Coronavirus: Disabled people face discrimination from COVID traffic schemes
Councils and other public bodies across England are failing to consult disabled people before approving “discriminatory” measures designed to aid social distancing and encourage cyclists and pedestrians, say campaigners.
They have warned that public bodies are ignoring their duties under the Equality Act, and are making life more difficult for disabled people, including wheelchair-users and those who are partially-sighted.
The changes are being introduced across the country under cover of the COVID-19 pandemic, using the crisis as an excuse not to consult with disabled people.
Critics say the measures are often rushed, poorly planned and discriminatory.
Fazilet Hadi, policy manager for Disability Rights UK, said: “Changes to town and city centres are causing major accessibility challenges to disabled people: tables, chairs and signage on pavements, which need to be navigated around; temporary schemes to widen pavements and create cycle lanes with unclear and unsafe demarcation; and banning of cars from streets, excluding disabled people from shops and other services.
“For significant numbers of disabled people, parts of towns and cities have become no-go areas.
“It is totally unacceptable that planning authorities are excluding thousands of disabled and older citizens from participating in the life of our community.”
Broadcaster, campaigner and access consultant Mik Scarlet, who lives in north London, has highlighted temporary measures introduced by Transport for London near his home in Camden, north London, which have narrowed major roads for cars and lorries, supposedly to increase space for cyclists and pedestrians.
But Scarlet pointed to a lack of proper dropped kerbs and the loss of blue badge parking spaces, while he said hailing a taxi has become almost impossible in places, and partially-sighted people have suddenly been faced with entirely new road layouts.
He told Disability News Service (DNS): “It’s not just London, it’s everywhere.
“The amount of stuff that’s coming now from Manchester, from Newcastle, from York, little towns are doing it.
“We want a greener society, all disabled people do, but… for us, the pavements are far more important than cycle lanes.
“I think there are going to be a lot of people taking their councils to court.”
He said no thought had been put into the measures being taken in Camden and across the country.
He said: “We are just not being talked to. I can’t believe how little consultation and basic communication there has been.”
Scarlet said he believed that when disabled activists started coming out of shielding and noticed what had happened to access in their local areas they would have “a real shock”.
He said: “Eventually we will start coming out en masse and I think that that’s when things will get more vocal.”
In York, the short-notice pedestrianisation of several streets in the city centre, and the removal of blue badge parking spaces, led to the new York Disability Rights Forum warning last week (PDF) that the changes could discriminate against disabled people.
Among the measures introduced by the council was a free shuttle taxi service that picks up blue badge holders from a carpark and takes them to the city centre.
But among the forum’s concerns were the failure to consult with disabled people, and the lack of clarity (PDF) on how the measures would work and how safe they were.
The council claims that the drivers “regular disinfect the taxis” during the day, but there has been no clarity on how often this is happening.
Helen Jones, a disabled campaigner and blue badge-holder from York, told DNS: “City of York Council have drastically changed blue badge parking in the city centre, forcing disabled people to park outside the city walls and use a shuttle system.
“Yet they have provided no information about the shuttle, beyond its existence, and so blue badge holders are unable to make an informed decision about whether they can, or should, use the shuttle.
“Further, these significant changes were communicated after they had been made and the leaflet was already out of date when it was received by many blue badge holders.
“The language within it was patronising, used the medical model of disability and put the onus on disabled people to understand and shoulder the burden of the changes.”
Another disabled driver said the council had not considered the fact that, because of COVID-19, disabled drivers “require their independent access even more to protect themselves from contagion when travelling into York”.
Concerns have also been raised about the actions of Lichfield District Council in Staffordshire, again including a lack of consultation.
The council has temporarily suspended all blue badge parking bays in Lichfield city centre – and created more parking for blue badge holders instead in a nearby car park – “to allow for better social distancing”.
A councillor subsequently told the local news website Lichfield Live: “Disabled shoppers and businesses are paying the price for this.
“Indeed, I’ve heard of at least one person who is going to shop in a more disabled-friendly town in future because of this decision.”
Comments on the website from local disabled residents appeared to back that up.
One said she would not be shopping in Lichfield again.
Another said: “Disabled people like myself go to town when we need to.
“Can’t walk more than 100 yards so now can’t get to the bank, the pharmacy, the opticians and the market.
“Businesses really need all the help and support it can get which a lot of retired and disabled people can give.”
