Society and the disabled

An open letter to Alfred Morris MP

from Louis Battye

Mr Alfred Morris, MP for Wythenshawe, has been appointed an Under-Secretary of State in the Department of Health and Social Security, where he will have special responsibility for the disabled.

Dear Mr Morris, May I offer you my warmest congratulations on your appointment to what is in effect the post of Minister for the Disabled? It was a decision both necessary and imaginative, and, as the architect of the Chronically Sick and D,isabled Persons Act of 1970, no one in the present Government is better fitted for the post than yourself. Incidentally, I hope you will not think I'm being cynical if I suggest that the interest now being shown by all political parties in the problems of the handicapped may owe something to the realisation that there are perhaps three million of us in Britain — and that means an awful lot of votes.

You will agree, I think, that there are many others beside yourself with at least an equal knowledge of the subject, the handicapped people themselves. I have been severely physically disabled all my life, and I trust you'll accept the following comments and suggestions in the constructive spirit in which they are offered.

First money. Most disabled people are doubly handicapped — physically or mentally, and financially. Few can earn a living; very few indeed earn anything approaching the national average wage. And elien for the latter, disablement can be ruinously expensive. I was therefore delighted to read that you have in principle accepted the proposals of the Disablement Income Group for a special state benefit to be paid as of right to all handicapped people, and that the Government proposes to spend £300 million during the next few years to improve their financial position. But on this point I'd like to make an important comment.

While such a guaranteed income would be a godsend to those living in their own homes, the position for others, those in long-stay hos pitals or in residential institutions, whether owned by local authori

ties or charitable organisations, could be less satisfactory. Unless

they are paying the whole of the fees out of their own pockets, for the latter the regulations are that the cost of their subsistence is. paid for in the following way: four-fifths of any state benefit they receive is deducted, the remaining fifth — at present around £1.55 a week — being handed to them as pocket money. The balance of the fees involved is then met by their local authority.

But any additional income they may have is means-tested, so that after the first two or three pounds a week extra, which is disregarded, the sum paid by the local authority towards their subsistence falls as their income rises. It isn't even worth their while applying for the Constant Attendance Allowance, which purely on the grounds of their disabilities most of them are entitled to receive. So if the system were to continue, a quite substantial guaranteed payment from the state would leave them virtually no better off, the only real gainer being the local authority. • This would be a glaring injustice and to a large extent nullify the whole object of the scheme. I hope you'll look into it and try to arrange matters so that these people derive some genuine benefit from such a payment.

Which brings me naturally to accommodation. Whenever possible disabled people should be positively encouraged to go on living at home with their families. To enable them to do so they should receive help and facilities in the way of adaptations to their homes — ramps, sliding doors, lifting aids and so on. Even when persons have no families it is often quite feasible for them to live independently provided the right facilities and domiciliary services are made available. It has been estimated by the Economist Intelligence Unit for the National Fund for Research into Crippling Diseases that it costs the community £10 per week less for a disabled person to live in his own house or flat that for him to rot his life away in the frustrating environment of a long-stay hospital or residential 'home.' And so its not only infinitely better for his psychological health and morale to have his own address and to decide the pattern of his daily life — the times when he gets up, goes to bed, eats and bathes, the food he eats and the people he does or doesn't live with — than to have that pattern decided for him by others, in the long run it's actually much cheaper. It is essential that there should be a choice.

Again many disabled people are unnecessarily condemned to idleness, for they possess a surprisingly large pool of potential skills and abilities. In 1966 I was a delegate to the Tenth World Congress of the International Society for the Rehabilitation of the Disabled at Wiesbaden, West Germany. What was discussed and exhibited there would have been a revelation to those who think the disabled can have no part in the economic and creative life of the community. Given the opportunity and the benefits of modern educative and rehabilitation techniques, even the severely handicapped can make valuable contributions to society, to say nothing of the incalculable benefits they themselves would reap, both financially and in terms of enhanced self-respect and satisfaction, from being allowed to do so. Although progress had been made since 1966, Britain is still well behind a number of countries in its provisions for this vital aspect of social service. I would like to see the setting up of a really comprehensive national scheme for rehabilitation, so that no one with the will and the potential to earn a living is left to stagnate, either at home or in an institution. The capital costs of such a scheme would admittedly be large, but again in the long run it would pay its way and very probably show a profit.

Finally transport. It is now universally recognised that because a person is unable to walk he shouldn't therefore be immobile. The notorious threewheeled invalid cars issued by the DHSS have been deservedly condemned for many reasons, but I would like to say that one disabled person of my acquaintance is terrified in case these trikes are completely withdrawn as she is unable to get into or out of a conventional car. Again it is freedom of choice that is needed. But there are many who could never drive any kind of vehicle: subject to certain limitations, a free taxi service could be provided for them. Existing public transport also could be made much more useful to the disabled. For a person who can't leave a wheelchair, at present the only way of travelling by train is in the guard's van. Surely one door in each coach could be made wide enough to admit a wheelchair and a space left inside the coach where it could be locked into position. And in West Germany when a disabled person travels with an escort by train, only one fare is paid. Why not here?

Another matter which needs your urgent attention is the authorised repair service for electrically-driven indoor wheelchairs provided by the DHSS. This is appalling. I have known cases where people have been kept waiting for over six

months for minor repairs, perhaps only for a new battery to be supplied. The authorised service agents have too much of a monopoly in their areas and so do as they please with these often vitally necessary machines, apparently indifferent to the hardships they may be causing.

These are just a few thoughts and suggestions you may like to consider. I could offer many more. Your new responsibilities will be far from easy to discharge, but you'll have the good will of all disabled people, whatever their political allegiances. Your actions will be subject to a keen critical scrutiny, but it will be entirelY constructive in intention. We want you to succeed — for our own sakes as well as yours.

Good luck.

Yours sincerely, Louis Battye