Southampton Centre for Independent Living

Individual Budgets are the current government buzzword and it looks highly likely that they will be the successor to Direct Payments. The idea of Individual Budgets is that they will be a way of pulling together various different sources of funding under one umbrella. Therefore Individual Budgets may consist of Direct Payments funding, Independent Living Fund money, Access to Work funding, Supporting People funding, as well as the Disabled Facilities Grant and funding for equipment.

This one budget will then allow Disabled People to use the money in a way that best suits their own needs and situation. Disabled People will also receive support to plan what they want and how they wish to organise it, from a broker or advocate, family or friends. The Government chose 13 local authorities around the country to pilot Individual Budgets and depending on the results of the pilots, the scheme is likely to be extended.

Alan Milburn, former Health Secretary, has however strongly indicated that some Disabled People may be able to receive health funding as part of their Individual Budget in the future. This move would be welcomed by many Disabled People who may have long term health needs as at present there seems to be a ‘grey area’ as to whether people can receive Direct Payments to meet long term health needs.  A few years ago, there were many cases where funding for health needs could be transferred from the NHS to Social Services and then Social Services would then pay the Disabled Person the money as part of their Direct Payments.  This has become less common in recent years.

Alan Milburn said “The Department of Health is currently piloting individual budgets for a wider range of services…Health care is not yet included. I believe it should be for patients whose care needs already entitle them to receive a direct payment for social care. Otherwise we miss the opportunity of genuinely integrating care into the patient’s point of view.” 

This would be a major step forward as most Disabled People find the distinction between ‘health’ and ‘social care’ needs both arbitary and unhelpful. As more and more health care is being delivered in people’s own home, it makes sense for people to choose when and how their ‘health’ needs are addressed, in the same way that Disabled People can choose when and how their ‘social care’ needs are addressed using Direct Payments.

Following the shortlist for SCIL Disabled People’s Business and Community Awards being announced, we are pleased that for the four other awards, members of the public will have the chance to have their say in which businesses deserve to win the awards.

Ian Loynes, chief executive for SCIL, said: “We have opened the vote to members of the public because they will be the people using the shops, pubs and restaurants around Hampshire. With their votes we hope to reflect the good experiences they are having and reward some of those establishments that they believe have gone above and beyond the call of duty.”

With the help of the Daily Echo, YOU have the chance to nominate in four categories to help decide which company has gone above and beyond the call of duty and ensured that disabled people are treated equally.The categories open for readers to nominate in are: the Disability Equality Achievement Awards for Best Hospitality, Best Independent Retailer, Best High Street Retailer and a new award the Judges’ Award for Outstanding Newcomer.

Echo readers can vote in four categories:

BEST HOSPITALITY AWARD - Pubs, restaurants, hotels, fast food, cafes etc
BEST INDEPENDENT RETAILER - Butchers, florists, greengrocers, fashion, hardware, corner shop etc
BEST HIGH STREET RETAILER - Supermarket, department stores, DIY store, bookshops, chemists, jewellers etc
THE JUDGES’ AWARD FOR OUTSTANDING NEWCOMER

Speaking of the new award, The Judges Award for Outstanding Newcomer, Ian Loynes said: “We have created this new award to champion new companies that have gone the extra mile to include disabled people both as customers and employees within their business. This award will stop the big corporate companies crowding out the newcomers who often have the best ideas.”

You can complete the nomination form here or e-mail your nominations to access@soton-echo.co.uk.The closing date for nominations is November 3.

What do a football club, a university, a bank and the Royal Navy have in common? They have all been named as one of 16 short-listed organisations for the SCIL Disabled People’s Business & Community Awards 2006  sponsored by SEEDA and HSBC. 

The Awards are aimed at mainstream companies that have shown that they are continually striving to provide an inclusive service to disabled people within the community. SEEDA’s Area Director for Hampshire and Isle of Wight Kathy Slack said: “SEEDA is very pleased to be one of the main sponsors’ of this event.  We value the importance of promoting disability equality in the workplace and recognise how it can be used as a source of cultural, social and economic enrichment.”

