Sep 292017

Please send details of your experiences to Work & Pensions Committee by November 10th. You don’t need to address all of the questions just any that are relevant. Please note we do not want you to send this information to us but directly to the Committee.

 Committee launches new inquiry into PIP and ESA assessments 

The Committee is launching a new inquiry on how the assessment processes for Employment Support Allowance (ESA) and Personal Independence Payments (PIP) are handled by DWP contractors ATOS, Capita and Maximus, and how the application, assessment and appeals processes for these two benefits are working.

In the last Parliament the Committee held an urgent one-off evidence session in the wake of the announcement of Government plans to restrict the number of people who qualify for PIP, a move which would limit the cost of PIP by £3.7 billion. Evidence taken then revealed worrying disparities between the applicants’ recall of the assessment process and the final report produced to enable DWP to make a decision. The Committee also heard concerns about the contractor assessors’ ability to understand and properly assess a wide range of physical and mental health conditions, and about the dignity and conduct of the assessment process. The latest data shows that claimants are successful in appealing against their decision in 65% of cases, for both PIP and ESA, and that there has been an 29% increase in such appeals being registered since this time last year.

Given high rates of overturn at appeal, the Committee invites evidence on the effectiveness of assessment processes used to determine eligibility for these benefits, and the experience of applicants going through it. The Committee is interested in receiving recommendations for change both on the assessment process for each benefit individually, and on common lessons that can be learned from the two processes.

Frank Field MP, Chair of the Committee, said: “The truly amazing rate of overturned ESA and PIP decisions seems to point to something being fundamentally wrong with the initial assessment and Mandatory Reconsideration stages. Quite apart from the human cost this represents – the distress and difficulty for applicants trying to get help with daily living or getting into work – it looks to be wasteful, inefficient, and a huge cost to taxpayers.

“We would like to hear from claimants – and assessors – about whether and where the system works, or is failing, and how it might be fixed.”

In particular, the Committee would welcome evidence on the following points, by 10 November 2017:

Assessors and assessments:

  • Do contractor assessors possess sufficient expertise to carry out assessments for people with a wide range of health conditions?
  • Is DWP quality control for contractors sufficient and effective?
  • Should the options for reforming the Work Capability Assessment mooted in the Government’s Improving Lives green paper be taken forward?
  • What examples of best practice in assessing eligibility for benefits are available internationally, and how transferrable are they to ESA and/or PIP?

Mandatory Reconsideration and appeal:

  • Why do claimants seek to overturn initial assessment outcomes for ESA and/or PIP?
  • Why are levels of disputed decisions higher for PIP than for ESA?
  • Is the MR process working well for claimants of ESA and/or PIP?
  • What accounts for the rate of overturned decisions at appeal for PIP and/or ESA?
  • Are there lessons that could be learned from the ESA MR and appeal process for PIP and vice-versa?
  • What changes could be made earlier in the process to ensure fewer claimants feel they need to appeal?

Claimant experiences:

  • Do prospective claimants currently understand the purpose of the assessment?
  • How could claimants be helped to better understand the assessment process?
  • Are some groups of claimants particularly likely to encounter problems with their assessments – and if so, how can this be addressed?
  • Should the assessment processes for PIP and ESA be more closely integrated? How else might the processes be streamlined for claimants?

An easy read version of these terms of reference is available on our website, and we encourage people to join the discussion on our web forum, whether you would like to submit evidence to the inquiry or not.

Committee Membership is as follows:

Frank Field – Chair (Labour), Heidi Allen (Conservative), Andrew Bowie (Conservative), Jack Brereton (Conservative), Alex Burghart (Conservative), Neil Coyle (Labour), Marsha De Cordova (Labour), Ruth George (Labour), Chris Green (Conservative), Steve McCabe (Labour), Chris Stephens (Scottish National Party) 

How to submit evidence is here


 Posted by at 20:41
Sep 292017

Many thanks to Inclusion London for this useful analysis.

The Court of Appeal’s decision in the Davey case: what it means for DDPOs and Disabled people

Luke’s appeal was dismissed.  This is a devastating outcome for him as he won’t only be stuck at home with minimal support he also risks losing his support team, who were with him for 18 years.  The outcome is also disappointing and worrying for other Disabled people, as this case sends a message to local authorities that they can implement whatever cuts they want as long as they follow the right process.

Tracey Lazard interviewed outside the Royal Courts of Justice with a man in the foreground holding a placard reading 'Right2IL'

On the 1st of September the Court of Appeal handed down its judgement in the case of Davey v Oxfordshire County Council.  In this case Luke Davey, who is a former Independent living fund recipient, challenged a 40% cut to his personal budget after the closure of the ILF.

Luke’s appeal was dismissed.  This is a devastating outcome for him as he won’t only be stuck at home with minimal support he also risks losing his support team, who were with him for 18 years.  The outcome is also disappointing and worrying for other Disabled people, as this case sends a message to local authorities that they can implement whatever cuts they want as long as they follow the right process.

To us the case also clearly demonstrated the limits of judicial review in cases where disabled people are trying to argue against professional opinions of social workers.  Judicial review does not look at whether local authority made the right decision or the best decision; it looks at whether or not the decision was lawful.

The decision

The Court of Appeal confirmed that the decision to cut Luke’s personal budget was reached as a result of a lawful process.  Largely the judges agreed with legal analyses and the findings of Mr Justice Morris, who made initial decision in the High Court. Here are some of the most important points:

  • The duty to promote wellbeing in section 1 has 2 aspects: firstly it requires local authorities to take positive steps to promote wellbeing, and secondly it requires local authorities to pay regard to circumstances listed in section 1.3 of the Care Act 2014.
  • The assessment under the Care Act 2014 is an objective assessment, done by social workers of OT’s for local authorities
  • The wishes of the disabled person may be a primary influence, but they do not amount to an overriding consideration.
  • The UN Convention on the rights of Persons with Disabilities can be used to help interpret the law (with caution), however in this case no particular ambiguity was identified and the balance between person’s wishes and LAs views has been struck in the Care Act itself.  However the Court of Appeal acknowledged that this should not prevent from this point being raised in future proceedings.
  • The judge confirmed that the council was entitled to set a pay of PAs at a lower rate as long as it reflected local market conditions and  that the law did not require it to pay for a more expensive option, which was preferred by an individual. The judges were prepared to accept social worker’s view that the rates reflected local market conditions.  This however potentially puts into questions provisions in the Care and Support Guidance which say that local authorities should choose not the cheapest option, but the one that is best value for money.  The guidance clearly says they should go for an option that better promotes wellbeing and delivers the outcomes for an individual.

Our intervention

Inclusion London intervened in this case.  We wanted to show that the case was not just about Luke’s care package.  It could have an impact on many Disabled people.  Our intervention helped to draw media attention to this case and enable us to talk about our right to independent living in mainstream media.  We also believe our intervention helped to clarify the point that local authorities have to consider what might happen in the future when there is an imminent risk of negative consequences as a result of their decisions.

Besides the fact that Luke lost and the impact this will have on his life, the biggest concern in this judgement from our point of view is the statement about intensity of judicial review in social care proceedings.  The Court of Appeal effectively warned against overzealous analyses of social care assessments.  This is worrying, because life changing decisions are made based on those assessments, and unfortunately there is no other way to properly scrutinise them.  This is why we will continue to lobby for the appeals system, which was meant to be introduced by the Care Act 2014.

The fact that local authorities at the end of the day make final decisions about our needs and how we will be supported is not new.  The law has always said this.  However many of us felt disappointed when we saw the judgement.  This firstly is because the case clearly shows that in the age of austerity, when local authorities have to find significant savings, the provisions of the Care Act about choice and control do not have teeth.  It also is disappointing for us to see how our views can so easily be overridden by professional opinions of social workers and local authorities not being properly scrutinised for some of the decisions they make.

This was the first case brought under the wellbeing duty and it clearly demonstrated the limits of this duty.  It is worth bearing in mind though that the case was mainly lost because of factual evidence. (Luke couldn’t prove that his PAs of 18 years would leave and refuse to work for less)

Lessons for DDPOs

This case clearly shows that local authorities can get away with implementing even very significant cuts if they follow the process set out in the Care Act and can give a logical explanation to their decisions as well as commiting to reviewing the situation and stepping in if things go terribly wrong.

It does not mean however the cuts cannot be challenged; we can and should do this.  Here are some of the basic things you could do to increase a chance of success in your case:

  • Know the process well and challenge when it has not been followed;
  • Ask for explanations early on, ideally with references to the law. Although local authority can submit further explanatory evidence it will be difficult to do so if it contradicts what they said before.  For example if they are suggesting a cut to your support package, ask them to explain how this will promote your wellbeing;
  • Think of evidence.  If we want to challenge cuts, the onus is on us to prove the impact.  Just a statement from a disabled person will not always be enough. The judges will most likely accept social workers view, unless it is irrational;
  • Pay attention to the assessment process, prepare and clearly explain what you mean.  Make sure to ask for a correction of all factual mistakes in the assessment document;
  • Challenge decisions: yes this case was not successful, but it cannot and should not deter others from challenging cuts to their support.

We lost this battle, but we will keep fighting.

 Posted by at 20:18
Sep 262017
Inclusion London is involved in a piece of research being carried out by a student at the University of Essex into the impact of conditionality and sanctions on Disabled people in the Employment and Support Alliance (ESA) Work Related Activity Group (WRAG).
With the Government about to roll out proposals that will extend conditionality to Disabled people in the support group we think it is all the more important that research and evaluation is carried out into the impacts of this approach to welfare.
We need people who are currently in the ESA WRAG and are happy to speak to our researcher, Jay Mehti. Interviews can be carried out by telephone or in person in London. A £20 voucher will be given to each participant to say thank you.
For more information please email or text 07505144371. If you would like to share this information with your contacts, information is on our website here:
Ellen Clifford
Campaigns and Policy Manager
Inclusion London
336 Brixton Road, London, SW9 7AA
Tel: 020 7036 6032 (office SMS only: 0771 839 4687)
 Posted by at 17:57
Sep 252017

This week the UN global nuclear weapons ban treaty opened for signatures. 51 countries have already signed, with three so far ratifying, which is a great start! CND, along with Medact and Pax Christi, delivered thousands of letters to the Prime Minister at 10 Downing Street on Wednesday, calling on the British government to sign the treaty.

No Nuclear War

A global ban of nuclear weapons is more important than ever in the context of the increasingly worrying rhetoric about nuclear weapons from Donald Trump and Kim Jong-Un. CND, along with many supporting organisations, has called a protest outside Downing Street next Thursday, September 28th, 5 – 6.30 pm Downing Street, to call on the Prime Minister Theresa May to use all diplomatic means to de-escalate tension.

All these topics will be discussed at CND’s annual conference next month. As well as our AGM, we have a one day international conference – ‘Confrontation or cooperation? Nuclear abolition in dangerous times’ taking place on Saturday, October 14thWhy don’t you come along to discuss the prospects for a new direction on nuclear weapons, and to address the wider international context too: NATO, missile defence, Trump, Korea, China, war and intervention – and what we can do about it all?

Tel: 020 7700 2393

Web: Twitter: @CNDuk Facebook: /cnduk

 Posted by at 17:07
Sep 252017

Universal Credit  – what is your experience?

Please send me you experience of Universal Credit. This could include your experience of the application process, the impact of being paid a month in arrears and there being no payment for the first seven days or any other information you would like to give.  Please send it to me on my email:  by 10 October.

The Work and Pensions Select Committee of MPs is holding an inquiry on the roll out of Universal Credit and Inclusion London  intends to send evidence to the inquiry.  Your experience would help to inform our evidence.   

More information about the inquiry is available at:

 Posted by at 16:05
Sep 252017

Frances Ryan is writing a book about disability and austerity and is looking to speak to a disabled man who is affected by fuel poverty and unable to afford to keep their home heated in winter. She would only need to use your first name but if you can help please contact her directly at

Also from Fuel Poverty Action

Dear friends,

We’re about to embark on a month of political party conferences, and chances are they’ll be raising energy prices as an issue.  This may be an opportunity to push for a cap so the Big Six can’t just put up prices as they like.  The most effective way of putting on the pressure would be for people to come forward who themselves are suffering from cold, damp, or debt, or going short of other essentials just to pay the bills.  Speaking out could be anonymous, or just in newspapers or online, or, if you like, you could be public.  
A year ago we asked for people to come forward about the extra cost if you pay by key or card, with a prepayment meter (PPM).   We did get a cap on PPM prices – but it’s not like what you could get on a fixed price deal, or if you could pay by direct debit or online.   It’s more in line with the “Standard Variable Tariff” that two thirds of energy customers get put on, by default.  And these Standard Variable Tariffs are outrageously, killingly, high.  So we’re looking for people to come forward again, whether you are on a PPM or pay by bills, to say how you are affected and what you think should happen.

FPA will be pressing for a universal  price cap, at an affordable level, for everyone – not just the “most vulnerable”.  There are 17 million customers on the Standard Variable Tariff.  The “consumer protection” regulator Ofgem has proposed a cap for just 2 to 3 million people who receive other heating benefits.  This is in line with the government’s standard policy of “targeting” help at “those who need it most”.  We do not agree that “targeting” is an effective way of protecting people on low incomes.  Fair prices are a right, not charity.

A cap that’s restricted to only some customers would mean that your fuel prices rise again, maybe even higher than if there were no cap, as soon as you cross the threshold eg by getting married, getting a job or an increase in pay, or getting bumped off disability benefits by the DWP and its henchmen at Maximus.  Even teachers and nurses are now dependent on food banks and fuel banks.  We don’t think the energy companies should be making a killing off anyone.  Means-testing always means that people in need lose out.

Instead of relying on the Big Six to single out vulnerable customers in their pricing, the government should reverse the violent cuts to welfare benefits, beginning with disabled people and asylum seekers who have been most savagely attacked, but also including single parents, pensioners, and people on low pay.