In London, the campaigning, user-led organisation Transport for All (TfA) spoke out about the failure to ensure access for disabled people as part of the mayor of London’s major new traffic restrictions around Bishopsgate in central London.
TfA said in a statement issued on social media: “We fully support attempts to reduce pollution, promote active travel, and avoid a car-based recovery.
“However, far more needs to be done to ensure that disabled people are not negatively impacted by these changes, in an increasingly hostile and difficult transport system.”
It added: “Disabled people were not consulted before these changes were designed and implemented, but will once again have to feedback with problems after they arise.”
Last month, TfA held its online TravelTalks event, with disabled people from across the UK taking part.
It looked at the impact of COVID-19 on the street environment and disabled people’s ability to move around their local areas.
In a report based on the event, TfA’s chief executive, Kirsty Hoyle, said disabled people were seeing “huge changes that impact accessibility”, including low traffic zones, relocation of bus stops, makeshift cycle lanes, and more street clutter.
She added: “At a time when many disabled people are shielding or otherwise not physically outside and accessing streetspaces, there’s a real fear that disabled voices are not present in decision making.”
The event highlighted the lack of consultation with disabled people and the need for clear information about changes to the street environment.
The user-led charity for disabled cyclists, Wheels for Wellbeing, also raised concerns last month that disabled people’s need for “safe, accessible walking, wheeling, and cycling space” was “not being put front and centre in post-lockdown plans”, which it said could have “disastrous consequences”.
Transport for London (TfL), City of York Council and Lichfield District Council have all defended the measures they have taken during the pandemic.
Sam Monck, TfL’s head of investment delivery planning for healthy streets, said: “We’re absolutely determined to make sure that our temporary Streetspace schemes introduced in response to coronavirus are inclusive and benefit everybody in London.
“All of our cycle schemes are designed to be accessible to adapted cycles and our schemes also undergo an equality impact assessment to ensure that they are inclusive.
“We will continue to work closely with our stakeholders on our Streetspace plans and would urge people to contact us with any feedback on the changes.”
A spokesperson for City of York Council said: “These are unprecedented times and we are not able to undertake the level of engagement with residents and groups as we would like.
“This has been the case with many of the transport measures that have been introduced.
“Our priority has been protecting lives and protecting jobs.”
He added: “We have specifically invested over £19,000 [since the start of the pandemic] in helping to ensure disabled residents are still able to access the city centre.
“We appreciate, given the need for timely intervention, we have not been able to address these concerns completely and we committed at the time of implementation to continue to work with representatives from all those with access requirements as the crisis continues.”
Lichfield council said it had taken advice on its blue badge measures from the accessibility information provider AccessAble, but it is not clear whether that advice was accepted and acted on.
Councillor Doug Pullen, leader of Lichfield council, said: “We recently made changes to the allocation of blue badge parking bays within Lichfield city centre to improve social distancing measures for pedestrians.
“In so doing, we gave consideration to advice provided by AccessAble, to continue to meet the needs of blue badge holders together with government advice on managing public spaces safely as a result of COVID-19.
“We have reserved 42 car parking spaces for blue badge holders across the two nearest car parks, which are both accessible and within the city centre, so are good alternatives.
“Many of our blue badge holders understand we need to consider the needs of all our shoppers and visitors, but we know for some it is an extra challenge and we are aware of the comments and feedback received from both blue badge holders and businesses.
“We are continuing to monitor pedestrian movements and behaviour.
“This will help inform whether we retain or change the arrangements.”
Anna Nelson, executive director of AccessAble, said: “AccessAble has recently begun working in partnership with Lichfield District Council to see how accessibility can be improved and promoted across the district.
“As part of that work AccessAble was asked to provide guidance on the potential relocation of blue badge parking bays as part of the council’s response to COVID-19.
“AccessAble’s advice followed best practice and guidance, as set out in BS 8300, and highlighted the need for bays to be positioned close to key amenities (within 50 metres) and on a route that is both accessible and allows for social distancing.
“The report was submitted for consideration as part of a wider discussion around supporting local businesses and implementing government guidelines.
“Our understanding is that the parking situation in Lichfield is being kept under review.”
6 August 2020
EHRC papers show it sidelined its own board on WCA death inquiry decision
The equality and human rights watchdog failed to consult its board, or its disabled advisers, before deciding to delay an inquiry into the government’s work capability assessment and its links with the deaths of benefit claimants, new documents have revealed.
