If it’s not a bedroom tax then it’s not a spare room subsidy policy either

Reblogged from A Latent Existence

This is a clip from the Six O’Clock News on Radio 4 today. It is about a woman who killed herself and left a note blaming the government cuts to her housing benefit.

Download: 20130512-Radio_4-Spare_Room_Subisdy.mp3

  I suppose I should be grateful that the BBC are reporting this story at all, because most people who get their news from the BBC would hardly know that cuts to welfare are even happening. However, I am furious about this story because of the way they phrased the report. Here’s how they referred to the cuts:

“her benefits were being cut as a result of the coalition’s spare room subsidy policy.

…she was facing financial difficulty because of what critics have called the bedroom tax”

This is repetition of government propaganda. True, the cut is not called the bedroom tax. Nor is it the removal of a spare room subsidy, because there never was any such thing, merely people receiving enough housing benefit to cover their rent in the available social housing. The official name of this cut in the legislation is the under-occupancy penalty. Because that’s what it is – a penalty for having a spare room, even if you had no choice about the number of rooms in the home you were allocated or if you need that room for medical equipment or numerous other reasons. It was never, ever a subsidy in the first place to remove. ”Removal of the spare room subsidy” was a name given to the cut by a panicking government because people were calling it a bedroom tax and that was too close to the truth.

That the BBC repeated the official government line and referred to a spare room subsidy when reporting a suicide is a serious problem. Of course I don’t believe the BBC is unbiased any more; if anything the BBC follow a pro-government line no matter who is in power. But if the BBC won’t call it a bedroom tax then they shouldn’t call it a spare room subsidy either. They should use the official name of under-occupancy penalty, but they won’t because the word penalty is too revealing about this government’s actions when they are still claiming that this is not about money and that they are protecting the most vulnerable.

Cameron: dumping his support for sexually abused kids?

David Cameron outside Downing Street. Picture courtesy: Guardian

Politicians like journalists can be  creatures of the moment. Flitting from issue to issue – today will be the decision on implementing Leveson  on press regulation – they sometimes forget the bigger picture in the adrenalin rush of a crisis or a story.

Eleven years ago David Cameron, then a backbencher sat alongside Tom Watson, Labour MP, as a member of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee. Together the two MPs signed up to a report on historical child abuse. One of the key recommendations of the report ( for those who want to read it all, the link is http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmhaff/836/83602.htm ) was that when the police ” trawl” for abuse victims and witnesses  those who are interviewed should get support from day one.

The recommendation states: “complainants should be offered appropriate victim support services, such as
counselling, from an early stage of their involvement in the investigation.”

Now 11 years later the police seem to be working overtime investigating historic child abuse cases. Operation Fernbridge – the police investigation into sexual abuse of children in the care of Richmond Council and their links to Elm Guest House in Barnes – has at least 16 potential children in its sights. The aftermath of the Savile inquiry could bring  many others into its scope and the don’t forget  Operation Fairbank investigating other child abuse  allegations and at least 30 investigations into child grooming across Britain. The scale of abuse is obviously much higher than people realise.

Officially the police and it now appears Downing Street believe all these former kids, some now in their 40s, are getting support. But evidence from two people who can be expected to be important witnesses in any trial involving the Richmond scandal suggests otherwise.

Details were published yesterday in the Sunday People and on the Exaro website. You can read the article in the People here (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/vip-child-sex-ring-victims-1768956)  and the harrowing view of two witnesses here (http://www.exaronews.com/articles/4897/witnesses-in-operation-fernbridge-plead-for-support-service) .

Suffice to say they are both highly critical. One, Sam, not his real name , says the help he was given : “as “inadequate, ill-conceived and suffered from a complete failure to understand what they (the authorities) were doing.”

He doesn’t blame the police who appear to have been sensitive in interviewing him but just left him with a list of referral agencies to fend for himself.The other is also having to find his own care while his GP prescribes sleeping pills.

I put this direct to Downing Street – including sending Mr Cameron’s office a heart-rending quote from one of them – and reminded him of what he signed up to 11 years ago.

The reply was :”Sexual abuse is a devastating crime and the Government is committed to ensuring that every victim has access to the specialist support they need. This is why the Ministry of justice is providing £10.5million in Government funding over three years to provide services to support victims of these heinous crimes.