At the same time, we need a massive programme of insulation to provide effective, inspected, fire-safe insulation for every home.  This is a major infrastructure priority and should be done on a community-wide basis, not by spending time identifying fuel-poor households who may then move house, or who may not want to be “targeted” in the first place.  Bringing the UK’s housing up to European standards of warmth and energy efficiency will save lives and will cut down on carbon emissions — which, like fuel poverty, are killing many thousands.

Please consider if you’d like to consider putting forward your own views and experience – and get in touch with us asap, if so!

Email us at

ALSO *****************************************

On Monday 2nd October, 10:10 climate action are launching a campaign that could force landlords to improve the very poorest quality uninsulated homes. Legislation was passed for this purpose, but there’s a loophole – the landlords can exempt themselves if it would cost them any money upfront!  Lives are being lost as a result, from cold homes, and from climate change as well, and FPA are supporting this attempt to close the loophole. Look out for more information about a demonstration/photocall in London on the 2nd October, plus an online tool for tenants in hard-to-heat homes to see what extra you pay.

Cold homes, fuel poverty, climate change, millions of homes in debt to their energy supplier, huge profits for the Big Six… the energy system isn’t working.
Another energy system is possible! Get behind the Fuel Poverty Action Energy Bill of Rights


 Posted by at 16:02
Sep 252017

Disabled People Against Cuts and Black Triangle Campaign are horrified to find that so-called Labour MP and Chair of the Work and Pensions Select Committee Frank Field has put forward the suggestion that disabled people do not deserve to earn the living wage and argues that they are less productive than non-disabled people. These comments have been published in a set of essays in Learning and Work.


“One idea that has been mooted is to grant a specific

exemption to the National Living Wage to those whose

disabilities are deemed so severe that they will never

be capable of enough output to warrant payment of

the minimum wage, but who might nevertheless enjoy

significant wellbeing gains from involvement in an

appropriate workplace environment.”

Mr Field goes on to say that some disabled people might benefit from this as it would make them more attractive to employers in spite of the obvious potential for exploitation this would entail. We have news for Frank we do not wish to be paid less than non-disabled people for the same work and we are not happy to be exploited by anyone.

Both disability groups are calling for Frank Field to resign or be sacked from his role as Chair and have approached Jeremy Corbyn to insist that Field immediately withdraws this highly offensive comment. To date we’ve had no reply but will be following this up again after the Labour Party Conference has ended.

If this is allowed to pass unchecked by the Labour leadership people will then be entitled to ask whether the party really has fundamentally moved on since it introduced the catastrophic Work Capability Assessment regime under the last New Labour Government.

A DPAC spokesperson said “ This is more or less exactly what Lord Freud suggested about 3 years ago but to find the same offensive idea being pedalled by a Labour MP supposedly opposed to the abuse of disabled people’s human rights is somehow even more offensive. Frank Field’s comments are nothing short of disgraceful.”

How can Labour hope to be trusted as true champions of disability rights when they are represented on a key committee by someone with such retrogressive, Victorian views?

John McArdle from Black Triangle said “Field must now be publicly censured by the Labour Party. The suggestion that disabled people’s labour is worth less than that of other people and the Tory-set minimum – let alone a ‘living wage’ – is an affront not only  to the human dignity of every disabled person in the U.K. and is a stark betrayal of the values of fairness and equality upon which the party was founded. “

Labour still has a mountain to climb before it can convince the majority of disabled people and their friends, families and colleagues that they have truly changed. If they wish to convince us that they are now firmly set upon reversing all these barbaric, deadly cuts to our support and intend to fully comply with the spirit and the letter of the UNCRPD then they must act now to impose party discipline on Field in keeping with their stated intention. As stated elsewhere, we require Labour to now wage war with the Tory Party in defence of our human rights in order to win the next general election by the landslide it deserves. Tolerating the views of frontline Labour politicians whose views are more in accord with Tory politicians than ordinary Labour members and supporters is no longer acceptable and that uncompromising message needs to go out, loud and clear.

You can read Frank’s even more offensive response here

And many thanks to John Pring from Disability News Service for alerting us to this.

Please let Frank Field know what you think about this idea

You can email using this contact form

or tweet to him






 Posted by at 15:33
Sep 252017

reposted from OCAP and signed up to by DPAC

The Neoliberal Danger of Basic Income


Statement for endorsement: We have drawn up the following statement on basic income (BI). It makes the case that, progressive hopes to the contrary notwithstanding, BI is being developed as a measure of neoliberal attack that should be opposed. We invite progressive organizations and individuals who hold positions in agencies and academic institutions, who agree with our arguments, to sign onto the statement. We hope that it will raise a voice of opposition and help develop information sharing and forms of co-operation among those, internationally, who reject the notion that basic income represents any kind realistic response to the neoliberal attack.

Endorsements and other responses can be directed to us at

The Neoliberal Danger of Basic Income

We, the undersigned, are convinced that the emerging model of basic income, reflected in pilot projects and other initiatives in a number of countries and jurisdictions, is one that would intensify the neoliberal agenda. The hope that there is any realistic chance of ensuring a truly adequate, universal payment, that isn’t financed by undermining other vital elements of social provision, is misplaced in our view.

We are far from wanting to suggest that existing systems of income support are anywhere close to adequate.  They provide precarious sub poverty income under conditions that are marked by intrusive regulations and forms of moral policing.  Moreover, decades of neoliberal austerity have made these systems considerably worse.

However wretched and inadequate present systems may be, the assumption that basic income must or even could be an improvement on the status quo has to be tested by considering a number of factors.  Historically, income support has been provided because those in political power concluded that outright abandonment of those not in the workforce would create unacceptably high levels of unrest and social dislocation. In the far from dead tradition of the English Poor Laws, income support has been provided at levels that were low enough to maintain a supply of the worst paid workers, in forms that were as punitive and degrading as possible. Again, the neoliberal years have seen these features intensified in what we must concede has been a highly effective drive to create a climate of desperation and a plentiful supply of low paid and precarious workers.

If austerity driven governments and institutions of global capitalism are today looking favourably at basic income, it’s not because they want to move towards greater equality, reverse the neoliberal impact and enhance workers’ bargaining power. They realize that a regressive model of basic income can be put in place that provides an inadequate, means tested payment to the poorest people outside of the workforce but that is primarily directed to the lowest paid workers. This would be, in effect, a subsidy to employers, paid for out of the tax revenues and it would be financed by cuts to broader public services. Such a model would lend itself to disregarding the particular needs of disabled people and, as a “citizen’s income,” could readily be denied to many immigrants, especially those left undocumented. Under such a system, you would shop through the rubble of the social infrastructure with your meagre basic income. The kind of pilot projects and other initiatives that are emerging offer severe warnings in this regard (we include some links that provide information on several of these)*.

However, some suggest that while regressive models could be developed and may pose a danger, a progressive and even “emancipatory” form of basic income is possible and realistic as a goal. Often, this is linked to the idea of preparing for a “workless future” in which vast numbers of technologically displaced workers can be provided for. The notion is that a universal payment would be provided unconditionally and that it would be adequate enough so that paid work, if it were an option, would be a matter of choice rather than necessity. While there are a few who suggest this could be won through large scale social action, advocates for a progressive basic income more often seem to assume that capitalist support and acceptance by the state can be won by way of a vigorous lobbying effort.

In our view, a truly adequate and redistributive, let aside transformative, basic income is not possible within the confines of the current economic system. Firstly, the present balance of forces in society, after decades of neoliberalism, does not lend itself to the conclusion that a sweeping measure of social reform, that would reverse this whole agenda, is immediately likely. Beyond this, however, an income support system that removed economic coercion in a way that progressive basic income advocates suggest, would be more than turning back the neoliberal tide. It would actually mean that the state was providing the working class with an unlimited strike fund. It would undermine the very basis for the capitalist job market. It would constitute social transformation, a revolutionary change that is, to say the least, beyond the capacity of any possible social policy enactment.

If basic income as emancipation is not possible, it can only too easily take form as neoliberal intensification.  Yet, sadly, progressive advocates end up offering legitimacy to that regressive alternative but placing hopes in musings about basic income by Silicon Valley billionaires or by presenting cynical pilot projects, set up by austerity driven governments, as flawed but important first steps. However much they wish otherwise, the sow’s ear will not become a silk purse.

If faith in a progressive basic income is misplaced, we wish we could offer a shining and readily attainable alternative but this is not possible.  We are largely fighting a defensive struggle against a virulent agenda to undermine social provision and increase the rate of exploitation. We can only offer the hard slog of building stronger inclusive movements of social resistance, rejuvenating unions and building a working class political challenge to neoliberalism. As we do this, we must fight for free, expanded and accessible public services. We must win decent wages and workers’ rights. We must struggle for income support systems that are based on adequacy, full entitlement and that are purged of intrusive rules and moral policing. We must infuse all of these movements and struggles with a sense of a very different kind of society from the capitalist one we are fighting. This doesn’t have the glitter of the dream of a progressive basic income but it does accept that reality that there is no social policy way around neoliberalism or a long and hard fight against it. The progressive welcome mat for basic income is a very big mistake.



 Posted by at 15:16
Sep 252017

Full story here -:

Nathan Davies is fighting a lonely battle against the closure of the Welsh Independent Living Fund and devolution of funding to Local Authorities in Wales. Sadly the influential DPO Disability Wales saying they are unable to support his fight as it is too political.

Nathan has already been told his care and support funding would be slashed by more than half once the Welsh ILF is closed from April 2018.  This would mean Nathan could no longer take part in those community activities that are essential to his wellbeing and inclusion in society.

If you can please email any Assembly Members and ask them to retain a separate Independent Living fund in Wales. Disabled Lives Matter and the UN has said in their recent response to the periodic review of the UK that central governments are ultimately responsible for ensuring adequate funding for independent living.

If you live in Wales you can find contact details of your AM here

And if not in Wales email AM leader, Carwyn Jones


 Posted by at 14:31
Sep 172017

If you can help please contact Shivani Misra who is an intern at PLP. Shivani can be contacted on 020 7239 9034 or

The questionnaire is below but Shivani also needs to interview some people in more depth. This could be an important piece of work which will hopefully help provide evidence to support an end to the vicious sanctions regime.


PLP’s Project on Benefit Sanctioning
The Public Law Project (PLP) is undertaking a three year project to develop a strategic legal response to the national issue of benefit sanctioning.
As part of that work, we are carrying out research to gather evidence of the impact of sanctioning on disabled people with a particular focus on the following:
(1) Delays at the mandatory reconsideration and appeal stages, particularly for ESA claimants who have been put into the WRAG or refused ESA altogether and/or where hardship payments are unavailable.
(2) Problems caused by failures to share relevant information about a claimant’s medical condition or disability between the Work Capability assessor, the JCP Decision Maker, and the Work Programme Provider
(3) Failures by Work Programme Providers to make reasonable adjustments for disabled claimants in the WRAG or claiming JSA
(4) Lack of/inadequate reasons for sanctioning decisions undermining appeal rights.
This research is being carried out by Shivani Misra who is an intern at PLP. Shivani can be contacted on 020 7239 9034 or
Shivani is being supervised by Alison Pickup, PLP Legal Director, who can be contacted on 020 7239 9031 or at
Impact of Benefit Sanctioning on Disabled People
Questionnaire for claimants
Public Law Project would like to invite you to take part in a survey that will help us better understand the current use and impacts of benefit sanctioning on disabled people. The survey should take about 15 minutes to complete and we would very much value your input. Please answer the questions based on your experience of the benefit system.
We want to assure you that your responses are completely anonymous. No personally identifiable information is captured unless you voluntarily offer personal or contact information in any of the comment fields. Your responses would be summarized in a report as evidence on the impact of sanctioning, and we will do our best to ensure that you cannot be identified from any information included in the report unless you agree to being identified. The report may be published and/or used by PLP to support our work trying to improve the fairness of the benefit sanctioning system and to reduce its adverse impact on disabled people.
Any personal data that you supply in response to this survey will be held and processed in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 and will only be used for the purposes given above.
About your benefits
Which benefit did you apply for most recently?:
• Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
• Job Seekers Allowance (JSA)
• Universal Credit
• Other (please say which)
If you applied for ESA or Universal Credit, have you had your Work Capability Assessment yet?
If you have had your Work Capability Assessment, what was the outcome?
– Granted ESA – placed in support group
– Granted ESA – placed in Work Related Activity Group (‘WRAG’)
– Refused ESA –found to be fit for work
– Refused ESA for another reason (please say what)
Did you agree with the outcome of your Work Capability Assessment?
If not, have you appealed the decision made after your work capability assessment?
About your sanctions
Do you know why you were sanctioned?
Have you been sanctioned more than once?
Did the Job Centre tell you about the reasons for the sanction?
When were you informed about the reasons for the sanction?
(a) When you were told that you were being sanctioned?
(b) Only after a mandatory reconsideration?
(c) Only on appeal?
(d) Not at all?
Were you given an opportunity to provide a ‘good reason’ for the failure to comply before you were sanctioned? If so, did you do so?
How long did the sanction last?
What was the amount of the sanction?
Coping with the sanction
Did you have any other income during the period of your sanction?
How did you cope financially with the sanction? Please think about how you met your essential needs such as food, toiletries, medicine, disability aids, transport, clothing, heating, light, rent. Please tick all that apply.
– Went to food banks
– Used savings
– Borrowed from friends and/or family members
– Borrowed money from bank/building society/credit union/other money lender
– Pawning/selling belongings to raise money
– Eating less
– Not topping up gas/electricity meter
– Walking instead of using car/public transport
– Other
Please give more details if you can:
Were you given any Hardship Payments by the Job Centre?
Where there any other (non-financial) consequences of the sanction? For example, did it impact on your physical or mental health?
Appealing the decision to sanction
Did you appeal against the sanction?
If yes, what was the outcome of the appeal:
(a) At the mandatory reconsideration stage?
(b) At the First-tier Tribunal?
How much time did it take for the mandatory reconsideration?
How much time did it take for the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (if you appealed)?
What did you do to meet your needs in the period awaiting the mandatory reconsideration and/or appeal?
About you
This information will help PLP to draw conclusions about the impact of sanctioning on different groups of disabled people.
Please describe the nature of your disability:
What is your age group:
Do you have any dependents?
If so, which:
– Spouse, civil partner, or other partner living with you
– Children – how many:
o Aged 0-3
o Aged 4-15
o Aged 16 or over
– Other dependent relative living with you
– Other dependent relative (not living with you)
Personal details (optional)
We would like to carry out some more detailed interviews with benefit claimants for the purposes of our research. These interviews will last approximately 30 mins and can be carried out by phone, Skype or face-to-face (depending on location). Are you willing to be interviewed for our research?
Can we contact you in future for the purposes of this research, if we need more information or to clarify or follow up on any of the information provided in your answers to the questions above?
Can we attribute your comments to you in any report of our research? If so, should we identify you by name or another means e.g. “benefit claimant, Manchester”?
If you are willing to be contacted in future, please provide your name, a contact telephone number and/or email address below. We will not publish your name or any contact details, or use this information for any purpose other than those set out above without your prior written consent.
Contact number:-

 Posted by at 19:56
Sep 172017

Please join us at Robertfest 2017, a celebration of the life of Robert Dellar.

