DISABILITY CAMPAIGNERS GATHER AT SUPREME COURT FOR BEDROOM TAX CASES

แสดงความคิดเห็น

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/29/disability-campaigners-supreme-court-bedroom-tax-discrimination-case (ขนาดไฟล์: 0 )

Women’s rights groups also among activists outside court where judges will consider appeals claiming tax is discriminatory

Demonstrators gather outside the supreme court in London on Monday. Photograph: Ben Pruchnie/Getty Images

Disability rights campaigners and women’s groups have gathered outside the supreme court, where judges will consider appeals that claim the government’s bedroom tax is discriminatory to vulnerable people.

The outcome of the case could have implications for disabled children, hundreds of victims of domestic violence and thousands of disabled adults.

For Paul Rutherford, the grandfather of a disabled child from Pembrokeshire, the hearing represents the latest round of a legal battle he has fought for three years.

Wearing a backpack carrying oxygen and holding on to a metal crutch for support on Monday, Rutherford, who is also disabled, said he did not need to be at court but travelled from Wales because he wanted to “look the judges in the eye and say: ‘Here I am.’

Rutherford looks after Warren, 15, with his wife, Sue, in their three-bedroom house, which has been adapted to meet their grandson’s needs. “If the government are going to do this to people like us, who is next?” he said.

The bedroom tax was introduced under benefit changes in the Welfare Reform Act 2012. Tenants in social housing have their benefits reduced by 14% if they have a spare bedroom, or 25% if they have two or more.

Warren needs an extra bedroom for an overnight carer. Last month, the court of appeal ruled that the bedroom tax was discriminatory in the cases of the Rutherfords and a woman identified only as A who had a council house fitted with a panic room to protect her from a violent partner.

The court held that the bedroom tax unlawfully discriminated against children with disabilities, contrary to article 14 of the European convention on human rights.

The Department for Work and Pensions appealed against the decision and the supreme court announced the case of the Rutherfords and A would be heard by seven justices alongside several other bedroom tax challenges already due to be considered.

“The government should have given up already,” said Rutherford. “We have a lot of public support that this policy is unfair. I genuinely thought it would not apply to us.”

The DWP rejects the term bedroom tax, saying the regulations amount to the removal of the spare room subsidy, aimed at encouraging families to move to smaller properties and reduce the housing benefit bill. It has argued that the regulations are not discriminatory for people like the Rutherfords and A because they have given councils the funds to provide discriminatory housing payments to those who need them.

Lawyers for the Rutherfords have submitted evidence to the court they say will help prove their case and demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the discretionary payments.

A survey of local authorities in England, carried out by the Child Poverty Action Group, backing the Rutherfords’ case, shows 41% of councils have policies that only provide discretionary housing payments (DHP) for a short-term period, while 28% have policies where DHP can only be granted for a specified finite period, for instance three, six or 12 months.

Mike Spencer, solicitor for the Rutherfords, said: “It’s a lottery. There are also cases of councils running out of funds. Children like Warren will always need an extra bedroom. Relying on a discretionary payment is not a solution.”

The changes to housing benefit that resulted in the removal of what the government calls the spare room subsidy came into effect in April 2013. Since then, families who have been classified as having spare rooms have received reduced benefits.

The panel of judges, headed by the supreme court president, Lord Neuberger, will hear arguments over three days in the government’s challenge over the Rutherfords and A.

Another part of the hearing will relate to an earlier decision made by court of appeal judges over a complaint by a number of disabled people that the regulations unlawfully discriminate against those who have a need for another bedroom because of that disability. The high court dismissed their application for judicial review and their subsequent challenge against that ruling was rejected by appeal judges in February 2014.

On Monday, the husband of a disabled woman who is challenging the policy, spoke of the heartache the couple had suffered as a result of the housing benefit changes, and the subsequent legal battles they have fought and, so far, lost.