“The Government funds 78 Rape Support Centres across England and Wales. These provide confidential and expert support, advice and counselling for victims of these heinous crimes. More centres are in the process of being established and expected to open soon.

“The Government is committed to providing a justice system that protects, supports and reaches the highest possible standards of care for victims. There are a number of measures which already exist to protect vulnerable and special victims, including rape and sexual abuse victims, throughout their involvement with the CJS, and a number of reforms are under  way to improve the system further.”

 The rape crisis centres are not dealing with these partcular Fernbridge cases or any historic childhood sex abuse and therefore Downing Street is misleading people by suggesting that all this money is going to help victims of child sexual abuse.

 No answer was given to my main point – did David Cameron  support what he had signed up to 11 years ago. And the suggestion is that this support is not there on the ground nor is it co-ordinated.

 

 This is stupid, short-sighted and frankly callous. Tom Watson, who has been approached by some of the witnesses who suffered child sexual abuse about lack of support, believes Cameron should use his power to make sure this is properly implemented and people have support from day one.

 

For a successful prosecution of people who committed these heinous crimes some 30 years ago, the government must ensure that the people who complained and will be witnesses are properly supported. It is no good  having witnesses in the court who can’t sleep, feel sick or can’t cope.

 

Shame on you Mr Cameron if  you sign up to reports and don’t do anything about it when you are in power yourself.

David Hencke

Courts will fill up with tenants, lawyers warn

Lawyers expect courts to be inundated with ‘thousands’ of legal cases following the introduction of the government’s ‘bedroom tax’ next month.

They predict the new regulations will prompt a rise in appeals to the Social Security and Child Support Tribunal, as well as an ‘inevitable’ increase in county court possession proceedings.

They spoke out in the wake of a separate legal challenge launched on 1 March against the bedroom tax regulations, with 10 judicial review claims being brought against secretary of state for Work and Pensions, Iain Duncan Smith. Five of these relate to disabled children, their siblings and parents.

The under-occupation penalty - popularly known as the ‘bedroom tax’ - comes into effect on April 1. Under the policy, social tenants of working age on housing benefit will have their payments cut if they have one or more spare bedrooms. Children under the age of 10 are expected to share a room, while those under the age of 16 are expected to share if they are the same gender.

From April, people can appeal individual cases to the relevant local authority in the first instance, so it has an opportunity to review its decision, with disputes ending up in the SSCS Tribunal. 

Anne McMurdie, a lawyer acting for three adult judicial review claimants, warns there may be ‘thousands’ of appeals over individual cases.

She said: ‘There must be a real risk that the SSCS Tribunal is inundated by appeals, and appeals that don’t have the benefit of legal advice.’

The introduction of the ‘bedroom tax’ coincides with the withdrawal of legal aid for first-tier tribunal welfare benefits cases. Lawyers claim this will lead to less effective handling of issues and a slower process, while also leaving some people unable to bring cases altogether.

Giles Peaker, a housing solicitor at Anthony Gold, said courts are ‘in for a rocky time’.

He added that for certain groups, particularly disabled children, a local authority has to assess the facts in deciding cases and this would ‘most certainly’ lead to lower tier tribunal cases.

He also expects ‘thousands of cases down the line’ in county courts as it is ‘inevitable’ there will be arrears caused by the bedroom tax and, ‘inevitably’ there will be an increase in possession cases.

According to the government’s impact assessment, 660,000 households will be affected by the ‘tax’.

A spokeswoman for Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service said it would not comment on speculation. She said of its current performance that it had ‘responded strongly to support the government’s reform of welfare’ and the SSCS Tribunal had ‘grown rapidly’ since 2008/09.

The SSCS Tribunal disposed of 433,600 appeals in 2011/12, a 14 per cent increase on 380,200 in 2010/11.

In numbers

• 14 per cent the reduction in housing benefit when under-occupying by one bedroom
• 25 per cent the reduction in housing benefit when under-occupying by two or more bedrooms
• 660,000 housing benefit claimants in social sector government estimates will be affected (390,000 local authority tenants and 270,000 housing association tenants)
• 420,000 estimated number of claimants who are disabled
• 10 judicial review claims

Source