When: Sunday 24th September 2017, 12.00 – 0.00

Where: Amersham Arms, 388 New Cross Road, SE14 6TY (very close to New Cross station)

Tickets: Unwaged £5, Waged £10, Full ticket £20

Booking: via Eventbrite Robertfest 2017

The event will include some of Robert’s favourite bands, including ATV, Vic Goddard, The Long Decline, The Astronauts, The Ceramic Hobbs, Dave Kusworth, Jowe Head and the Infernal Contraption, Alan Tyler, Frank Bangay, Melanie Clifford, Salad from Atlantis, Dave Russell, Paul Caton, MC Razz and special guests.

RobertFest 2017 will also host the inaugural Robert Dellar Lecture, an annual lecture building on the life, times and activism of Robert Dellar. The first Robert Dellar Lecture will be given by Prof Esther Leslie at 4.30 pm at the Amersham Arms.

Sep 142017

by Jenny Tsiropoulou

A petite boy called Diogenes has both of his hands tied with belts to his bed. Mary is 12 years old and has spent her entire life locked up in an empty room without ever seeing the sunlight. Others play inside cages; 2m-long bed-cages with wooden bars. They have never left this prison. They wear diapers 24/7 and are bottle-fed. Some of these residents are already 30 years old. They are on medication; they swallow up to 30 pills a day without being able to articulate a single word, a result of the chemical suppression. The terrible smell of incarceration and bodily waste does not emanate from the video that I am watching.


These images were recorded at the Child’s Care Center of Lechaina, a state-run home in the Peloponnese, Greece, in November 2015 by the disabled director and activist Antonis Rellas. He shows them to me today, two years after the recordings, as he completes his documentary titled From Asylum to Society. This material motivated me to travel with him to Lechaina in July 2017.

The residents are the victims of the state’s “Welfare” program and institutionalization scheme concerning mental health patients and disabled individuals in Greece. As newborns, most of them were abandoned forever by their parents, either because their families could not fulfill the needs of a disabled child or because these children, like Hephaestus, were not “normal” babies, and so were thrown out of their homes and into the sea of institutionalized life.


Lechaina center, 2015.

An ongoing crime is being disclosed

The Child’s Care Center in Lechaina was founded 27 years ago. This story is not news; on the contrary it is the epitome of an ongoing problem in Greece. In 2009 European volunteers who spent several months in the Center filed the first accusations. Following an investigation, in 2010 the Citizen’s Advocate drew up a report of findings of blatant violations of fundamental human rights at the Center. 2011 was the first time that reporters entered the Center with a TV camera and the situation was described as reminiscent of “medieval times”. Finally, in 2014 world-wide outrage grew after a shocking BBC report that showed children locked up in cages like wild animals in Greece, at the dawn of the 21st century.

After the BBC report, Catherine Papakosta (of the New Democracy party), under-secretary of the Ministry of Health visited the Center. Activists and medical staff reported that “the result was to install an interior surveillance system, completely useless and now out of order”.

Director Antonis Rellas is a member of the Greek Emancipation Movement for the Disabled Zero Tolerance, a group of activists who peacefully occupied the Center for four days, in November 4 in 2015, in order to take action.

Mary, 12, locked up in an empty room, 2015.


“The issues concerning the situation in institutions were very well known to us before we decided to take action. The Center in Lechaina happens to be the most representative example of the institutionalization of marginalized, [an example] of which we are not proud at all. Disabled individuals survive in conditions of terror and torture, cut off from the world, tied up in cages, living an inhuman life. It is no coincidence that the majority of the 70 state-run institutions across the country are located outside city limits, so that no one remembers their existence. The fundamental human rights of disabled individuals have been declared by the UN Convention which is also state law, but a crime has been committed for 27 years now by each and every government: it seems as if time were frozen.
Politicians limit their efforts to declaring their sensitivity for these “special” children, without making any substantial form of intervention in order to terminate institutionalization. For these reasons we decided to occupy the Center and demand the termination of the exclusion and the torture of our fellow-disabled” according to Antonis Rellas.

Zero Tolerance activists at Lechaina center, November 2015.


Apart from the fact that this is a political and human rights matter, for some activists it has also been personal:

“I went into the cage, lay down and cried. My whole life appeared before my eyes in those seconds. I realized that it was only by luck that I was not one of them. I am on the outside by mistake. If Vaso, my mother, back in 1973 in the city of Patras, a few miles away from here,had not cursed and kicked out her brother-in-law, who had recommended that I be placed in an institution he knew of nearby so that she wouldn’t suffer, I would be one of them. Why am I crying? Why do I get angry? Why am I ready to fall apart as I wait for the photo shoot? The answer is simple. Because when I left this place I left a piece of me in that cage, a cage that will follow me” Andrew Kouzelis,writer, sociologist and activist with spastic quadriplegia, wrote in November 8.

Andrew Kouzelis into the cage, November 2015.


In Lechaina

The next day, after a three-hour trip, we arrived from Athens to Lechaina. It was a three-story pink building, a few meters away from the Electricity Substation and far from city limits, with a dome and a Christian cross at the top. There were a few swings in the yard with no children on them, an ambulance parked off to the side and some olive trees. We were told that when a resident dies they plant an olive tree.

Lechaina center.

It is clear that, after the occupation and the pressure the activists of Zero Tolerance, significant changes had been made, such as open bed-cages, reduced medication and minimized mechanical restriction. Residents seem to have come out of sedation, like dolls suddenly infused with life. Some articulate their first words and smile while others eat and drink by themselves during lunchtime. Some had never moved their limbs before the activists’ intervention. There is also air-conditioning, since it gets very hot during the summer, and central heating in wintertime,another result of the activists’ demands.

The staff has been informed of our visit so every space is neat and there are evensome decorations. When we arrive, some residents, or “beneficiaries”, as they are called, spend their morning rest time in the playroom filled with air-mattresses and a TV set. There are seven or eight residents per room and they keep no personal objects. Only a girl named Canella, whose legs are tied up, has a few paintings and teddy bears. “Some of them receive visits from family members,” Antonis Rellas says while he guides me around the building.

Activists with Lechaina residents playing outdoors for the first time.


Most of them are forgotten by their families, as if they never existed. While we make our way around I see that the room where 12-year-old Mary was locked up is now the physiotherapy room. Mary has now been transferred to an institution for minors.

A man named Prodromos is 34 years old. He was abandoned as a baby in a small basket and lived in an institution for minors until the age of eight. At the time he fell off the 4th floor of the building and as a TBI patient (Traumatic Brain Injury) he was transferred to Lechaina. He smiles and asks for “sea”, “closet” and “nightstand”. One of his wishes is granted as, that afternoon, we take him for a walk by the sea, which might be a first for him –who knows…

The place is a far cry from the hellhole activists encountered with when they first occupied the building two years ago. But anyone who cannot swallow the idea that these people are not really people, and who reflectsthat every such institution is called home by those who live in it, will realize that the place is still a clinic that belongs more to the Dark Ages, or a scene out ofa dystopic movie.

People as objects in the trashcan

George Tsiakalos, professor of Pedagogy at Aristotle University in Thessaloniki, has said that residents of Lechaina “could talk, laugh and go to school” if they did not suffer that tremendous damage of institutionalization. George Nikolaides, director of Mental Health and Social Welfare office at Child’s Health Institute, is the psychiatrist who has been officially in charge of the intervention program in Lechaina since 2016. I asked him how these individuals would be today if they had not lived through medication and mechanical restriction, and also if this really is a case of torture.

“Of course, totally. How does it look for a person to live for 365 days constantly in a cage or have their limbs tied up? What would you call that? This is clearly a violation of basic human rights and, in a sense, a crime for which Greece has been arraigned in all national fora by the United Nations, the Commissioner of Human Rights of the European Council, pertinent bureaus of the European Committee and so on. What happens in Greece is that we pretend to conform to rules and regulations, but things never really change. The first organized protest took place in the late ’90s, coordinated by a group of professionals and activists. The Government and the Administration of the Center managed to scatter the group and some protesters were even arrested. The only thing gained by the protest at the time was the replacement of metal cages with wooden ones,” Dr Nikolaides recalls.

He goes on to explain that “These individuals were treated by the system as if they were objects, with no expectations or individual characteristics. They were objects. What strikes me about my experience working with these people is seeing the moment they awake and become subjects who express their preferences, and take initiatives as simple as reaching out for a specific person to touch and connect with by choice,or talk for the first time in years. What Mr.Tsiakalos had said about education is true, and in fact two of the minors go to a special education primary school.”

“The Lechaina Center has been the trashcan of the Welfare system from all around Greece; every lost case was sent here. Of course there are some clinical cases that are quite severe, with multiple mental, cognitive and motor issues; on the other hand years of institutionalization, mechanical restriction and chemical suppression and years hinders language acquisition and cognitive development. Just think that, when we first intervened, there was a young man who had been tied up for 21 years. Everyone was so isolated and deprived of basic human touch thatwith just a little concern, care and communicative engagement there has been significant improvement.”

I asked for a specific example and he continues: “There is a teenager with an oversized skull, limb hypertrophy and a metabolic disorder that makes his bones brittle and which results in multiple fractures and an inability to hold up his neck. After he suffered a fracture, the courts accused the staffof negligence. So the decision was made to have him constantly tied up so that he would be safer. As we speak, he is no longer restricted in a cage, but free to touch, feel and express his emotions. The solution was a specific moon-shaped pillow that helps him stay steady. I sometimes watch him tidying his things.”

Diogenes with both his hands tied with belts to his bed, 2015.

Inevitably, I ask Dr. Nikolaides if there are members in the Greek scientific community who still recommend mechanical restriction and strong medication. “Yes” he answers “But individually and not in terms of a broad scientific discussion. There is a misleading notion about these institutions that they are some sort of hospital, especially among medical stuff. On the contrary, th residents see these centers as home. Ifa professional thinks he works in a hospital, a proper response to a resident walking around is “What are you doing? Why aren’t you in bed?”

Institutions as Barracks

Today the Center of Lechaina has 44 residents, the oldest of whom is 48 years old.There arefour minors among them. Most of them were initially placed in this Center or in similar institutions and never came out. These residents have cognitive disabilities, and bodily and motor impairments. Here there also individuals with sensory disabilities, such as impaired vision or even blindness. According to the psychiatrist “it is unacceptable that they live here. They do not belong here, because the Center lacks basic infrastructure for people with sensory disabilities.” Similarly, Dr. Nikolaides continues, “There are clinical cases that God knows how they ended up in here. There are patients with autism, to the extreme of the spectrum, and it is such a shame to have them institutionalized.”

According to the latest research conducted in 2014 by the NPO Rizes (Roots) there are 2,825 children institutionalized in Greece, 883 of whom are disabled.The research showed that disability was the main reason for institutionalization, according to the participants, after negligence and abuse. Ofa total of 85 institutions that undertakecare of children, only 28 are supervised by the State, while the rest are run by NGOs or the Church.

The Lechaina Center has a staff of 60 people, 25 of whom are responsible for the immediate care of the residents.Most are not healthcare professionals of any kind. The rest of the staff consists of administrative employees and technicians. As Dr.Nikolaides says “when we arrived in the Center last year, there was an speech and language therapist among us and the response of the staff to the presence of a professional was “What could an speech and language therapist do here? They don’t even speak!” But the good thing is, and this should be mentioned, is that after a year, at least a part of staff appreciates the changes, and actively participates in the effort.”

We spent the night at the Center as guests. In the room I stayed there is a bed, a basin and a wheelchair. There are some stickers of cartoon heroes on the wall and a drawing saying I Love Love.

In the morning all the residents wake up at the same time, eat the same meals and go to sleep at the same time, in an impersonal environment. “When you live in mass conditions, you inevitably follow a specific and quite strict program. Even if we try to improve the environment, there is always an obstacle because of space limitations,” explained the psychiatrist. He continued: “People should go out. Now they go out only for medical reasons. This is completely wrong, because, for example, there are residents with Down Syndrome who, because of long-term institutionalization and a lack of education and socialization never developed fully. Today individuals with Down Syndrome normally work, drive, get married, have friends, make love.”

Disability issues are left on the sidelines of institutional agendas, but also, unfortunately of activist ones. Stories about disabled individuals are used either to add drama to the evening news or as an oportunity to glorify “everyday heroes”. When faced with the brutal images of institutionalization, we look away and attempt to forget them. But emotion means nothing if it is not followed by steps toward improving the situation.

The Battle against Institutionalization – Zero political action?

“The Ministry is very well informed about the conditions and the problems institutions face. We know that the two most important issues are the lack of medical and special education professionals and infrastructure issues. A general meeting of administrators of all such institutions inthe country has been scheduled for November in order to compile a detailed account concerning these problems. The aim of the strategy of Ministry of Labor, Social Security and Solidarity is to accomplish the de-institutionalization to greatest extent while still providing for those in need of the appropriate medical care, and all future actions are to be based on this decision.”

