Making Rights Make Sense: Lies, damn lies and statistics
‘Eleven million people in Britain – with an estimated combined spending power of £80billion – have a disability’ claimed Mark Harper this week, as the government called on the UK tourism industry to improve its accessibility to disabled customers ‘“So, as part of our long-term economic plan, improving the accessibility of hotels and self-catering apartments and tourist attractions for disabled travellers is a no-brainer.’ writes Mark Harper in his blog.
Harper was relying in statistics drawn together by the Department for Work and Pensions which say: ‘There are 11.5 million people in the UK who are covered by the disability provisions set out in the Equality Act. This is 19 percent of the population – a similar level to the USA, Canada and Australia (FRS 2010/11, WHO 2011).’
As the DWP notes, these estimates are based on various survey findings and:
That is to say, a person may both fail to report an impairment at the time a survey is carried out and in theory at least over-state its effect. Nevetheless, DWP go on to say that:
Given this is its own analysis, it’s unsurprising then that the DWP would have relied on these population estimates in its own Equality Impact Assessment for its policy to ‘introduce restrictions to Housing Benefit for working age customers living in the
social rented sector who are occupying a larger property than their household size requires’ known either as ‘ending the spare room subsidy’ or the ‘bedroom tax’ depending on one’s political leanings. The Assessment finds that 63% of working age social rented sector HB claimants or their partners affected by the size criteria would be classified as disabled.
What is surprising, given these are official statistics, which the Minister for Disabled People has no compunction in relying on to make the business case to the tourism industry, is that the Secretary of State should question their validity arguing on LBC radio that: ‘The figures you use are figures used for people’s self-declaration of their disability under the Disability Discrimination Act…..I’m not saying they’re right or they’re wrong. I simply say that’s their declaration. There’s no ongoing check. About a third are in receipt of something like DLA, which of itself is a payment to support housing costs.”
What he may have reasonably suggested is that that not all 63% of social rented sector HB claimants tenants who are disabled and ‘affected’ by the size criteria will necessarily be adversely affected for a reason related to their impairment or health condition because their impairment or health condition does not give rise to a specific need for additional bedrooms as per the criteria. Rather what the Impact Assessment appears to be saying is that 63% of those to whom the policy will apply are disabled and for that reason they are affected, even if not adversely for a reason related to their disability.
“About a third are in receipt of something like DLA, which of itself is a payment to support housing costs.”
Did he really say that? Since when is DLA to be used to support housing costs? DLA is for the costs of transport and costs associated with care, not for housing costs.
I also find it ironic and cynical that they’re suddenly making tourism an issue. Due to illness I can’t travel so I haven’t had a holiday since 1999, but even if traveling wasn’t an issue, since they’ve privatised part of my care plan (meaning I have to stump up more) and along with the bedroom tax, there’s no way that I could possibly afford a holiday!
Sasson Hann