Your Letters - September 2009

Political interpretation

Regarding Andy Rickell’s article “Voting for a bigger voice” (Disability Now, July 2009). I’ve belonged to a political party since the mid 1980s and I’ve had positive and negative experiences as an activist, councillor and prospective candidate (two general elections and the Greater London Assembly).

Being the first ever born-deaf councillor and parliamentary candidate in modern British political history, I’ve found it hard to get sign language interpreters to work with me for free when it comes to election campaigning, non-council meetings and so on.

The problem is that Access to Work (AtW), the Government-funded provision of support for disabled people, won’t fund this because being a councillor isn’t paid employment. I therefore have to spend all my coun­cillor allowance and more out of my own pocket on sign language interpreters for meetings etc. I have to do this because I can’t let other candidates accuse me of not turning up at local or public meetings because I can’t hear what’s going on.

Many deaf people have asked me why I haven’t stood again for Westminster or the European Parliament or been chosen by the party as a working peer in the Lords. The trouble is that none of the parties will select deaf candidates for winnable or target seats in preference to candidates with normal hearing. I know my political party supports me but, at the end of the day, it can only offer limited help and that’s why I won’t stand.

I look forward to the day when Parliament has sign language interpreters in both Houses. Imagine an interpreter standing and signing beside Her Majesty the Queen when she sits and speaks in the House of Lords during the State Opening of Parliament!
David Buxton, Liberal Democrat councillor

No Boston parking blues

I read the question put by Michelle Turrell, (“Ask the Experts”, Disability Now, July 2009) about getting a parking permit in Boston.

When I travelled round the USA, I flew into Boston and went to the tax office to arrange a parking permit. I think it cost about $15, but that was three years ago, and I had to take my Blue Badge and a GP’s letter. I was given a visitor’s permit that lasts 90 days and could be used all over New England.

You have to queue but it doesn’t take too long and it’s worth it because the parking bays aren’t misused (the fines are too heavy) and you can always find one.
Marion Jackman

Value added . . . or not?

We’re care providers and we’d like to bring to your attention some worrying issues that we’ve encountered with the Government-led Direct Payments scheme.

Direct Payments is an alternative way for people with learning disabilities to pay for their care, so that instead of the care providers contracting directly with Social Services, Social Services provides funds to individuals who then choose for themselves who they want to provide their care.

This is an excellent scheme and promotes independence. There is, however, a big drawback: the scheme is apparently liable for value added tax (VAT).

We provide care to five service users. When they decided last year that they’d like us to operate via the Direct Payments Scheme, Social Services neglected to mention to them that the fees we charged might then be liable for VAT. Indeed, Social Services is still unsure whether VAT will have to be paid on our bills, and we’re waiting for HM Revenue and Customs’ decision on this matter.

As care providers, we’ve been proactive in trying to avoid unnecessary stress for our service users, writing to them immediately when we first learned that the Direct Payments scheme might be VAT-able. Our service users subsequently contacted their local Social Services department to raise these concerns and were assured that Social Services was aware of this added cost and would pay it without hesitation.

We now have a situation where Social Services has finally decided that it won’t pay this money. Our service users therefore face the prospect of having to spend the little money they’ve managed to save over their lives to pay this VAT bill (£2,000 plus each).

A further injustice is that as of next month, our service users are being encouraged to revert to the previous method of funding, thereby restricting their ability to choose their care providers in the future. Not only does this seem like a step backwards but the tardiness of Social Services in arriving at the decision to move away from Direct Payments has meant an increased VAT bill.

You’d think that considering the potential consequences, tax liability would have been clarified before this scheme was rolled out.

As we understand it from our own research, the grey area relates to the fact that as we don’t contract directly with a government body under the new system, we become liable for VAT which, like any trader, we then have to add to our customer’s bill (according to HM Revenue and Customs guidelines).

One wonders what the biggest injustice is: that pay­ment of VAT wasn’t mentioned in the first case; that Social Services initially said it would pay the extra cost and then changed its mind; or that five independent individuals are now having their freedom of choice suppressed.

We’re aware that public spending is tight and that managing the care of thousands of people is challenging. But Social Services has a duty of care and shouldn’t misinform people and then walk away from the consequences.

We’d be very interested to hear if anybody else has encountered such problems or could provide us with

Jodie Wilkerson and Barbara Sharrocks, Devon

ITV signposts good practice

In response to Ian Macrae’s Mediawatch commentary (“Credibility down the tube”, Disability Now, May 2009) it’s important to say that ITV expects all its employees to uphold reasonable and appropriate standards of behaviour in the workplace and treat fellow employees, clients and viewers with courtesy and respect.

We have strict procedures in place to ensure these standards are maintained and we won’t hesitate to take action against anyone who contravenes our code of conduct. We’re also committed to promoting equality and diversity both in the workplace and on screen through our talent and diversity strategy.

ITV SignPost, based in Tyne Tees, creates jobs for talented on-screen deaf people, which helps free up the UK’s small number of qualified hearing BSL interpreters to do other work, providing access for deaf people in their daily lives.

SignPost also employs deaf staff in other areas of production, has an Equality Employer of the Year award, and is a caring, careful and respectful employer of all staff and freelancers.
Malcolm Wright, Managing Director, ITV SignPost

Music, music, glorious music

Following your pieces on Glastonbury (“Glasto: Mud, Blur and bags of attitude” and “I belong to Glasto!”, Disability Now, August 2009), I’d like to say that despite the mud and rain, music festivals can be quite accessible to disabled people, if you get the right equipment (I use a powerchair and a Rough-rider three-wheel mountain chair if it gets muddy) and aren’t afraid to tell people what you need.

I’ve been going to Solfest in Cumbria for five years now (it’s brilliant!) and also Knockengorroch in Scotland and the Workhouse in Wales. The stewards and organisers have been so cool and helpful. They really seem to know that I’m the person who knows what I need. I love festivals because I get to meet people who are different, as I am.

When you’ve hung out at Weirdigans music and cake shop with people dressed as fairies and pirates, using a wheelchair doesn’t seem that unusual.
Sam Sillars (12 years old)