This statement above was the answer of the Secretary to the activists of Zero Tolerance on November 5 in 2015, the second day of the occupation of the Lechaina Center.

On the one hand, the Ministry is fully informed about the conditions in Lechaina. On the other, however,though the Secretary mentions the key-word de-institutionalization, the solutions that are presented seem abstract and disproportionate to the problems. A neat and tidy hellhole is still a hellhole.

Activists and professionals working in Lechaina both agree that residents must receive personalized intervention and special care in order to be prepared for transition to an open and broad care center. How is it possible to move beyond the present model of institutionalization and isolation? Dr. Nikolaides and his colleagues have recently presented their proposal to the Greek government, the European Committee and relevant entities concerning a full plan for the replacement of the Center with smaller houses, different accommodation and better living.

As Dr. Nikolaides says “The proposal took into account the needs of each and every resident of the Center of Lechaina. We did not consider them as a group, but as individuals with specific needs. Some of them, for example, can be transferred to foster homes. In order for the plan to work, we need to have a transition stage, a smaller center. Unfortunately, regarding the history of mental health reform in Greece shows that a smaller care center could be worse than a bigger one. This is why this proposal includes a process of reeducation of staff and residents, so that eventually the residentscan be reintegrated into society. Also, it is essential to include a prevention program to enable families to have access to the necessary intervention programs in order to avoid more petitions for institutionalization. We have also included a certain budget and a timeframe in order for the program to be possible and we wait. But we cannot wait forever…”

“The program is supported financially by the British Organization Lumos, which is run by the Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling. But it is unacceptable for this project to be supported financially by a foreign organization; the Greek State must share responsibility for this. We receive expressions of interest on behalf of the government, but they need to take action toward di-institutionalization process. There is no use in dissolving this center because of negative publicity without aiming to an inclusion policy.

As far as the financial planning is concerned, Dr. Nikolaides says “The exact budget of the Lechaina Centeris presently vague, as it is for each and every state-run care center. This is the case because of the multiple financial resources centers receive. Given the present data, the amount of money the Center receives is up to 1.5 million Euros annually, which amounts to 2,600 Euros per month for every resident. For our proposal the budget is estimated to be as high as 2.2million Euros for relocation and support, with another million Euros added to that to cover intervention and support programs around the country to avoid institutionalization going forward. There must be no center in the future that resembles the Lechaina Center, neither state-run nor private. Needless to say that in addition to the regulated state-run institutions, there are many private care centers to which we have no access,nor do we have information about their form and function.”

“The main priority is the absorption in the new centers of the medical staff who are part of the system already, but there is also a need for hiring professionals such as psychologists and social workerswho are not presently included in the staff of the Lechaina Center, according to Dr. Nikolaides. “We also try to overcome some of the obligations derived from the Memorandum. It is essential for the state to acknowledge the need of staffing with special education scientists, despite the general limitations on hiring in the public sector.”

In July 13, the assembly of the Greek Communist Party George Lamproulis directed a question in Parliament to the Under-Secretary of Ministry of Labor, Social Security and Solidarity concerning another care center similar to Lechaina, the Sanatorium of Chronic Illnesses in Skaramanga. Unfortunately, his statement reveals the ignorance of most of our society. “The building in Skaramanga accommodates 29 residents, while there is room for more. Why don’t you improve the infrastructure and hire personnel in order to put more children in it?” The under-Secretary answered that large care centers belong to the past, while today “There is need forterminating institutionalization, because the solution does not involve the improvement of these institutions,” referring here to the Lechaina Center as well. “De-institutionalization has helped already many children, according to their families. Institutions cannot be seen as lost soul repositories; it is essential to interact with society”. These were the exact words of Theano Fotiou, which raised expectations for action on behalf of the Ministry.

Asylum and Society

According to Antonis Rellas, “There is an ongoing discussion about closing down the Center in Lechaina, but we are not really sure if the Government is actually planning to do so.” Dr. Nikolaides is also not convinced that the State will take action upon this matter “because of the bureaucracy and malfunction of Welfare in Greece” and the failure of neoliberal politics in terminating institutionalization.
As he explains, “In my opinion, there is no Social Welfare Program in Greece and there will never be. There are few nonrecurring support structures and centers across the country, and that’s it. In the beginning of the 20th century, there was this charity network supported by great donors. After the Second World War Queen Frederica founded asylums for child protection, in order to control and prevent the spreading of Communist ideas. As a result, these asylums were promoting nationalism and religion. In the ’80s there was some kind of progress in health care, but social welfare became more and more of a bureaucratic affair. For example, I visited the Center of Lechaina and they told me that an incoming patient had just been approved. So I asked if anybody had assessed the child or talk to the family.They answered “No, but we checked these”, showing me a pile of folders with all the necessary information. In other words, decision making process about placement of a child happens only through paperwork. In the ’90s the NGOs were suddenly thriving and everybody felt safer with the idea that somebody else, and not only the State, would be considering society’s needs. It is shameful that no government has ever made a breakthrough in Welfare.”

As far as de-institutionalization planning made by neoliberal governments, a significant case was that of Reagan Presidency (1981-1989) in the U.S.A.:

“They threw residents out of the mental hospitals after packing them with a small amount of pills and a friendly wave goodbye. As a result, most of them died within the first year because they had no support or the capacity to survive by themselves, while the rest lived in the streets. It is not at all difficult to make the wrong move and put groups of people in danger, even in worse circumstances than the one described. Given the fact that our country has also been accused of negligence at the Lechaina Center, if any effort at terminating institutionalization is not planned very carefully, it is likely that politicians like Reagan could come along and make all the wrong decisions involving de-institutionalization in our country. Total disaster…”

For two years, Antonis Rellas has filmed the living situation for residents in Lechaina, ever since the public revelation of the first images that showed the horrible situation in that hellhole. His documentary titled From Asylum to Society will be presented in Greek and international film festivals starting next November and is supported financially by the Emancipation Movement for the Disabled Zero Tolerance and the Greek Movement of Disabled Artists.

In his own words, “Our goal is to getall these images out to the public in order to raise awareness and make people realize that everyone is responsible. We need to motivate individuals who seethis situation as criminal to take action and help toward this effort. If we can transform the Center of Lechaina, then we can transform all the others as well”.

 Posted by at 21:20
Sep 142017

As Manchester is set to be even more locked down by police and snipers than in previous years that they have hosted the Tory Party Conference we think the only way to directly disrupt the proceedings is via a wall of noise. Thanks to Manchester DPAC members for organising this.

Theresa May: Human Catastrophe

Wednesday 4th October main entrance/exit to Conservative Party Conference.

Assemble 11:30am out front of Friends Meeting House, 6 Mount St, Manchester, M2 5NS.

To coincide with Theresa May’s speech at the Tory Party conference.

This is to highlight the United Nations finding the Tory government have perpetrated grave and systemic human rights abuses of disabled people that have created a human catastrophe in the UK. Theresa May as Prime Minister and party leader is morally and legally responsible for this shameful state of affairs, and the government show every indication of continuing this persecution. Consequently we see no solution but the removal of her and the Conservative party from power and a new era of rights based social justice based on the social model of disability in keeping with the UNCRPD.

Bring friends, items to make noise with, and your anger.”source”%3A3%2C”source_newsfeed_story_type”%3A”regular”%2C”action_history”%3A”[%7B%5C”surface%5C”%3A%5C”newsfeed%5C”%2C%5C”mechanism%5C”%3A%5C”feed_story%5C”%

Some funding for travel costs may be available for DPAC members. If you do need help with travel for October 4th only please email us at



 Posted by at 18:17
Sep 122017

Can anyone get to this?Please email us at if you can.

Mr Alan Barham

: Paramedic

: PA27031

: Final Hearing

Date and Time of hearing:10:00 18/09/2017 End: 17:00 21/09/2017

: Health and Care Professions Council, 405 Kennington Road, London, SE11 4PT

: Conduct and Competence Committee
Hearing has not yet been held

Whilst registered as a Paramedic and employed as a Disabilities Assessor with Capita:

1. On the Channel 4 programme ‘Dispatches: The Great Benefits Row’ broadcast on 11 April 2016 you were recorded as saying:
a. in response to an unknown service user’s Personal Independent Payment (PIP) assessment, “I’d literally finished his assessment before I’d even walked through the door. I’d done it on Saturday”, or words to that effect.
b. in response to a question regarding PIP assessments that you carry out, “Most of it’s informal obs you catch them out on” or words to that effect.
c. in response to a question regarding PIP assessments you carry out, “They’re informal, that’s why you don’t have to say anything. They’ll tell you everything that they want to tell you, is wrong, you can completely dismiss it more often than not. You’ll get your whole assessment done with watching what they do” or words to that effect.
d. in response to an unknown service user’s PIP assessment, “Disability known as being fat. She asks for help to wipe her arse because she’s too ******* fat to do it herself” or words to that effect.

2. You did not maintain the confidentiality of service users, in that as shown on the Channel 4 programme ‘Dispatches: The Great Benefits Row’ broadcast on 11 April 2016 you:
a. took a photo of an PIP assessment of an unknown service user on your personal phone;
b. admitted to taking photos of PIP assessments in the past and retaining them on your personal phone.

3. The matters set out in paragraphs 1 – 2 constitute misconduct and/or lack of competence.

4. By reason of your misconduct and/or lack of competence your fitness to practise is impaired.

 Posted by at 21:15
Sep 122017

3 weeks after the UN described the treatment of disabled people as a ‘human catastrophe’, the UK Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn has still not made a statement or acknowledged the human cost that disabled people paid since 2010 under the pretext of ‘austerity’.

It is astonishing as Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell always supported in the past the struggles of disabled people and were at countless protests to save the Independent Living Fund.  Debbie Abrahams wrote an article about the UN findings, but what about Labour shadow Minister for disabled people? Her twitter handle does not mention her ministerial role @MarieRimmer, neither is her Facebook page or her Parliamentary website:

She certainly did not have one word to say about the findings of the United Nations Committee for the rights of people with disability, or hardly anything to say at all about disabled people as show her spoken contributions

So we are asking you to tweet Jeremy Corbyn and ask him to hold Theresa May to account during Prime Minister Question Time

#HumanCatastrophe for disabled people says the UN @JeremyCorbyn must hold #May to account at #PMQs

#HumanCatastrophe for disabled people says UN @JeremyCorbyn Why no statements from Leader of the opposition #PMQs


#HumanCatastrophe for disabled people says the UN @JeremyCorbyn Where is the Shadow Minister for DP@MarieRimmer?

You can read more on the Black Triangle website:


 Posted by at 18:22
Sep 042017

Last Friday the Appeal Court handed down their judgement in the Davey vs Oxfordshire Council case and in short said that a Judicial Review process wasn’t the right place to argue against cuts to care funding. Where that leaves disabled people who face cuts to their funding we have no idea or where such cuts are supposed to be challenged remains a mystery. This is one person’s view of the court proceedings and the appalling lack of access for disabled people to our court buildings -even when the cases being heard are about disabled people’s rights.

Judge, Jury and Execution of basic human rights: A court case about Independent Living money for disabled people


I didn’t know Luke Davies’ specific story when I got the email, but we the people;  disabled people, our friends, family, carers, lovers and by the horror stories we constantly hear about and live everyday, we can get the gist of it. The last dregs of our welfare, that the state drip feed us – our last remaining nationlised services, our Independent Living, our humanity, have been smacked out of our gasping selves by privatisation. I didn’t know Luke Davies or the story that surrounds hum and his loved ones, but by god, Last Thursday, when we finally managed to go to court about the abomination that is happening to us and our public services, did we hear the specifics of our story.


That was why it was so crucial for our voices to be heard, for us to be seen outside the Royal Courts of Justice – in part by the media including the BBC and ITV no less, and to be there for our brother Luke and his family.


I love how these images show all of us, disabled, enabled, young and old, black and white, different expressions of gender and identity, our intersections being made visible, loudly, joyfully at times, coming together against our current capitalist nonsense. Shout out to [what are their names?] ‘s serving Annie Lennox militant revolutionary, circa  Love is a stranger  realness.

Some of us couldn’t get in. We couldn’t even get into the front entrance, we were shooed round the back, “lack of staff” the same story


I for one managed to get in, just about. After you cower under the cathedral of enormous white stone architecture, up the hallowed steps, not accessible of course, you heave at the heavy door, there’s airport type security, which, I for one get intimidated by. Have I got anything weird in my bag? I have moisturiser will they think it’s a jelly explosive? I have water – acid? You have to drink your liquids to prove it’s not anything and potentially die in the process. After that malarkey you’re finally and officially inside the Cathedral of Money. The main hall is like an aircraft hangar, it’s stupidly gigantic and decorative. Rich Old White Men in oil paintings glare down at you. Walking with our footsteps echoed 10 fold, someone among us said these places are designed to intimate you, if so, it was working.


The courtroom had been changed because the original room for a DISABILITY CASE WASN’T ACCESSIBLE. We had minutes to find it. We were given a map and escorted into a tiny old lift, half the lights were broken and the ones that were had a glare so everything had even more of an off-putting edge to it. When we churned out the place was an old white maze; a rabbit warren of inaccessible stairs, arrows pointing toward more stairs, a massive courtyard then more arrows pointing you to another flight of stairs. When you need the bathroom guess what comes before you? Yes, well done. It looked and felt a bit like this.



But what of the main man himself? We waited and had even signed a birthday card for Luke. Of course, due to taxis not being able to find accessible spaces, Luke and his family were running late. Two years of atrocity, heartache and stress built upon this day, built by structures that don’t accommodate people like us. When Luke and his family finally got there, him and his family didn’t seem there at all, as you’d expect, distant and full of nerves. All that agony and they had to wait even longer for justice.  The time lurched ever closer to the start of the proceedings, a friend of mine was missing, so I ran down to find them.