The shortlisted nominations are as follows:-

• Entertainment & Leisure Category:  Chamberlayne Leisure Centre, Mill Chase Leisure Centre, Gang Warily Recreation Centre, Southampton Football Club.
• Transport Category: Flybe, National Express, Stagecoach
• Services & Utilities: BT Group, Northern Rock, First Choice
• Public Services: Hampshire Library Service, Hampshire Constabulary,  Isle of Wight Council
• Equality Achievement Award for Employment: Royal Navy, Northern Rock, Southampton Solent University

The winners of the categories for Hospitality, Independent Retailer and High Street Retailer will be chosen via a ‘People’s Vote’ in the Southern Daily Echo.

The Ceremony will be held at the Rose Bowl, Southampton on 16^th November 2006 and awards will be presented by TV News Presenter Debbie Thrower. Laurence Clark, fresh from his success at the Edinburgh Festival, will also be entertaining the 150 guests with his sharp comic wit before the Awards ceremony begins.

Other supporters of this event include B&Q, Hampshire County Council, Southampton City Council and South West Trains. 

Following on from our series of articles on Inclusion, the government has just published its response to the Education and Skills Select Committee’s report into Special Educational Needs.

There was widespread media coverage when Baroness Warnock stated the policy of inclusion had left a ‘disastrous legacy’ which prompted many of us in the inclusion movement to worry that the government may be considering a review of its inclusion policy.

However in their response, the Government has restated its commitment to inclusion. The response states: ‘The Government shares the Committee’s view that inclusion is about the quality of a child’s experience and providing access to a high quality education which enables them to make progress in their learning and participate fully in the activities of their school and community…we want local authorities and schools to work together to build provision in mainstream schools so that over time a mainstream place is a viable option for all parents who wish their children to be taught in such a setting.’

Unfortunately the Government’s response does give a mixed message as it also states ‘ the Government sees a vital and continuing role for special schools as part of an inclusive education system,’

This response from the Government will do nothing to allay the fears of either the inclusion movement nor the ‘special schools’ lobby. This debate looks set to run and run.

There appears to be plans to scrap the idea of Hampshire Adult Services changing their eligibility criteria. At Age Concern’s AGM in Winchester on Tuesday 17th October, it was reported that there would be no change to the eligibility criteria. This appears to be confirmed by this article published in the Daily Echo on Wednesday 18th October:

CONTROVERSIAL plans to axe social care packages for thousands of elderly and vulnerable people in Hampshire look set to be scrapped the Daily Echo can reveal.The county’s ruling Conservative group are poised to axe a review of social care services which would have seen around 9,400 of the county’s most vulnerable residents lose their eligibility for care services such as washing, dressing and feeding.

The controversial money saving plans were announced by county leaders at the budget setting meeting in February.They would have seen thousands of people, currently assessed as being in “substantial need” of care lose their right to care services.However, at a meeting next Friday (Oct 27) adult social care cabinet member Councillor Patricia Banks, will announce that she plans to drop the consultation process on scrapping the care service which began in September.

Chris Perry director of Age Concern in Hampshire welcomed the news of the council’s change of heart.He said: “This is tremendous news because if they had stopped helping people with substantial needs it would clearly not have helped with their quality of life and would have forced them into the critical need category.”.

The news was also welcomed by the council’s Liberal Democrat opposition leader Councillor Adrian Collett.He said: “It is a massive U-turn. This proposal would have removed the right of around two-thirds of people in Hampshire for getting social care.“I am delighted by the U-turn. It was absolutely critical that they had a re-think on this as the impact on people would have been truly awful.“I can’t think of any decision that would have had a worse impact. What I don’t understand is why they did not realise it when they first came up with the idea.”

County Council leader Councillor Ken Thornber said that the council remained seriously underfunded by central government in social care services but he was now convinced that changing the criteria was not the way forward.He said: “While there has been widespread agreement that we should be spending our resources on those most in need or at risk, the advantages of moving to critical only are far outweighed the disadvantages.”

Although SCIL welcome this apparent change of heart, we are still concerned that many disabled people assessed as having ‘substantial’ needs, are not receiving adequate support packages to meet their needs.  