The decision by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) was taken only by the senior staff members on its executive group, with no attempt to consult the watchdog’s chair, its other commissioners or its disability advisory committee (DAC).
The only member of the EHRC board involved in the decision was its chief executive, Rebecca Hilsenrath, papers released to Disability News Service (DNS) under the Freedom of Information Act have revealed.
The EHRC papers confirm that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) inquiry has now been “deprioritised” and that the commission accepts that this decision could have a “detrimental impact on stakeholder relationships”.
One of the EHRC papers released to DNS reveals that among the principles the commission used to prioritise its work through the pandemic was whether it was “critical to our international standing or reputation”.
The papers also reveal that the postponed inquiry was to look specifically at “DWP work capability assessments decision making”, a focus of attention for disabled activists over the last decade and right at the centre of links between DWP’s actions and the avoidable deaths of benefit claimants.
DNS had asked to see the minutes of relevant meetings where the issue was discussed, and the names of individuals and organisations the commission consulted in reaching its decision, including advisers and board members.
But the commission only provided minutes from meetings of its executive group, and a letter sent on 24 June to Labour’s Debbie Abrahams which told the MP that it was “not possible for us to undertake an inquiry in relation to the DWP during this business year”.
Abrahams first approached EHRC in April 2019 with her concerns about links between the actions of DWP and the deaths of benefit claimants.
EHRC also released a paper to DNS that was to be presented to the EHRC board, but that was for a meeting that took place on 2 July, after the WCA inquiry decision had already been taken.
An EHRC spokesperson confirmed this week that the decision not to go ahead with the inquiry this year had been taken before the 2 July board meeting took place, when the “outcomes of the reprioritisation process” were rubber-stamped.
DNS had understood that the issue of why the inquiry was delayed was to be raised at the DAC’s meeting last month, but so far none of the committee members contacted by DNS has been willing to comment or say whether it was discussed.
The EHRC spokesperson refused to say what action the committee took at the meeting on 16 July and whether the inquiry was discussed.
As part of its freedom of information request, DNS also asked for the “intelligence and data mapping” that EHRC previously said it had used as a basis for the changes to its business plan, but nothing matching that description has been released.
There was anger and concern at EHRC’s actions this week from some of the grassroots groups of disabled activists that have spent years calling for an inquiry and highlighting links between DWP and the deaths of claimants.
Linda Burnip, co-founder of Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC), said: “The lack of any effective action from EHRC to try to protect disabled people’s rights is totally unacceptable.
“They remain as useless as ever.”
DPAC’s Paula Peters added: “It’s absolutely outrageous that EHRC has failed to act to protect disabled people’s human rights and has delayed calling for an independent benefit deaths inquiry.
“Every human being who has died from the distress and worry of the WCA and its outcome is etched in our hearts and minds.”
She said the fight must continue to hold the government to account for the impact of the “horrendous assessments” on disabled people’s lives.
Claire Glasman, from WinVisible, which supports and campaigns for disabled women, said EHRC’s actions showed that it was “clearly not independent of government”.
And Carole Ford, from WOWcampaign, said the EHRC decision could mean more deaths like those of Jodey Whiting – who took her own life 15 days after she had her out-of-work disability benefits mistakenly stopped by DWP for missing a WCA – and Errol Graham, who starved to death after his out-of-work disability benefits were wrongly removed by DWP, as a result of flaws in the WCA process.
Ford said there had been anecdotal reports that some of the WCA struggles faced by disabled people in recent months had been the “last straw” before they died from COVID-19 and may even have contributed to their deaths.
She said that any EHRC work examining the inequalities exacerbated by COVID-19 would be “an incomplete undertaking” if the commission failed to hold an inquiry into deaths linked to the WCA.
And she added: “Is the EHRC really saying that it prioritises its work according to whether it affects its international reputation, so that domestic benefit injustices can be swept under the carpet?”
Ian Jones, also from WOWcampaign, said: “So the EHRC refuses to investigate DWP deaths because it doesn’t want to upset the government.
“Who can disabled people turn to to stop governmental failure to safeguard disabled people?”
The EHRC spokesperson said: “The coronavirus pandemic has laid bare serious equality and human rights issues across the country.
“We have had to make very difficult decisions at pace to respond to the crisis and unfortunately this did not allow for comprehensive consultation with all of the stakeholder groups affected by our decision to pause our efforts to scope an inquiry into discrimination in DWP decision making this year.