Blinking in the burning sun outside, they texted that they were coming so I ran back up the moneyed stairs. I had to go through security again of course. I couldn’t hear the throngs of us in the corridor, it must have started. Deathly silence, on tiptoes, wincing, I opened the door, deathly silence. Nothing, a corridor! Another door, I was in – full of serious suits and wigs; more vacuum-packed silence for the wigs and suits, I tripped over someone’s crutches, clattering them in the hush. I dived into the closest seat.


I missed the bit you see in TV and films where you stand for the judge and his knockers which was a bit gutting. He didn’t have a black robe on, nor a wig, I didn’t see a hammer (gobble?) unfortunately, was he even the judge? Who were all these people? It looked like the room the phone hacking scandal took place in, sterile and plastic. It wanted to look official but was more office-y not court-y i.e. wood paneled but  totally didn’t look like it save for the seating arrangements and slightly raised desks. I couldn’t see a jury and there were microphones and laptops everywhere, even the person sitting next to me in the audience had one, which was a distraction. As was having a Vicar sat next to me, on a smartphone. There were wigs though, old white wigs, blonde no less.


But what were the wigs saying? It wasn’t like the traditional court room dramas you see on screen with lawyers jumping up screaming, “OBJECTION!” and a judge crying for order whilst a witness actually cries then the handsome lawyer delivers an impassionate call to arms for truth and beauty and all that is good in this world in an earth shattering emotional speech wherein the whole court starts crying and the jury hugs it out. No, this is England and a Thursday morning in reality. It is pure, dry, uncut incomprehensible legal jargon for four plus hours. Dirge-y doublespeak. It’s delivered not only in a monotone, hardly any emphasis or change of pitch, rhythm or emotion on any word or phrase so you may have some indication of where it was all going. Crucially though, it’s delivered in list, alphabetical and numerical order with a lot of subsections, pages and files. “Supplementary file, page 51, Section D, subjection E points 1-15”. Pages are flipped, we wait, it’s read out, then we move on to the next clause, we wait. There are zero surprise witnesses in judicial review apparently.


But could we hear what the wigs were saying? The Judge bashfully reiterated the fact that they were trying to have the hearing loop configured after the lunch break – not before the lunch break, or before we arrived or just working already for anyone, it being a crucial public space where it’s quite important to hear what’s going on of course, after the lunch break. Have a break, have some equal participation in democracy and society. They weren’t aware of the in’s and outs of Hearing aids they admitted. They also admitted their lack of knowledge when it comes to wheelchair access, one guessed that you just hire them out. Admittedly, that could be a good start up for anyone reading this, Uber but for wheelchairs. We’ll come back to this idea, seriously.


Anyway, what was being said in the courtroom was delivered in an alien (but not in a fun way) way. Truth be told, I had absolutely no idea what was going on. I think the basic premise was that our defense for Luke was going through The Care Act 2014 as well as some other legal business step by step, subsection by subjection, to illustrate our argument and counteract the prosecution’s argument. All using extremely dry words, phrases and general legal talk that I’d never heard before. Nor was it said in an explanatory clear way, with…Pauses…and…Stresses…But-listing-it-all-off-as-everyone –else-seemed-to had-heard-it-all-before. I only gleamed he was The Goody because a friend said so.


As I waded through the jargon river a wild Vicar appeared as well as his wild blue bird twittering away in my field of vision. A Vicar on Twitter in court. An elderly person on social media in court no less. I was “skunnered” by as Scots say.


He had a hearing aid which kept ringing and squealing so he kept adjusting it, bless him.  He was the one the hearing aid chat was about. When this chat commenced he clearly couldn’t hear it. I had to give hum a nudge. He let the hearing commence without his hearing. He then very loudly tried to have some hearing aid banter with me mid court session to which we got an ear-full.


He got back to his phone tapping away. It was like being in a cinema and there’s that one glare that distracts you. When he got bored he checked his emails. When he got bored of his phone, he got out a flipping magazine. Not a glossy but a paper one which you can really hear. Especially in a quiet court, leafing away, very slowly which prolongs and really makes audible that papery sound, folding the whole thing it in half or more over each time like some people do with broadsheets newspaper but with an A4 magazine, to his credit, The Big Issue. When he got bored with that he stage whispered his apologies and that he had to go, shuffled very slowly out with a final “SOLIDARITY!” to everyone.


So that all didn’t help my attention, nor did all the clacking of laptops, shuffling of paper, people pacing around, whispering, writing, doing legal things, in and out of the court. The worst of it being that they all try and do it very discreetly, as slowly as possible do detract attention but that gives them more attention as they’re going about it so slowly and clearly that you wonder what the commotion is and what they’re trying to do so subtly and BOOM! You’re attentive. What also didn’t help my attention was an attractive intern was potentially checking me out. Was he? When you’re in a space for a prolonged amount of time these issues take precedence unfortunately. It doesn’t help that when someone looks at you, you usually look back, this tennis match of eye contact and ‘Is he isn’t he’ happened for a ridiculously prolonged amount of time.


Any road, I loved our lawyer. Despite it all being dusty and dry in a format that was unfamiliar, his delivery was still pitch perfect; no stumbling, stuttering, hesitation or repetition but concise, calm, covering every square millimeter of ground and extremely methodical about it. He lined up our case extraordinarily literally to the letter. Perhaps that might have been to his detriment to which  we’ll come back to, too. I think the Judge loved him too who seemed to truly understand his points by rephrasing them and not only that but filling in gaps and making new points! One example being that by getting rid of Luke’s carers, you get rid of 20 years of bespoke expert knowledge of Luke’s individual needs.


What were the Barrister’s main points though? I presume it was our own points and just plain logic itself in that; if you keep lowering wages people won’t work for so little money. Especially if you’re as qualified and experienced as Luke’s carers of 20 years.  Luke is severely disabled and a human being. If you leave him or anyone alone for a period of time that can be very distressing, especially if you have preexisting health, mental or otherwise, incontinence especially.  The others being in regards to scheduling of activities that any human should be able to do and the cut backs destroying these.


I personally didn’t quite understand what his other points and the finer points of ones I did were, so, I’ve asked other people that were there what they were. Here’s what they had to say [If you or Sveleta know/have time please say otherwise feel free to delete this paragraph! What were Barrister’s points?! Can’t remember!]


The Prosecution was someone I didn’t love, he was literally the archetypal pantomime Villain. Not only was he arguing for privitisation and the firing of loved ones and cuts to public services but primarily his voice and behavior was annoying.  The classic sneering “Nyaaaaa” twirly moustache, pitiful anxious clear cut character arc character in classic films type character whom you could see why they became a villain, you can tell they were bullied at school, small man syndrome type Villain. Really nasally and whiny, the complete polar opposite of our defense, neither calm nor collected or concise: stumbling and bumbling his way here and there, sucking up to the teachers, I mean judges. Not only that but his arguments sucked too, he gave the judges completely the wrong references and argued against those instead! The judges called him out outright saying they were the wrong references.


The crux of his “argument” appeared to be that it’s a privilege to be able to be out the house for longer than 3 hours,  that he doesn’t need carers as he has plenty of friends and family. His luxurious example? One time, Luke went to Bognor Regis with a friend for a couple of days. Yes, Bognor Regis, his equivalent of a Valhalla of human rights gone mad. A land of milk and honey, a Babylon of Sodom and Gomorra level proportions where freedom reigns supreme. Now I can’t remember who interjected, whether that was our defense or the judges who shut this down, but whoever did so with the fact that Luke’s family had saved up for 3 years to go for that  outing, 102 miles, to Bognor flipping Regis.


Whilst arguing that Luke has a plethora of family and friends he kept mentioning his parents’ age when they were less than 10 meters away. Essentially saying them they’d be dead soon and instead of people he’s known for 20 years, have agency workers on minimum wage take over care for their son.


This is the kind of “logic” and “rational” that the legal system cherishes so much that we’re dealing with here. Quibble over pennies for a trip to a seaside town but throw away invaluable human beings.


So you can imagine the outcome of this case, we lost. It feels unnecessary and an understatement to call the outcome ‘disappointing’, I saw one of us in a wheelchair crying her eyes out before the second half even really began but that’s what this is.  There’s that phrase parents use, “I’m not angry, I’m just disappointed”. We are angry but it’s almost a grieving level beyond that where you’re just desolate in your faith for humanity. They could have done so much better.


How judges, in all their insight into legal dramas over the years, can literally make the points for you, only to throw it all away because it’s “the Council’s actions have not acted unlawfully”. That was the outcome, what they’ve done is legal and therefore it’s fine. Just because something’s “not unlawful”/legal doesn’t make it fine. How is stealing legal? How is taking money and people away from a disabled man fine? What’s ridiculous is that, purely on a rational and moral level, this system is meant to represent, and always look to their shining light, rationality and morality, yet they’re so incomprehensibly irrational and immoral in their actions.


You don’t need to pay me an extortionate amount in legal fees and make you wait years for my conclusion to this case.  The ruling was that the lower rates of pay wouldn’t make people leave but they’re on record on email saying so that it definitely would and they will.  It’s legal but it shouldn’t be and not an excuse to steal someone’s money or people they rely on. If he wants time alone or doesn’t want more than x amount of hours alone don’t contradict that for the sake of “independence”. Firstly, he isn’t a child who needs to learn a lesson, he’s a 42 year old adult and moreover, a human being, he knows what he wants, stop presuming. He’s intensely disabled, stop making life more difficult for him than it is already and have some respect and compassion for him. Picture shitting yourself, sitting in it and not physically being able to deal with it for more than two hours. That is not independence, that is the state being inhumane to the highest degree.


It is this Nanny State dictating what is good for us that led people to rebel and vote for Brexit. We definitely shouldn’t have voted Brexit but I think we are tired of the expert ruling and the framework that it’s in. I would argue that it’s down to a lack of common ground and understanding within that frame. Wheelchair frames and access to them as a whole and not understanding that you can’t just Uber one and pick it up in 5 being one such example. What it’s like not being able to be on your own, not being able to fully see or move and sit in your own shit, for more than two hours. Not being paid an extortionate amount of money, money that doesn’t seem to understand  someone like Luke. I noticed a lot of middle class and above accents in that room. I counted one black woman and one potentially disabled person in authority that day. That’s an enormous amount of progress from what we’ve seen but we need more of that please.


We need to stop constantly having old white men being the supreme court rulers of justice.  Stop them swinging their dicks about, woops I mean, “Hammers” sorry, “hammers”. That’s what this is though let’s face it. Boys being boys, men being conditioned men, suppressing any empathy and emotion or kindness for each other because that’s Girl’s stuff for the sake of “rationality” verses “irrationality”. It’s such a treasured concept in masculinity, to be “rational”. Anything that has the hint of heart or compassion for your fellow human being is hit with a hammer and considered “irrational” and thrown aside, boys don’t do that, urgh.


We forget that though in this game of Rational or Not Rational. W forget how we’re all human beings who have to have some heart and look after each other so we don’t kill each other in the microcosmic time we have on this rock floating through space. That’s the heart of democracy is not coldly suppressing love for your fellow man. Learning to get along and not hide your feelings. I bet these men playing these games probably want to say sorry being so silly and give each other a hug for but that’s GAY so they don’t because that’s what GIRLS do so they have to be STRONG and STABLE and RATIONAL so they don’t.


It is a game though, an interesting game where, without getting too weird and Freudian about it, they may subconsciously want to embrace these more societally conditioned traits of “femininity”. These boys put these curly “girly” wigs on, wear big flowing dresses to talk about their feelings and not just physically fight to resolve their differences. But of course they have to have big shouting matches with a phallic object and have rules and drown it all in nonsense terminology to disguise it.







We’re getting there, though. Women, black women crucially, are getting in there. Slowly but surely. One judge seemed to recognise it’s a weird game where human lives are pawns and  made remarks over how difficult this is for the family, to have their lives so ruthlessly torn apart in nasty ways. He also remarked how family should be just that for the most part and have time to be that, family, not Carers looking after a client but have to time to not be and enjoy each other’s company. That’s how our communities used to be, communities where we would all help each other in the village, support from the community and in our current age of Selfie atomised individualised Neo-Liberal Thatcher nonsense we have to come back to that way of being. We all need to look after each other like that.


May I also point out that at the end the judge made a joke about after the nasty prosecution repeating the parent’s age so often, for good measure, he’d tell the room the other judge’s age next time.


This case, especially in light of the UN’S findings of the UK’s disgusting dealings with disabled people isn’t a joke. Someone asked why the press loved court room dramas so much and as I’ve said, it’s a game with clear winners and losers, goodies and baddies that people know and understand. Now we know how much of a con it is, let’s stop playing and start helping people like we used to, before the big wigs started shouting.




Joe Langlois






 Posted by at 14:01
Sep 042017
Advance unedited version Distr.: General

29 August 2017


Original: English

English, Russian and Spanish only

Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Concluding observations on the initial report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland*

  1. Introduction
  2. The Committee considered the initial report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (CRPD/C/GBR/1) at its 348th and 349th meetings (see CRPD/C/SR.348 and 349), held on 23 and 24 August 2017. It adopted the present concluding observations at its 356th meeting, held on 29 August 2017.
  3. The Committee welcomes the initial report of the State party, which was prepared in accordance with the Committee’s reporting guidelines. It also appreciates the State party’s written replies (CRPD/C/GBR/Q/1/Add.1) to the list of issues prepared by the Committee (CRPD/C/GBR/Q/1). It further appreciates the clarifications provided in response to the questions posed orally by the Committee.
  4. The Committee appreciates the constructive dialogue held during the consideration of the report and commends the State party for its delegation, which included delegates from various departments of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and from the governments of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
  5. Positive aspects
  6. The Committee commends the State party’s withdrawal of the reservation to Article 12 (4) of the Convention.
  7. The Committee welcomes the information about the adoption of legislative and policy measures that develop different aspects of the Convention, such as the National Plan of action to implement the Convention launched in 2016 and the Scottish Social Security System, which included the involvement of organizations of persons with disabilities in their design. It also welcomes the adoption of the Accessible Travel Framework in Scotland, in 2016, with provisions on accessibility for persons with disabilities and the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2015, which provides a framework for social services and health.