There has been a lot of media interest this week in the case of Charlotte Wyatt. Charlotte Wyatt suffered serious brain, lung and kidney damage after she was born three months prematurely weighing 1lb in October 2003.Her parents were then forced into a long legal battle to force doctors to give her artificial ventilation.

Despite all expectations, Charlotte has survived various setbacks and is now well enough to leave hospital.Unfortunately, Charlotte’s parents have now separated and due to these circumstances, Social Services are looking for foster carers for Charlotte.

Obviously we do not all the details of the case, however the reaction of the media is worrying. In a BBC Radio 2 phone-in on Monday, I heard callers say that Charlotte should be given a lethal injection if the parents cannot look after her. Other callers mentioned financial resources and seemed to question how the parents dared to split up after they had fought to keep their daughter alive.

 It feels to me what is missing is any regard for Charlotte as an individual. Of course it is unfortunate her parents are not currently in a position to take her home, but how people can think that therefore Charlotte shouldn’t have been given a chance of life is beyond me. Are we going to start denying all children medical treatment unless they can prove their parents will stay happily married until they are 18?

 This should be a good news story as Charlotte is now well enough to leave hospital and doctors are now measuring Charlotte’s life expectancy in “months and years” rather than “weeks and months” but yet again her parents are being vilified for doing what most parents try to do; Protecting their children.  

Who would have believed when Maureen Rees stepped into her car with learner plates on, that she was setting off one of the biggest and most successful genres in television history. ‘Driving School’ was meant to be just a cheap ‘early-evening’ filler over the summer months for BBC1. Suddenly it was getting 10 million viewers each week and ‘reality TV’ was born.  

Just as soaps were beginning to dip in the ratings, due to overkill and viewer apathy, TV bosses realised that people were actually just as interested in watching real people and it was far cheaper to make. With the advent of ‘Big Brother’, reality TV became more than a success story, it became a revolution. As popularity grew, the shows became more ‘extreme’, the contestants became more ‘individual’ and even Z-list celebrities got in on the act.So is reality TV just junk TV or is there more to it.?

My opinion is that for all its ills, reality TV has broken down some negative stereotypes and prejudices particularly towards oppressed groups. Big Brother particularly has shown that viewers do accept people who are ‘different’. Look at Nadia - the first transsexual winner and Pete - the first winner who was a Disabled Person. Both these contestants showed they were a lot more than just token minorities; viewers were shown they were three dimensional people who had experienced barriers and discrimination in their life.

Big Brother has been criticised for supposedly exploiting Disabled People, but as OFCOM recently said ‘there is rightly no reason why someone with a disability cannot and should not exercise the same degree of informed choice as any other adult – including choosing to enter the Big Brother house.’ I find it patronising the view that some complainants had that Disabled People may not be just as aware of the pros and cons of going on a show like ‘Big Brother’. Pete was more than aware and openly stated that one of his aims was to raise awareness and understanding of Tourette’s Syndrome.

It is encouraging that in the last year, TV producers have realised that Disabled People are not a turn-off to viewers and indeed the BBC has acquired good ratings for ‘Beyond Boundaries’ which features disabled people undertaking expeditions around the world. The second series, set in Africa, is currently showing at 9pm on Sunday night on BBC2.

The X Factor also has a wheelchair user in their ‘final 10′ for the 1st time, singing live every Saturday Night. It would have the Black and White Minstrels spinning in their grave.

December 2006 offers Disabled People a unique opportunity to ‘up the ante’ in regard to Disability Equality. The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) will be ten years old on the 3rd December and the next phase (part 6) of the DDA, The Disability Equality Duty, comes into force.

This new Duty applies to all public bodies and is enacted on the 5th December. All of them have to comply with the general duty, the goals of which are:

• Promote equality of opportunity between Disabled People and other people.
• Eliminate discrimination that is unlawful under the Disability Discrimination Act
• Eliminate the harassment of Disabled People that is related to their impairment
• Promote positive attitudes towards Disabled People
• Encourage participation by Disabled People in public life
• Take steps to meet Disabled People’s needs, even if this requires more favourable treatment 

Most bodies also have to comply with the specific duty which includes publishing a Disability Equality Scheme. This has to be published on 4th December and must include an action plan setting out how they will achieve the goals set out in the general duty. This plan has to be put together ‘involving Disabled People’ and showing how they have done that. 