“Both board and members of the DAC were updated on our plans to refocus our business plan so that we could respond to the emerging pandemic.
“It is essential we respond to the serious issues which coronavirus and the resulting response have caused for people with protected characteristics, including disabled people.
“We will revisit [the DWP inquiry] when we update our business plan for next financial year in March 2021.”
She said that minutes from disability advisory committee meetings were published on the commission’s website, but that the minutes from the 16 July meeting needed to be formally agreed at the 11 November meeting before they could be published.
6 August 2020
DWP urged to ‘come clean’ on how many will lose out under universal credit
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is refusing to release figures showing how many disabled people will lose out when universal credit (UC) is fully implemented, even though ministers have repeatedly stated how many will gain from the new system.
DWP’s failure to release the figures is now being examined by the statistics regulator, the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR), after its attention was drawn to the DWP refusal by Disability News Service (DNS).
OSR is already assessing the quality of some of the other benefits statistics produced by DWP*.
DNS has been trying for more than nine months to persuade DWP to release figures that would show how many disabled people are expected to lose out in the move to the new, delayed and much-criticised universal credit system.
The latest attempt by DNS, in June this year, told DWP that ministers had made clear that around one million disabled households would receive a higher entitlement under UC than they would have received under the previous system.
The minister for disabled people, Justin Tomlinson, made exactly that comment last October, telling Labour’s Debbie Abrahams: “Around one million disabled households will gain, on average, £100 a month on universal credit compared with legacy benefits.”
But after DNS asked in the freedom of information request how many disabled households would receive a lower entitlement under UC, DWP said in its response that it “does not have the information to be able to answer” the question.
It also said it would be too expensive to say how additional monthly payments would vary for those who would previously have received the various disability premiums through the employment and support allowance (ESA) work-related activity group, but were now receiving payments as part of the equivalent UC group.
When asked about DWP’s failure to provide the information, an OSR spokesperson told DNS this week: “OSR is considering the issue.”
Vicky Foxcroft, Labour’s shadow minister for disabled people, said: “It’s time DWP ministers come clean about the data they hold.
“If they are able to confirm who will be better off under universal credit compared to legacy benefits, they should also be able to tell us who will be worse off.
“The department will not truly understand the impact of universal credit on disabled people without clear data.
“The DWP need to urgently fix this issue and be honest with disabled people about the changeover to universal credit.”
Campaigners also demanded to know why DWP was being allowed to say only how many disabled people would benefit from the move to UC, but not how many would lose out.
Freedom of information campaigner John Slater, who has spent years probing DWP for information about UC, said: “The DWP talks about having a ‘transparency agenda’ for universal credit.
“However, it is now clear that this means information only being released on terms set by the DWP.
“This means it decides what information is placed in the public domain and when.
“Sadly, the DWP claiming that it would cost too much to provide information that might be critical is all too familiar and should worry us all.
“As Lord Jenkins of Putney put it in a debate about the security services in 1986: ‘I consider it wrong to deprive the electorate of information about the processes of government, for where they are bad they remain bad and get worse in the dark.’
“The DWP has been rightly criticised about its use of misleading statistics and it wouldn’t surprise me to find out that it’s trying to mislead people about the impact that UC is having on disabled people.”
Welfare rights expert Nick Dilworth was also highly critical.
He said: “There was a time under the ESA regime where you could learn quite a bit about the impact of the treacherous work capability assessment upon disabled people.
“Previously, there was more data available, allowing for more of an assessment upon disabled people to be made in general, but in the DWP’s overly positive promotion of universal credit it is exceptionally disappointing to see data reduced to a point where meaningful analysis is made far more difficult, if not impossible.
“It is no longer acceptable for the DWP to be calling these [universal credit] data sets ‘experimental’.
“UC has been in place since 2013 and as such we should be seeing a much greater range of information so we can truly assess the real dangers people face under a system which has time and time again been shown to be failing disabled people.
“Disabled people deserve far better than this.
“UC is meant to be a digital revolution; it is astonishing that the DWP seem unable to extrapolate more information than is currently freely available.”
A DWP spokesperson refused to answer questions about the freedom of information response.
DWP is also accused of failing to provide other key statistics about the impact of its policies on disabled people.
Although it publishes figures showing how many ESA claimants in the work-related activity group are having their benefits sanctioned – with the proportion of claimants falling sharply between 2014 and 2019 – it is continuing to refuse to publish equivalent figures showing how many disabled people have been sanctioned after being placed in the equivalent UC group, for those with limited capability for work.
