates because people have got used to them.  A generation is growing up that cannot remember the mass unemployment of the 1980s.

Then there are a battery of announcements aimed disproportionately at younger women voters, who were more likely to switch to Labour at the last election.  Those of a certain disposition will argue that some of these are trivial, and that women and men both want government to get on with addressing big issues: Brexit, health, the economy, immigration, education and so on.  But part of the point of banning upskirting, say, or providing more free sanitary products is gaining “permission to be heard”, in order to make some voters, in this case younger female ones, more receptive to what Conservatives are doing more broadly and widely.

Which takes us, third, to law-making – not admitttedly the only means, or even necessarily the main one, by which government can act, but indispensable none the less.  Under which category we find a new law to protect service animals and the proposed end to no fault evictions, about which James Brokenshire wrote on this site recently.  The two may seem to have nothing in common but, on closer inspection, tell part of the same story.

Namely that, as Sam Coates keeps pointing out, the Government can’t get any plan which is remotely contentious through the Commons.  Only the most uncontested ideas, such as providing police and other service dogs with more protections, can make it through the House. And this new service animals measure isn’t even Government leglislation.  It came about through a Private Members Bill tabled by Oliver Heald and then backed by Ministers.

Meanwhile, the proposal to end no fault evictions isn’t contained in a Bill at all.  The headline on gov.uk about the plan refers to an “end to unfair evictions” and “the biggest change to the private rental sector for a generation”.  But the text of the announcement refers to “plans to consult on new legislation” and refers to an earlier consultation, on Overcoming the barriers to longer tenancies in the private rented sector, to which it has now published a response.

As with housing, so with divorce.  On ConservativeHome today, Frank Young makes the point, in his article on the Government’s plans to ensure that no fault divorce can take place more frequently, that “it remains to be seen if the Justice Department’s enthusiasm for new legislation will be matched by government business managers and the ability of the current government to get any legislation through”.  For David Gauke has unfurled not a new Bill, but a White Paper.

Ditto Liz Truss’s announcment on a £95,000 cap on exit payments when public sector workers leave their jobs. “Six-figure taxpayer-funded public sector exit payments to end,” gov.uk’s headline declares.  The sub-heading is more candid than the one beneath the housing headline.  “A consultation has been launched outlining how the government will introduce a £95,000 cap to stop huge exit payments when public sector workers leave their jobs,” it says.  The Treasury confirms that legislation will be required.

Now think on.  As Sam goes on to say, Theresa May’s successor may take against these ideas or indeed all of them.  In which case, they will doubtless be quietly put to sleep.  And that successor may be in place soon.  (Regretfully, we have to add: as soon as possible after European Parliament elections, assuming these happen, please.)

Conservative MPs don’t want a general election.  Nor do we.  But the more one ponders the state of this Parliament, the more one sees why one is the natural solution to this impasse – and would be knocking on the door, were it not for the Fixed Terms Parliament Act.  These recent announcements are Potemkin Legislation.  They cannot be put to the Commons without risk of them being amended out of their original intention.

Nor can the Government legislate easily elsewhere.  Consider any proposals affecting women – to take us back to near where we started.  Up would pop Stella Creasy, looking for a means of changing the abortion laws in Northern Ireland.  Which would further strain the Conservatives’ relationship with the DUP, such as it is.  Prepare, when Brexit isn’t before the Commons, for many more Opposition Days.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Social care. Let’s halve the disability employment gap.

Mark Harper is a former Chief Whip, and is MP for the Forest of Dean.

The Government has accepted that our social care system is under pressure and requires significant change to ensure we have a secure and sustainable system for the long term. The Prime Minister herself has acknowledged this on a number of occasions over the last two years, and has promised a full and open consultation on ideas and proposals which will be contained in a Green Paper. That Green Paper is now significantly overdue, having originally been promised in the autumn of 2017. The Government should get on and publish it straight away, to kick off the urgently-needed political debate.