Jayson Carmichael, 53, from Southport, Merseyside, whose wife Charlotte, 43, has a severe spinal condition that leaves her partially bedridden, said: “It has caused us a lot of stress and heartache. We are having to think about it all the time and being depressed about it. It is fight after fight, case after case.”

In the 2014 court of appeal ruling, Lord Dyson said the court could only intervene if measures were “manifestly without reasonable foundation” – and that test was not satisfied. The secretary of state had “justified the discriminatory effect of the policy”, he said.

The four others appealing against that decision at the supreme court are widower Richard Rourke, from Derbyshire, who uses a wheelchair; James Daly, from Stoke, who has a severely disabled 13-year-old son; Mervyn Drage, 59, from Manchester, who has both mental and physical health problems, and a mother who can only be referred to as “JD” to protect the identity of her adult disabled daughter.

Outside the court, Janelle Brown, from Sisters Uncut, which lobbies against cuts to services for domestic violence victims, said: “We’re here to tell the government that classifying panic rooms as spare rooms under the bedroom tax equates to violence against women.”

Claire Glasman, of WinVisible, a disabled women’s group, said: “The government’s own report shows how vulnerable people are getting into debt and cutting back on food because of the bedroom tax. Day to day, it’s miserable for disabled people hit by this tax.”

A DWP spokesman said in a statement before the latest round of the litigation: “Removing the spare room subsidy has restored fairness to the system for claimants as well as the taxpayer, and the numbers subject to a reduction are falling.

“We know that there are cases where people may need extra support – but rather than put in place complex exemptions, we have given local councils the freedom to decide what is best for their communities.

“That’s why we have given councils £500m of funding to provide discretionary payments to those that need them, with a further £870m to be provided up to 2020.”