III.    Principal areas of concern and recommendations

  1. General principles and obligations (arts. 1-4)
  2. The Committee welcomes the information about the support of the State party’s Government to the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories for the extension of the Convention. However, it observes with concern:

(a)    The insufficient incorporation and uneven implementation of the Convention across all policy areas and levels within all regions, devolved governments and Overseas Territories;

(b)     The lack of consistency across the State party in the understanding of, adapting to and applying the human rights model of disability and its evolving concept of disability;

(c)      The absence of a comprehensive and cross-cutting review of the State party’s legislation and policies, including within the devolved governments, in order to harmonise legal content and practice with the Convention;

(d)     The existing laws, regulations, and practises which discriminate against persons with disabilities; and

(e)      The lack of information on policies, programmes and measures that will be put in place by the State party to protect persons with disabilities from being negatively affected, upon triggering article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.

  1. The Committee recommends that the State party:

(a)     Incorporate the Convention into its legislation, recognizing access to domestic remedies for breaches of the Convention, and adopt an appropriate and comprehensive response to the obligations enshrined in the Convention in its policies and programmes across the State party, including all devolved governments;

(b)     Strengthen its efforts to extend the Convention and support its implementation in the Overseas Territories;

(c)      Adopt legally binding instruments to implement the concept of disability, in line with article 1 of the Convention and ensure that new and existing legislation incorporate the human rights model of disability across all policy areas and all levels and regions of all devolved government and overseas territories;

(d)     Undertake a comprehensive crosscutting review of its legislation and policies to bring them into line with article 1 of the Convention, and ensure that the legal framework protects persons with disabilities against discrimination on the grounds of disability. In this process, the State party should involve organisations of persons with disabilities and national human rights institutions;

(e)      Expedite the process to develop a measurable strategic framework and plan of action, with sufficient financial resources aimed at abolishing laws, regulations, customs and practices that constitute discrimination against persons with disabilities and to ensure the equal protection of persons with disabilities; and

(f)      Prevent any negative consequences for persons with disabilities by the decision of the triggering article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, in close consultation with organizations of persons with disabilities.

  1. The Committee is concerned at the lack of State party-led initiatives aimed at assessing and sufficiently addressing the inclusion of and living conditions for persons with disabilities, particularly in Northern Ireland and the overseas territories.
  2. The Committee recommends that the State party collect information and adopt a strategic and measurable plan of action for improving the living conditions of all persons with disabilities, including in close cooperation with authorities in Northern Ireland and the overseas territories.
  3. The Committee is concerned about:

(a)     The challenges facing organisations of persons with disabilities, including organisations representing women, children and intersex persons with disabilities, to access support and be consulted and actively involved in the implementation of the Convention; and

(b)     The lack of mechanisms to ensure effective participation of all organisations of persons with disabilities, in decision-making processes concerning policies and legislation in all areas of the Convention, such as the strategy “Fulfilling Potential: Making it Happen”.

  1. The Committee recommends that the State party:

(a)     Allocate financial resources to support organisations representing persons with disabilities, including women and children with disabilities, and develop mechanisms to ensure an inclusive, strategic, and active involvement of organisations of persons with disabilities, including women, children and intersex persons in planning and implementing of all legislation and measures affecting the lives of persons with disabilities; and

(b)     Establish mechanisms supporting the full participation of organisations of persons with disabilities in the design and implementation of strategic policies aimed at implementing the Convention across the State party, through objective measurable, financed and monitored strategic plan of actions.

  1. Specific rights

Equality and non-discrimination (art. 5)

  1. The Committee is concerned about perceptions in society stigmatizing persons with disabilities as living a life of less value and the termination of pregnancy at any stage on the basis of foetal impairment.
  2. The Committee recommends that the State party changes abortion law accordingly. Women’s rights to reproductive and sexual autonomy should be respected without legalizing selective abortions on ground of foetus deficiency.
  3. The Committee is concerned that the anti-discrimination legislation does not provide comprehensive and appropriate protection, particularly against multiple and intersectional discrimination, including in access to housing. It is also concerned about the low level of redress in rulings adopted by the judiciary while adjudicating cases of discrimination against persons with disabilities.
  4. The Committee recommends that the State party, in line with Goal 10 of Sustainable Development Goals and targets 10.2 and 10.3, explicitly incorporate in its national legislation protection from, in particular multiple and intersectional discrimination on the basis of gender, age, race, disability, migrant, refugee and /or other status, and provide appropriate compensation, and redress for victims, and sanctions proportional with the severity of the violation.
  5. The Committee is concerned that the duty to make reasonable adjustments to the common parts of residential properties in the Equality Act 2010 is not yet in force, and that persons with disabilities living in Northern Ireland are not adequately protected against direct and indirect disability-based discrimination and against discrimination by association.
  6. The Committee recommends that the State party:

(a)     Brings its anti-discrimination legislation into alignment with the Convention and speed up the process to bring into force all legislative provisions in the Equality Act 2010, including those concerning reasonable accommodation in the housing sector; and

(b)     Take the necessary measures through the appropriate authorities to ensure that the Northern Ireland Executive reform on disability rights law reflects the recommendations made by Equality Commission for Northern Ireland in its 2012 Strengthening Protection for Disabled People report, to protect persons with disabilities in Northern Ireland from direct and indirect disability-based discrimination and discrimination through association.

Women with disabilities (art. 6)

  1. The Committee is concerned that the rights of women and girls with disabilities have not been systematically mainstreamed into both the gender equality and disability agenda. The Committee is also concerned at the lack of measures and available data concerning the impact of multiple and intersectional discrimination of women and girls with disabilities.
  2. The Committee recommends that the State party, in close consultation with organisations of women and girls with disabilities, mainstream the rights of women and girls with disabilities into disability and gender-equality policies. It also recommends that the State party, in line with the Committee’s general comment No. 3 (2016) and targets 5.1, 5.2 and 5.5 of the Sustainable Development Goals, adopt inclusive and targeted measures, including disaggregated data, to prevent multiple and intersectional discrimination of women and girls with disabilities, in particular those with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities, in education, employment, poverty, health, violence and access to justice.

Children with disabilities (art. 7)

  1. The Committee is concerned about:

(a)     The lack of policy framework addressing poverty of families with children with disabilities;

(b)     The failure to incorporate the human rights model of disability in public policies and legislation concerning children and young persons with disabilities;

(c)      The lack of monitoring mechanisms and reliable indicators;

(d)     The absence of a general statutory duty upon public authorities to ensure adequate childcare for children with disabilities; and

(e)      The reported increase of incidents of bullying, hate speech and hate crime against children with disabilities.

  1. The Committee recommends that the State party, in close consultation with organisations of representing children with disabilities, develop and implement policies aimed at:

(a)     Eliminating the higher level of poverty among families with children with disabilities;

(b)     Incorporating the human rights model of disability into all laws and regulations concerning children with disabilities;

(c)      Setting up an independent monitoring mechanism to oversee the development through reliable and meaningful indicators;

(d)     Securing sufficient and disability-sensitive childcare as a statutory duty across the State party; and

(e)      Strengthening measures to prevent bullying, hate speech and hate crime against children with disabilities.

             Awareness Raising (art. 8)

  1. The Committee is concerned at the persisting occurring incidents of negative attitudes, stereotypes and prejudice against persons with disabilities, in particular towards persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities and persons with neurological and cognitive conditions such as dementia and Alzheimer, as well as concerning their social protection entitlements
  2. The Committee recommends that the State party, in close collaboration with organisations of persons with disabilities, strengthen its awareness-raising campaigns aimed at eliminating negative stereotypes and prejudice towards persons with disabilities, particularly persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities and persons with neurological and cognitive conditions such as dementia and Alzheimer. The State party should include mass-media strategies and campaigns, with different target audience groups based on the human rights model of disability.

Accessibility (art. 9)

  1. The Committee is concerned by the lack of obligatory and implemented accessible standards relating to, among others, the physical environment, affordable housing, ICT, transport, and information in urban as well as rural areas. It is also concerned about the austerity measures that have hindered the advancement of accessibility for persons with disabilities.
  2. The Committee recommends that the State party, in close collaboration with organisations of persons with disabilities:

(a)     Adopt and implement obligatory accessibility standards for designing affordable and accessible physical environments, housing, ICT, information-formats and transport infrastructure, including emergency services and green and public spaces relating to both urban and rural areas;

(b)     Pay attention to the links between article 9 of the Convention and the Committee’s general comment no. 2 (2014) on accessibility, and targets 9, 11.2 and 11.7 of the Sustainable Development Goals; and

(c)      Monitor the development towards full inclusion through accessibility and sanctioning violations of accessibility regulations.

Right to life (art. 10)

  1. The Committee observes with concern the substituted decision-making in matters of termination or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment and care that is inconsistent with the right to life of persons with disabilities as equal and contributing members of society.
  2. The Committee recalls that the right to life is absolute from which no derogations are permitted and recommends that the State party adopt a plan of action aimed at eliminating perceptions towards persons with disabilities as not having “a good and decent life”, but rather recognising persons with disabilities as equal persons and part of the diversity of humankind, and ensure access to life-sustaining treatment and/or

Situations of risk and humanitarian emergencies (art. 11)

  1. The Committee is concerned about the impacts on persons with disabilities in situations of emergencies, including floods and fire, and the absence of comprehensive policies related to disaster risk reduction that include persons with disabilities in the planning, implementation and monitoring processes of disaster risk reduction.
  2. The Committee recommends that the State party:

(a)     Adopt a comprehensive disaster risk reduction plan and strategies that provide for accessibility and inclusion of persons with disabilities, in all situations of risk, in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, in close consultation with organizations of persons with disabilities;

(b)     Mainstream disability in all humanitarian aid channels and involve organizations of persons with disabilities in setting priorities on aid distribution in the context of risk and humanitarian emergencies, paying attention to the Charter on Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities in Humanitarian Action;

(c)      Develop information and warning systems in humanitarian emergencies that are accessible for all persons with disabilities; and

(d)  Ensure that organizations of persons with disabilities participate in the resilience teams at the local level and have an active role in advising on and formulating policies and guidelines regarding disaster preparedness and planning.

Equal recognition before the law (art. 12)

  1. The Committee is concerned about:

(a)     The legislation restricting legal capacity of persons with disabilities on the basis of actual or perceived impairment;

(b)     The prevalence of substituted decision-making in legislation and practice, and the lack of full recognition of the right to individualized supported decision-making that fully respects the autonomy, will and preferences of persons with disabilities;

(c)      The lack of appropriate and independent support to all asylum seekers and refugees with psychosocial and/or intellectual disabilities, in exercising their legal capacity; and

(d) The high number of black people with disabilities compulsorily detained and treated against their will.

  1. The Committee recommends that the State party, in close consultation with organisations of persons with disabilities, including those representing persons from black and minority ethnic groups and in line with the Committee’s general comment no. 1 (2014), abolish all forms of substituted decision-making concerning all spheres and areas of life by reviewing and adopting new legislation in line with the Convention to initiate new policies in both mental capacity and mental health laws. It further urges the State party to step up efforts to foster research, data and good practices of, and speed up the development of supported decision-making regimes. It further recommends that the State party ensure that asylum seekers and refugees can exercise all rights enshrined in the Convention.

Access to justice (art. 13)

  1. The Committee is concerned about:

(a)     The low awareness among the judiciary and law enforcement officials concerning human rights of persons with disabilities;

(b)     The information about persons with psychosocial and/or intellectual disabilities who do not receive appropriate support in exercising their legal capacity and access to justice;

(c)      The barriers for persons with disabilities in access to civil legal aid as a consequence of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 in England and Wales and the introduction of fees for employment tribunals in the State party; and

(d)     The regulations excluding persons with hearing impairments from participation in jury-procedures, and that personal assistants/interpreters are not considered to be procedural accommodation.

  1. The Committee recommends that the State party, in close collaboration with organisations of persons with disabilities:

(a)     Develop and implement capacity building programmes among the judiciary and law enforcement personnel, including judges, prosecutors, police officers and prison staff, about the rights of persons with disabilities;

(b)     Design and implement a decision-making regime with guidelines and appropriate resources, focusing on respect of will and preferences of in particular persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities in court proceedings;

(c)      Provide free or affordable legal aid for persons with disabilities in all areas of law and remove fees to access Court and Employment Tribunals;

(d)     Ensure that all persons with disabilities are provided with the right and adequate procedural accommodation within the justice system, and enable in particular deaf persons through the use of sign language interpreters to fully and equally participate as jurors in court proceedings; and

(e)      Take measures to empower persons with disabilities to work in the justice system as judges, prosecutors or other positions, with provision of all necessary support.

Liberty and security of the person (art. 14)

  1. The Committee is concerned that the State party legislation provides for involuntary, compulsory treatment and detention both inside and outside hospitals on the basis of actual or perceived impairment.
  2. The Committee recommends that the State party:

(a)     Repeal legislation and practices that authorise non-consensual involuntary, compulsory treatment and detention of persons with disabilities on the basis of actual or perceived impairment; and

(b)     Take appropriate measures to investigate and eliminate all forms of abuse of persons with disabilities in institutional facilities.

Freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (art. 15)

  1. The Committee is concerned about the continued use of physical, mechanical and chemical restraint, including the use of Taser guns and similar weapons on persons with disabilities that affects persons with psychosocial disabilities, in prisons, the youth justice system, health-care and education settings, as well as practices of segregation and seclusion. The Committee is deeply concerned that these measures disproportionally affect black or other persons with disabilities belonging to ethnic minorities. It is also concerned about the absence of a unified State party strategy to review these practices. The Committee is further concerned at the permissible use of electro-convulsive therapy, across the devolved governments and particularly in Northern Ireland, and the excessive antipsychotic medication in England and Wales.
  2. The Committee recommends that the State party:

(a)     Adopt appropriate measures to eradicate the use of restraint for reasons related to disability within all settings, and prevent the use of Taser guns against persons with disabilities, as well as practices of segregation and isolation that may amount to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment;

(b)     Set up strategies, in collaboration with monitoring authorities and national human rights institutions, in order to identify and prevent the use of restraint for children and young persons with disabilities;

(c)      Implement the outstanding recommendations of the Equality and Human Rights Commission inquiry into deaths in detention of adults with mental health conditions, aimed at enhancing art. 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (See EHRC, (February 2015), Preventing Deaths in Detention of Adults with Mental Health Conditions: An Inquiry by the Equality and Human Rights Commission; and

(d)     Prohibit and withdraw practices of non-consensual electro-convulsive therapy on the basis of any form of impairment, in all regions, and in particular work through appropriate authorities to ensure monitoring of this development in Northern Ireland.

Freedom from exploitation, violence and abuse (art. 16)

  1. The Committee is concerned about abuse, ill-treatment, sexual violence and/or exploitation to women, children, intersex people and elderly persons with disabilities, and the insufficient measures to prevent all forms of exploitation, violence and abuse against persons with disabilities. It is further concerned at the information on cases of disability hate crime, in absence of consistent data collection and differences in legal provisions for sentencing different types of hate crime, particularly in England and Wales.
  2. The Committee recommends that the State party, in close collaboration with organizations of persons with disabilities, and in line with target 16.3 of the Sustainable Development Goals:

(a)     Establish measures to ensure equal access to justice and to safeguard persons with disabilities, particularly women, children, intersex people and elderly persons with disabilities from abuse, ill-treatment, sexual violence and/or exploitation;

(b)     Define comprehensively the offense of disability hate crime, and ensure appropriate prosecutions and convictions; and

(c)      Ensure that all facilities and programmes designed to serve persons with disabilities are effectively monitored by independent authorities, in line with article 16 (3) of the Convention.

Protecting the integrity of the person (art. 17)

  1. The Committee is concerned that persons with disabilities, including women, intersex people, girls and boys with disabilities, are reported to continue to be subjected to involuntary medical treatment, including forced sterilization, and conversion surgeries.
  2. The Committee recommends that the State party repeal all types of legislation, regulations and practices allowing any form of forced intervention and surgeries, and ensure that the right to free, prior and informed consent to treatment is upheld and that supported decision-making mechanisms are provided, paying particular attention to women, intersex people, girls and boys.

Liberty of movement and nationality (art. 18)

  1. The Committee is concerned regarding the reservation to article 18 of the Convention.
  2. The Committee recommends that the State party withdraw its reservation to article 18 of the Convention.

Living independently and being included in the community (art. 19)

  1. The Committee is concerned about:

(a)     That legislation fails to recognise living independently and being included in the community as a human right which enshrines individual autonomy, control and choice, as intrinsic aspects of the right to independent living;

(b)     Policies and measures that affect the ability to live independently in the community, such as the lowering of social protection schemes related to housing, household income and budgets for independent living, as well as the closure of the Independent Living Fund.

(c)      The transferred responsibility to the devolved administrations and local authorities for supporting independent living without providing appropriate and earmarked budget allocation;

(d)     The fact that many persons with disabilities are still institutionalised and deprived of the right to live independently and being included within the community, when: i) persons with disabilities lack financial resources to afford personal assistance ii) local authorities are of the opinion that they can provide assistance within care homes, and iii) cost rationale constitutes the main parameter of an assessment; and

(e)      The lack of support services and accessible public facilities, including personal assistance, for persons with disabilities, regardless of sex, gender, age and other status, to live independently and be included in the community.

  1. The Committee recommends that the State party, in line with the Committee’s General Comment no. 5 (2017) Living independently and being included in the community and the Committee’s Inquiry concerning the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland carried out by the Committee under article 6 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention (CRPD/C/15/R.2/Rev.1):

(a)     Recognise the right to living independently and being included in the community as a subjective right and the enforceability of all its elements and adopt rights-based policies, regulations and guidelines for ensuring implementation;

(b)     Conduct periodic assessments in close consultation with organisations of persons with disabilities to address and prevent the negative effects of the policy reforms through sufficiently funded and appropriate strategies in the area of social support and living independently;

(c)      Provide adequate and sufficient and earmarked funding to local authorities and administrations, the devolved governments and overseas territories to be able to provide resources allowing persons with disabilities to live independently and be included in the community and to exercise their right to choose their place of residence and where, and with whom to live;

(d)     Set up a comprehensive plan, developed in close collaboration with organisations of persons with disabilities, aimed at deinstitutionalisation of persons with disabilities, and develop community-based independent living schemes through a holistic and crosscutting approach, including education, childcare, transport, housing, employment and social security; and

(e)      Allocate sufficient resources to ensure that support services are available, accessible, affordable, acceptable and adaptable sensitive to different living conditions for all persons with disabilities in urban and rural areas.

Freedom of expression and opinion, and access to information (art. 21)

  1. The Committee notes with concern:

(a)     The lack of accessible information from public services and authorities and obligatory standards for making websites accessible and monitoring of ICT-accessibility;

(b)     The insufficient resources for education, training and availability of and access to high-quality educated sign language interpreters, especially in relation to education, employment, health and leisure activities; and

(c)      The lack of training and education of families, classmates, co-workers in high-quality sign language communication providing better abilities for inclusion within the community.

  1. The Committee recommends that the State party, in consultation with organisations representing persons with disabilities:

(a)     Develop obligatory standards securing accessibility to information channels based on ICT-technology;

(b)     Ensure that legislation provides for the right to educated high-quality sign language interpretation and other forms of alternative communication in all spheres of life for deaf persons and hard of hearing persons in line with the Convention; and

(c)      Allocate resources for education of children with hearing impairment, their families and others, such as classmates or co-workers in British Sign Language and tactile language.

Respect for private and family life (art. 23)

  1. The Committee is concerned that parents with disabilities do not receive appropriate services and support, resulting in children being removed from the family environment and placed in foster care, group homes or institutions. It is also concerned at the insufficient funding for parents of deaf children to learn sign language.
  2. The Committee recommends that the State party:

(a)     Ensure appropriate support for parents with disabilities to fulfil effectively their role as parents and that disability is not used as a reason to place their children in care or remove their child from the home; and

(b)     Ensure that local authorities have the legal duty to allocate and provide funds for parents wishing to learn sign language.

Education (art. 24)

  1. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the State party of the continuing process to assess the possibility to withdraw its reservation to article 24 Clause 2 (a) and (b) of the Convention.
  2. The Committee recommends that the State party speed up the process aimed at withdrawing its reservation to article 24 Clause 2 (a) and (b) of the Convention.
  3. The Committee is concerned at:

(a)     The persistence of a dual education system that segregates children with disabilities to special schools, including based on parental choice;

(b)     The number of children with disabilities in segregated education environments is increasing;

(c)      The education system is not geared to respond to the requirements for high-quality inclusive education, in particular the practices of school authorities turning down enrolment of student with disability who is deemed ‘as disruptive to other classmates’; and

(d)     Education and training of teachers in inclusion competences is not reflecting the requirements of inclusive education.

  1. The Committee recommends that the State party, in close consultation with organisations of persons with disabilities, especially organisations representing children and young persons with disabilities, and in line with the Committee’s general comment No. 4 (2014) on inclusive education, and Sustainable Development Goal 4, targets 4.5 and 4.8:

(a)     Develop a comprehensive and coordinated legislative and policy framework for inclusive education, and a timeframe to ensure that mainstream schools foster real inclusion of children with disabilities in the school environment and teachers and all other professionals and persons in contact with children understand the concept of inclusion and are able to enhance inclusive education;

(b)     Adopt regulation, monitor development and offer remedies in combating disability-related discrimination and/or harassment, including deciding upon schemes for compensation;

(c)      Adopt and implement a coherent strategy, financed with concrete timelines and measurable goals, on increasing and improving inclusive education. The strategy must:

(i)      Ensure the implementation of laws, decrees and regulations improving the extent and quality of inclusive education in classrooms, support provisions and teacher training, including pedagogical capabilities, across all levels providing for high-quality inclusive environments, including within breaks between lessons and through socialisation outside “education time”;

(ii)     Setup initiatives raising awareness about and support to inclusive education among parents of children with disabilities; and

(iii)    Provide sufficient, relevant data on the number of students both in inclusive and segregated education disaggregated by impairment, age, sex and ethnic background, and further provide data on the outcome of the education reflecting the capabilities of the students.

Health (art. 25)

  1. The Committee is concerned about the uneven access to health across the State party, including the devolved governments and overseas territories, and about:

(a)     Systemic, physical, attitudinal and/or communicative barriers preventing persons with disabilities from accessing mainstream health services including: inaccessible furnishing, training and treatment equipment, medicine and supplies, means of information and communication, limited access to clinics and healthcare professionals, hospitals, dentists, gynaecologists and obstetricians;

(b)     Barriers for persons with disabilities to obtain privacy regarding management of personal health-related data;

(c)      Lack of access to sexual and reproductive health-care services and lack of information and family planning education in accessible formats for persons with disabilities, in particular women and girls with disabilities;

(d)     The reports about cases of non-attempting resuscitation of persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities; and

(e)      The suicide rate among persons with disabilities, its higher prevalence in particular in Northern Ireland.

  1. The Committee recommends that the State party, in close collaboration with representative organisations of persons with disabilities:

(a)     Develop a targeted measurable and financed plan of action aiming at eliminating barriers in access to health care and services, monitor and measure its progress, especially in relation to persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities, and neurological and cognitive conditions;

(b)     Set up protocols for medical services that respect the right to privacy in information about health of persons with disabilities;

(c)      Ensure equal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, as set out in target 3.7 of the Sustainable Development Goals, provide information and family planning education for persons with disabilities in accessible formats, including Easy Read;

(d)     Ensure that medical professionals are under the obligation to enforce standards set up in guidance and criteria on ‘Do Not Resucitate’ orders on an equal basis with others; and

(e)      Address the high suicide rate among persons with disabilities, especially persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities.

Work and employment (art. 27)

  1. The Committee is concerned about:

(a)     The persistent employment gap and pay gap for work of equal value of persons with disabilities unemployed especially women with disabilities, psychosocial and/or intellectual disabilities as well as persons with visual impairments;

(b)     The insufficient measures of affirmative actions and provision of reasonable accommodation improving the possibility of employment for persons with disabilities on the open labour market, despite the obligations contained in the European Union Directive 2000/78/EC on non-discrimination in the work place;

(c)      The process related to the Employment and Support Allowance and that the Work Capability Assessment emphasises a functional evaluation of skills and capabilities, rather than recognising the interactions between impairment and barriers in society faced by persons with disabilities; and

(d)     The upholding of the reservation by the State party to article 27, which disproportionally affects persons with disabilities actively involved in military matters.

  1. The Committee recommends that the State party, in close collaboration with organisations of persons with disabilities, and in line with the Committee’s Inquiry concerning the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland carried out by the Committee under article 6 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention (CRPD/C/15/R.2/Rev.1):

(a)     Develop and decide upon an effective employment policy for persons with disabilities aimed at ensuring decent work for all persons with disabilities, bearing in mind the target of one million jobs for persons with disabilities and envisaged by the State Party, and ensure, equal pay for work of equal value, especially focusing on women with disabilities, persons with psychosocial and/or intellectual disabilities as well as persons with visual impairments, and monitor development;

(b)     Ensure that reasonable accommodation is provided to all persons with disabilities who require it in the workplace, that regular training on reasonable accommodation is available to employers and employees without disabilities, and that dissuasive and effective sanctions are in place in cases of denial of reasonable accommodation;

(c)      Ensure that legal and administrative requirements of the process to assess working capabilities, including the Work Capability Assessment, and those who conduct the assessments are qualified in line with the human rights model of disability, and take into consideration work related as well as other personal circumstances. The State party must ensure adjustments and support necessary to access to work and recognise financial support not subjected to sanctions or job seeking activities;

(d)     Withdraw its reservation to article 27 of the Convention; and

(e)      Bear in mind the links between article 27 of the Convention and target 8.5 of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Adequate standard of living and social protection (art. 28)

  1. The Committee is concerned about:

(a)     The impact of austerity measures and antipoverty initiatives, as a consequence of the financial crisis in 2008/2009, which resulted in higher levels of poverty among persons with disabilities and their families, in particular among families with children with disabilities;

(b)     The negative impact on the standard of living of persons with disabilities, as a consequence of, among others, the reduction in social support, unemployment allowance, independent payment/budget, the Universal Credit and the insufficient compensation for disability-related costs;

(c)      The tightening of eligibility criteria and local differences to social protection and support during the transition from Disability Living Allowance to the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) within the State party that has reduced the standard of living for persons with disabilities and their families; and

(d)     The detrimental impact of the Employment and Support Allowance’s conditionality and sanctions on persons with disabilities and the limited access to reconsideration and repeal procedures.

  1. The Committee recommends that the State party, in close collaboration with organisations of persons with disabilities across all territorial entities, including overseas territories, and in line with the Committee’s Inquiry concerning the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland carried out by the Committee under article 6 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention (CRPD/C/15/R.2/Rev.1), guided by article 28 of the Convention and implementing target 10.2 of the Sustainable Development Goals:

(a)     Introduce, adopt and implement legislative frameworks to ensure that social protection policies and programmes across the State party secure income levels for all persons with disabilities and their families, by taking into account the additional costs related to disability, and ensuring the possibility of persons with disabilities to exercise their parental responsibilities. The State party must ensure that persons under the new Employment and Support Allowance Work Related Activity Group access to full compensation of disability related costs. 