When social care is discussed in the media or in Parliament, the conversation almost always focuses on the needs of older people. What is not widely known is that just over half of the adult social care budget in England is actually spent, not on older people, but on working age adults with some form of disability. This article is going to focus on them.

Britain has a proud record of being a leading country on enabling disabled people to be more independent and get into work. I am familiar with this policy area because I was the Shadow Minister for Disabled People for almost three years, between 2007 and 2010, and the Minister for Disabled People between 2014 and 2015. Over that period, under Governments of both main parties, the direction of travel was clear. We all want to ensure disabled people have more control, more independence and, where they are able to work, the opportunity to get into the workplace and contribute – just like everybody else.

In our 2017 general election manifesto, we set out an ambition to get a million more disabled people into employment over ten years. That is the right direction of travel, but I would like to see us be more ambitious about both the destination and the speed with which we intend to reach it.

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has also said that she wants to review the commitment that we made in 2017 to see if we can make it even more ambitious. I have a suggestion for her” perhaps we should re-adopt the commitment we made in our 2015 Manifesto that ‘we will aim to halve the disability employment gap’. The Social Market Foundation has said that the 2015 commitment would see between 200,000 to 500,000 extra disabled people in work compared to our 2017 promise. In the interests of transparency, I should explain that, as the Minister for Disabled People in the run up to the 2015 election, I may have had a hand in drafting the said Manifesto commitment myself!

The Social Care Green Paper is not an end, it is a means to an end. It offers an opportunity to set out some of the Government’s thinking and some of the options it has for action. Publishing it would kick off the necessary debate about the right solutions. The Government would have an opportunity to listen to valuable feedback from disabled people, expert organisations involved in this field and the wider public. It would then be able to set out specific actions it is going to take, legislating where necessary. The sooner we begin, the sooner we can see real change taking place and the sooner disabled people will feel the benefit.

I chair the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Learning Disability, and recently chaired a joint meeting with eight other relevant APPGs to talk about what we wanted to see in the Green Paper. This meeting was held in Parliament and attended by a number of disabled people and campaigners for change. A summary of the meeting will be sent to the Health and Social Care Secretary to inform the Government’s thinking.

One clear theme that emerged was to see better joined-up working between the social care, health, and welfare systems. There is quite a lot of support available already, but it does not always work well together as a package. For example, if someone acquires a disability, the rest of their life (their work, their family) keeps going at the same pace but things can go wrong because the support they need, like social care, home adaptations, and financial help, do not get going quickly enough.

The other area where we have seen some progress, but we could do more, is to ensure that family carers feel better supported. They provide enormous amounts of care for their loved ones, not done for financial reward, but extra support would mean that this care was much more sustainable without taking a toll on the carers’ own health and wellbeing.

A lot of the discussion on social care for older people is about how it is paid for, that is to say how you split the cost between the individual and the taxpayer. That is because many older people will have accumulated significant assets by the time they need social care, and it is reasonable that the cost is shared between them and the taxpayer, the debate is about the balance between the two.

For working age adults, it is a very different situation as they often have few, if any, assets. Any kind of means testing for social care support for them runs the risk of creating further barriers to getting into work.

Looking at the system overall, there may be areas where an increase in spending is required but that may lead to savings elsewhere. For example, more resources available to enable somebody to work is likely to lead to better health outcomes as well as that person making a financial contribution to the public finances.

Conservatives want to enable disabled people to live their lives as independently as possible to reach their full potential. We should be ambitious about our commitments, so I would like to see us improve our goal for getting more disabled people into work, reverting to the better target we had in our 2015 general election manifesto. We need to see more effective joined up working between the social care, health, and welfare systems. To that end, publishing the Social Care Green Paper now would kick off the necessary debate. There are millions of disabled people in our country who will welcome us gripping this issue and making rapid progress to deliver real improvements to their lives.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com