แสดงความคิดเห็น

รอตรวจสอบ
จัดฟอร์แม็ต ดูการแสดงผล

รอตรวจสอบ

รอตรวจสอบ

รอตรวจสอบ

ยกเลิก

รายละเอียดกระทู้

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/29/disability-campaigners-supreme-court-bedroom-tax-discrimination-case Women’s rights groups also among activists outside court where judges will consider appeals claiming tax is discriminatory Demonstrators gather outside the supreme court in London on Monday. Photograph: Ben Pruchnie/Getty Images Disability rights campaigners and women’s groups have gathered outside the supreme court, where judges will consider appeals that claim the government’s bedroom tax is discriminatory to vulnerable people. The outcome of the case could have implications for disabled children, hundreds of victims of domestic violence and thousands of disabled adults. For Paul Rutherford, the grandfather of a disabled child from Pembrokeshire, the hearing represents the latest round of a legal battle he has fought for three years. Wearing a backpack carrying oxygen and holding on to a metal crutch for support on Monday, Rutherford, who is also disabled, said he did not need to be at court but travelled from Wales because he wanted to “look the judges in the eye and say: ‘Here I am.’ Rutherford looks after Warren, 15, with his wife, Sue, in their three-bedroom house, which has been adapted to meet their grandson’s needs. “If the government are going to do this to people like us, who is next?” he said. The bedroom tax was introduced under benefit changes in the Welfare Reform Act 2012. Tenants in social housing have their benefits reduced by 14% if they have a spare bedroom, or 25% if they have two or more. Warren needs an extra bedroom for an overnight carer. Last month, the court of appeal ruled that the bedroom tax was discriminatory in the cases of the Rutherfords and a woman identified only as A who had a council house fitted with a panic room to protect her from a violent partner. The court held that the bedroom tax unlawfully discriminated against children with disabilities, contrary to article 14 of the European convention on human rights. The Department for Work and Pensions appealed against the decision and the supreme court announced the case of the Rutherfords and A would be heard by seven justices alongside several other bedroom tax challenges already due to be considered. “The government should have given up already,” said Rutherford. “We have a lot of public support that this policy is unfair. I genuinely thought it would not apply to us.” The DWP rejects the term bedroom tax, saying the regulations amount to the removal of the spare room subsidy, aimed at encouraging families to move to smaller properties and reduce the housing benefit bill. It has argued that the regulations are not discriminatory for people like the Rutherfords and A because they have given councils the funds to provide discriminatory housing payments to those who need them. Lawyers for the Rutherfords have submitted evidence to the court they say will help prove their case and demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the discretionary payments. A survey of local authorities in England, carried out by the Child Poverty Action Group, backing the Rutherfords’ case, shows 41% of councils have policies that only provide discretionary housing payments (DHP) for a short-term period, while 28% have policies where DHP can only be granted for a specified finite period, for instance three, six or 12 months. Mike Spencer, solicitor for the Rutherfords, said: “It’s a lottery. There are also cases of councils running out of funds. Children like Warren will always need an extra bedroom. Relying on a discretionary payment is not a solution.” The changes to housing benefit that resulted in the removal of what the government calls the spare room subsidy came into effect in April 2013. Since then, families who have been classified as having spare rooms have received reduced benefits. The panel of judges, headed by the supreme court president, Lord Neuberger, will hear arguments over three days in the government’s challenge over the Rutherfords and A. Another part of the hearing will relate to an earlier decision made by court of appeal judges over a complaint by a number of disabled people that the regulations unlawfully discriminate against those who have a need for another bedroom because of that disability. The high court dismissed their application for judicial review and their subsequent challenge against that ruling was rejected by appeal judges in February 2014. On Monday, the husband of a disabled woman who is challenging the policy, spoke of the heartache the couple had suffered as a result of the housing benefit changes, and the subsequent legal battles they have fought and, so far, lost. Jayson Carmichael, 53, from Southport, Merseyside, whose wife Charlotte, 43, has a severe spinal condition that leaves her partially bedridden, said: “It has caused us a lot of stress and heartache. We are having to think about it all the time and being depressed about it. It is fight after fight, case after case.” In the 2014 court of appeal ruling, Lord Dyson said the court could only intervene if measures were “manifestly without reasonable foundation” – and that test was not satisfied. The secretary of state had “justified the discriminatory effect of the policy”, he said. The four others appealing against that decision at the supreme court are widower Richard Rourke, from Derbyshire, who uses a wheelchair; James Daly, from Stoke, who has a severely disabled 13-year-old son; Mervyn Drage, 59, from Manchester, who has both mental and physical health problems, and a mother who can only be referred to as “JD” to protect the identity of her adult disabled daughter. Outside the court, Janelle Brown, from Sisters Uncut, which lobbies against cuts to services for domestic violence victims, said: “We’re here to tell the government that classifying panic rooms as spare rooms under the bedroom tax equates to violence against women.” Claire Glasman, of WinVisible, a disabled women’s group, said: “The government’s own report shows how vulnerable people are getting into debt and cutting back on food because of the bedroom tax. Day to day, it’s miserable for disabled people hit by this tax.” A DWP spokesman said in a statement before the latest round of the litigation: “Removing the spare room subsidy has restored fairness to the system for claimants as well as the taxpayer, and the numbers subject to a reduction are falling. “We know that there are cases where people may need extra support – but rather than put in place complex exemptions, we have given local councils the freedom to decide what is best for their communities. “That’s why we have given councils £500m of funding to provide discretionary payments to those that need them, with a further £870m to be provided up to 2020.”

จัดฟอร์แม็ตข้อความและมัลติมีเดีย

  1. เพิ่ม
  2. เพิ่ม ลบ
  3. เพิ่ม ลบ
  4. เพิ่ม ลบ
  5. เพิ่ม ลบ
  6. เพิ่ม ลบ
  7. เพิ่ม ลบ
  8. เพิ่ม ลบ
  9. เพิ่ม ลบ
  10. ลบ
เลือกการตกแต่งที่ต้องการ

ตกลง ยกเลิก

รายละเอียดการใส่ ลิงค์ รูปภาพ วิดีโอ เพลง (Soundcloud)

Waiting...