(b)     Carry out a cumulative impact assessment, with disaggregated data, about the recent and coming reforms on the social protection for persons with disabilities, and in close collaboration with organisations of persons with disabilities define, implement and monitor measures to tackle retrogression in their standard of living and use it as a basis for policy development across the State party; and

(c)      Repeal the Personal Independent Payment (Amendment) Regulations of 2017 and ensure that eligibility criteria and assessments to access Personal Independent Payments, the Employment Support Allowance, and the Universal Credit are in line with the human rights model of disability;

(d)     Ensure sufficient budget allocation for local authorities to accomplish their responsibilities regarding assistance for persons with disabilities, and extend support packages to mitigate negative impacts of the social security reform in Northern Ireland; and

(e)      Conduct a review of the conditionality and sanction regimes concerning the Employment and Support Allowance, and tackle negative consequences on mental health and situation of persons with disabilities.

Participation in political and public life (art. 29)

  1. The Committee is concerned at the lack of information on accessibility and reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities, during all stages of the electoral cycle, including the facilitating of their exercise of the right to vote, vote in private and be assisted by an assistant of one’s own choice. It is also concerned about the low number of persons with disabilities running for or holding elected public office.
  2. The Committee recommends that the State party in close consultation with organizations of persons with disabilities, take appropriate measures to secure accessibility for persons with disabilities, regardless of type of impairment, and repeal all provisions restricting the right of persons with disabilities to vote and stand for election, and further to adopt measures to guarantee the right of universal, secret suffrage.

Participation in cultural life, recreation, leisure and sport (art. 30)

  1. The Committee is concerned that the State party has not ratified the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled. It is further concerned upon the low level of accessibility to sport stadiums allowing for individual seating for persons with disabilities and their families, friends and personal assistants; and to the national heritage buildings and environments, including those appointed as UNESCO heritage.
  2. The Committee recommends that the State party:

(a)     Take all necessary steps to ratify and implement the Marrakesh Treaty as soon as possible; and

(b)     Adopt a concrete plan of action with resources and measurable objectives to implement legislation, regulation and standardisation securing persons with disabilities access to inclusive participation and activities to all sports facilities, the heritage and UNESCO appointed environments.

  1. Specific obligations

Statistics and data collection (art. 31)

  1. The Committee is concerned at the lack of unified data collection system and indicators across all devolved governments and overseas territories, concerning the situation of persons with disabilities. It also notes the limited disaggregated data collection in surveys and censuses on the general population.
  2. The Committee recommends that the State party, in line with Goal 17of the Sustainable Development Goals, increase significantly the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data disaggregated by, among others, income, sex, age, gender, race, ethnic origin, migratory asylum-seeking and refugee status, disability, geographic location and other characteristics relevant in national contexts, including in all general population surveys and censuses. It also recommends that the State party use the sets of questions and tools developed by the Washington Group on Disability Statistics for the collection of comparable disability statistics.

International cooperation (art. 32)

  1. The Committee is concerned that the State party is not yet systematically including the rights of persons with disabilities across their international cooperation and development programmes.
  2. The Committee recommends that the State party, in close collaboration with organisations of persons with disabilities in the countries where they work:

(a)     Expedite the process to update the Department for International Development’s Disability Framework, including by adopting measurable targets and specific commitments to advance the rights of persons with disabilities in the countries where they work;

(b)     Put in place the necessary measures to ensure that all relevant departments of the State party spending Overseas Development Assistance systemically monitor and include persons with disabilities in their international development and cooperation; and

(c)      Carry out a consultation process involving organisations of persons with disabilities into all policies and programmes aimed at implementing the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals, nationally as well as internationally.

National implementation and monitoring (art. 33)

  1. The Committee notes with concern the lack of comprehensive mechanisms and sufficient resources that limit the Office for Disability Issues in its mandate to coordinate the implementation of the Convention across the State party as provided by article 33 (1) of the Convention.
  2. The Committee recommends that the State party set up an appropriate coordinating structure of focal-points, sufficiently funded to strengthen the implementation of the Convention in all devolved governments and Overseas Territories.
  3. The Committee is concerned about the lack of resources available for the effective and comprehensive monitoring conducted by the independent monitoring framework established in accordance with article 33 (2) of the Convention, which hinder the support to organisations of persons with disabilities to participate in the monitoring process.
  4. The Committee recommends that the State party in all its entities, ensures the independence of and provide for sufficient funding of both established monitoring frameworks and organisations of persons with disabilities to be able to carry out the monitoring of the implementation of the Convention across the State party, bearing in mind the guidelines on independent monitoring frameworks and their participation in the work of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD/C/1/Rev.1, annex).

Cooperation and technical assistance

  1. Under article 37 of the Convention, the Committee can provide technical guidance to the State party on any queries addressed to the experts via the secretariat. The State party can also seek technical assistance from United Nations specialized agencies with offices in the country or the region.
  2. Follow-up

Dissemination of information

  1. The Committee requests that the State party, within 12 months and in accordance with article 35, paragraph 2, of the Convention, provide information in writing on the measures taken to implement the Committee’s recommendations as set forth in paragraphs 45, 57, and 59, above.
  2. The Committee recommends that the State party, in close cooperation and collaboration with organizations of persons with disabilities, initiate a process to implement and follow-up the recommendations issued by the Committee on its report adopted pursuant to proceedings under article 6 of the Optional Protocol (CRPD/C/15/R.2/Rev.1) and provide information to the Committee on the progress and achievements of the process every 12 months until the next periodic examination takes place.
  3. The Committee requests the State party to implement the recommendations contained in the present concluding observations. It recommends that the State party transmit the concluding observations for consideration and action to members of the Government and Parliament, officials in relevant ministries, devolved administrations, Crown Dependencies, Overseas Territories, local authorities, organizations of persons with disabilities and members of relevant professional groups, such as education, medical and legal professionals, as well as to the media, using modern social communication strategies.
  4. The Committee strongly encourages the State party to involve and financially support civil society organizations, in particular organizations of persons with disabilities, in the preparation of its periodic report.
  5. The Committee requests the State party to disseminate the present concluding observations widely, including to non-governmental organizations and representative organizations of persons with disabilities, and to persons with disabilities themselves and members of their families, in national and minority languages, including sign language, and in accessible formats, including Easy Read formats, and to make them available on the government website on human rights.

Next periodic report

  1. The Committee requests the State party to submit its combined second, third, and fourth reports by 8 July 2023 and to include in them information on the implementation of the recommendations made in the present concluding observations. The Committee invites the State party to consider submitting the above-mentioned reports under the Committee’s simplified reporting procedure, according to which the Committee prepares a list of issues at least one year prior to the due date set for the report of a State party. The replies of a State party to such a list of issues constitute its report.


                                *   As adopted during the eighteenth session of the Committee (14 -31 August 2017)


 Posted by at 13:42
Sep 042017

Press release – A ‘human catastrophe’ – New UN condemnation for UK disability rights record

31st AUGUST 2017
A ‘human catastrophe’ – New UN condemnation for UK human rights record
The UK Government’s claim to be a ‘world leader in disability issues’ has today been crushed by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Committee has released damning Concluding Observations on the UK, following its first Review of the government’s compliance with the Convention.
The highlights of the press conference held by the UN Committee on the Rights of Disabled People at this afternoon are:
·       The Committee has made the highest ever number of recommendations to the UK.
·       The UK’s retrogression in ensuring Independent Living is a major concern. There is not adequate funding, resulting in too much institutionalisation.
·       There is a significant problem with Deaf and disabled people’s standard of living. Disabled people continue to be disadvantaged in employment, and are not adequately compensated for disability by the state.
The Observations conclude last week’s public examination of the UK Government’s record on delivering disabled people’s rights. The examination was declared by the UK rapporteur Mr Stig Langvad, to be “the most challenging exercise in the history of the Committee”. Mr Langvad raised deep concerns on the UK Government’s failure to implement the rights of disabled people. He also noted the government’s “lack of recognition of the findings and recommendations of the (2016) Inquiry” which found ‘grave and systematic violations of disabled people’s human rights’.
Deaf and Disabled People’s Organisations (DDPOs) were hailed as the genuine “world leaders” for their efforts in bringing to light the injustices and human rights violations inflicted on disabled people in the UK.
The UK Delegation of Deaf and Disabled People’s Organisations has issued the following joint statement:
“Today the UN(CRPD) Committee has, once again, condemned the UK Government’s record on Deaf and Disabled People’s human rights. They have validated the desperation, frustration and outrage experienced by Deaf and Disabled people since austerity and welfare cuts began. It is not acceptable for the UK Government to ignore the strong and united message of the disability community.
UK Government representatives committed during the review to rethinking the way they support Deaf and Disabled People to monitor our rights. We welcome this commitment.  However, we are clear that our involvement must be genuine and inclusive and that we cannot accept anything less than progress on delivering the human rights enshrined in the Convention, and denied us for too long.
DDPOs have established themselves as a force to be reckoned with following a long campaign of challenging the Government’s blatant disregard for the lives of Deaf and disabled people in the UK. The unity and solidarity demonstrated by the Committee and the UK Independent Mechanism in supporting our calls for justice continue to strengthen us.”
Quotes from DPPOs:
Tara Flood, Director of the Alliance for Inclusive Education (ALLFIE) said, “We are delighted that the Committee has highlighted the Government’s shocking disregard for the human rights of Disabled children and young people to be included in mainstream education and we welcome the Committee’s call for a strategy to end the segregation and institutionalisation of children and young people from their families and communities. As the Chair of the Committee, Theresia Degener, stated last week ‘inclusive education is not a choice, it is a human right’. Our work to turn that right into a reality begins today with renewed energy and the force of the world alongside us!”
Dr Terry Riley OBE, Chairman of the British Deaf Association said, “We were impressed with the openness of the committee to listen to our evidence and apply their significant legal experience. Therefore we are glad to see that the committee has expressly recommended that the UK government finally legislate to protect language rights of deaf people.
So many of the committee’s remarks related to this, from failings in healthcare and education for deaf people, to the exclusion of deaf jurors. Deaf people have been passed over too long; there can now be no doubt that the government has been taken to task.
Without language rights, we have no human rights.”
Tracey Lazard, CEO of Inclusion London, said: “This is a damning verdict by UN disability rights experts on the failure of the UK Government  to protect or uphold Disabled people’s rights. The UN conclusions reflect Deaf and Disabled people’s our own lived experience, in stark contrast to the UK Government position which continues to be one of denial, spin, misinformation and frankly disdain for Disabled people and our organisations and the mountain of evidence that shows things are going terribly wrong, as well as disdain for the UN process itself. We very much hope that these damning concluding observations and recommendations will be the wake-up call the Government needs to begin pro-actively working with us to get the protection and implementation of our rights back on track and begin to restore justice and fairness to UK Government policy.”
Ellen Clifford, National Steering Group of Disabled People Against Cuts said: “The Concluding Observations reflect how seriously the UN disability committee are taking the situation in the UK, with the highest number of recommendations ever given by them. In the press conference today members again stated that the UK is going backwards in critical rights such as the right to live in the community with adequate support and the human cost of government austerity measures. They have also been clear in their expectation that the government needs to take on board the findings of their inquiry which found evidence of grave and systematic violations of Disabled people’s rights due to welfare reform. It is utterly shameful that this should be happening in one of the richest nations in the world. We all now need to take a stance that enough is enough and demand that the Government acknowledge reality.”
John McArdle and Dr Stephen Carty of the Scottish based Black Triangle Campaign in Defence of Disability Rights said:
‘Black Triangle Campaign has campaigned unrelentingly for the work capability assessment regime to be scrapped and was instrumental through our medical adviser Dr Stephen Carty of Edinburgh in making British Medical Association national policy in 2012 that, in the words of the motion which was passed and remains BMA national policy:
‘The WCA should be scrapped with immediate effect to be replaced with a rigorous and safe assessment regime that does not cause avoidable harm’ to sick and/or disabled people.
Today’s comment from the Chair of the CRPD as reported by Reuters News Agency that the fit for work assessment regime has created a “human catastrophe” for sick and/or disabled people confirms this.
The British government must now halt the assessment regime immediately and replace it working together with DDPOs and the BMA.
Not to do so will ensure that this catastrophic harm continues unabated.’
Equal Lives CEO, Mark Harrison said:
“We welcome this condemnation of UK Government policy towards disabled people by the UN. When the Chair of the disability committee described the situation that disabled people face as a ‘human catastrophe’ she was reflecting what Norfolk’s disability community has been experiencing over the last 7 years.  In a very short space of time we have gone from having some of the best rights in the world to a crisis situation where people are dying because of the barriers and discrimination caused by austerity.  Equal Lives is here to support disabled people of all ages to live as equal and active citizens.  We will continue to speak out and campaign for equality and justice until the Government recognises its responsibilities and changes course”.
Notes to editors:
·       The OHCHR Press Conference (Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) announcing the Concluding Observations takes place from 13:00 GMT:
·       The Concluding Observations will be published on the Committee’s webpage at 6pm GMT:
·       DDPOs across the UK have worked in coproduction to collect evidence and compile the reports through the Review process. The delegation of DDPOs present in Geneva w/c 21st August 2017 included Disability Rights UK, Inclusion Scotland, Disability Wales, Disability Action Northern Ireland, the Reclaiming our Futures Alliance, British Deaf Association, People First Scotland, Alliance for Inclusive Education, Disabled People Against Cuts, Inclusion London, Equal Lives, Black Triangle, Sisters of Frida, Black Mental Health UK.
·       Contributions were also received from Innovations in Dementia, HFT and Intersex NGO Coalition.
·       On 23rd and 24th August the examination of the UK Government took place in Geneva, with the UN Committee on the Rights of Disabled People. The report of the dialogue can be found here, with links to submission documents:
·       The committee postponed its assessment of the UK (originally due in 2015) to investigate a complaint of the violation of disabled people’s rights as a result of welfare reform. This was brought under the optional protocol of the Convention. The findings expressed concern of grave and systematic violations of disabled people’s human rights. That investigation looked only at a part of the UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled People – with a particular focus on the impact of austerity measures and welfare reform. The Review looked at a much wider set of issues, including our laws on mental health and mental capacity, policies on employment and education and more.
·       A lay person’s guide to the Review process and Examination can be found here:
 Posted by at 13:35