We recognise that many bodies are struggling to do this effectively and so SCIL & HCODP along with other organisations of Disabled People across the South East have come together to form SEDEC – The South East Disability Equality Council. This will be a ‘one-stop-shop’ for public bodies to be able to get informed, consistent advice and guidance around Disability Equality.

SEDEC will be made up of Disabled People from across the South East who are well informed about the issues and the Social Model and will be setting the standard for Disability Equality in the South East.SEDEC also offers an opportunity for Disabled People to become involved by offering Disability Equality Training and a chance to be part of the council.

To launch SEDEC we will be hosting an event ‘Ten Years On’ at The HG Wells Conference Centre in Woking, on the 4th December, giving public bodies and Disabled People a chance to reflect upon what has been gained since the implementation of the DDA and what we hope to achieve in the future with the new duty.

If you are interested to know more about SEDEC then email info@sedec.co.uk or phone Ian or Hazel on 023 8033 0982.

October the 10th is World Mental Health Day and it is a shocking fact that someone somewhere in the world will take their life every 40 seconds.

Rethink is tying ribbons to the Itchen Bridge in Southampton today to represent everyone of these lives, as well as handing out 20,000 postcards to focus on todays event.  

Poor mental health is one of the biggest social issues in the UK. At any one time, one in six people or one in four (depending on which set of statistics you look at) experience mental health problems. This has high costs for individuals and their families and a significant impact on national prosperity and wellbeing. Poor mental health is inextricably linked to poverty and exclusion, worklessness, crime, chronic illness, low educational attainment, antisocial behaviour and lack of social cohesion. 

Mental health should not just be regarded as the special concern of the health service, or as a subject which is only relevant to a minority.  Instead it is an issue that is everybody’s business.   I welcome the day when although mental health problems will not  have disappeared, admitting to them will no longer be a source of social stigma. 

In “Mental Health in the Mainstream” (ippr, 2005) Jennifer Rankin has outlined a blueprint for how this could be achieved. In 2025 there will be no stigma – and mental health will be regarded on the same level as physical health.  We will all be encouraged to take as much care and responsibility for our mental health as we do with our physical health.

There will need to be initiatives in the following areas:

• Advice and support
• Facilitating access to specialist services
• Advising employers on promoting mental health at work and applying the law on “reasonable adjustments” for disabled people
• Offering social prescriptions
• Providing connections to community support groups
• Providing courses and information on living with a long term condition
• Giving information and support to carers 

Today (October 10) the government is launching an initiative urging employers to improve conditions for people with a mental health problem.   Just 20% of those with severe mental health problems have jobs, compared with 65% who have physical problems.  We need to find ways of promoting social inclusion and challenging discrimination in the workplace.  We need to focus on the vision of 2025 where mental illness will not be stigmatised and everyone takes responsibility and makes it their business to protect their own and everybody’s mental health. 

I have just come across this blog post discussing ‘neutral’ words, particularly around autism but I think the points that are raised are applicable for all Disabled People. 

I firmly believe that language is one of the key elements in changing people’s prejudices towards Disabled People. Ill-conceived language can be used to label and stigmatise people. It can also be used to undermine people’s self worth and self esteem.

This is one of our biggest criticisms of the ‘medical model’. The way that it tends to label people purely in terms of their medical condition rather than seeing that as just one aspect of a person’s identity. This is especially important for Disabled children who tend to get a multitude of (often inaccurate) medical labels whilst growing up, purely because the doctors have not decided a firm diagnosis.

We do however live in a society where labels are everywhere, whether you’re a Disabled person or a non-Disabled person. People First’s slogan ‘Labels are for jars, not for people’ may be the ideal but we are a long way from acheiving that. Until that happens we must make sure that the labels we do use, are accurate, non judgemental, and ‘neutral’.