*OSR’s assessment of the quality of benefits statistics includes DWP’s figures on ESA, disability living allowance and housing benefit, but not personal independence payment, UC or benefit sanctions. The deadline to send comments to OSR is 21 August.
6 August 2020
Disabled woman wins year-long battle with DWP after PIP cancer ordeal
A disabled woman of colour had her disability benefits removed for failing to attend a face-to-face assessment, even though she had repeatedly explained that she was not well enough to attend because she was being treated for cancer.
Rita* has now been awarded nearly £11,500 in backdated benefits after a year-long struggle with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the private assessment company Capita.
Her case will give hope to other disabled people who have had their entitlement to benefits stripped away because they were unable to attend face-to-face assessments.
Disability News Service (DNS) has been unable to confirm the details of the case with DWP, because Rita did not want to share her personal details.
But DNS has seen a redacted copy of correspondence from DWP, which confirms the award of the backdated PIP payments, and has been briefed by the user-led grassroots organisation WinVisible**, which has years of experience in supporting disabled benefit claimants.
Rita’s ordeal follows the case of another disabled woman, Jane*, who spent two years fighting for her benefits to be reinstated after they were removed for failing to attend a face-to-face assessment, and which again involved Capita.
Like Jane, Rita was supported by WinVisible.
WinVisible warned earlier this year that disabled people who cannot attend face-to-face assessments for health reasons or after surviving trauma or even abuse or sexual violence had become “easy targets” for DWP.
Rita, from Cambridgeshire, had previously been receiving the highest rates of disability living allowance for more than 10 years, before being moved onto the new personal independence payment (PIP) in 2015.
She was awarded the standard daily living and enhanced mobility rates of PIP, but decided it was too stressful to appeal against the standard rate decision.
When she was diagnosed with cancer in August 2018, she informed both DWP and Capita about the diagnosis, and that she was too unwell to attend a face-to-face assessment.
She said this week: “In August 2018, I developed cancer, the effects of which were crushing fatigue and bouts of depression.
“In shock, for I thought nothing worse could happen, I found it difficult to cope with the treatment, worsening pain, angina and had no strength to do anything.
“From September till March 2019, I was unable to leave my home.
“I was sent appointments by Capita, but explained to them that I couldn’t attend because of the effects of cancer, and its treatment.”
But in June 2019, DWP stopped Rita’s PIP – without notice and without sending her a letter explaining the decision – for failing to comply with the assessment process.
She says she had never been sent a form to allow her to explain why she had been unable to attend the assessments, and that Capita failed to note her explanations on its system.
The decision to remove her PIP – which also led to her severe disability premium being cut – left her in debt.
A year ago, she tried writing to the then work and pensions secretary, Amber Rudd, but received no reply.
Last November, she contacted WinVisible when she was facing the threat of losing her Motability vehicle.
She needed the car to attend radiotherapy appointments, which took place in another city.
But she was appalled when a DWP mandatory reconsideration rubber-stamped the decision to remove her PIP.
WinVisible was able to contact the DWP official who had helped with the other “failure to attend” case and he arranged in January for Rita’s PIP claim to be referred back to Capita.
In March, following a complaint to its customer relations team, Capita finally agreed to carry out a paper-based assessment of Rita’s claim.
She has now finally learned that she will be awarded the highest rates of PIP, for both daily living and mobility, and will receive backpayments of more than £8,000 for PIP and more than £3,300 for severe disability premium.
Rita said she had been through “a year-long ordeal”.
She said: “While some of the staff were kind, most couldn’t care less.
“I was close to a complete breakdown, and if it weren’t for [WinVisible’s] help, I don’t know how I would have survived.
“I would not have managed to get the result without their help. Nothing was too much trouble for them.
“At times, I would feel very down, but they were always there for me.”
Claire Glasman, from WinVisible, said: “Rita was cruelly cut off when she needed benefits the most.
“We don’t know whether racism was a factor as well as sexism and disability discrimination, as officials often assume women are exaggerating illnesses.
“Being labelled uncooperative and cut off for ‘failure to attend’ interviews when we are ill, in mental distress or in hospital treatment is a huge problem.”
She pointed out that Capita was “slammed” for its assessment performance by the Commons work and pensions committee in a report in early 2018, which also criticised the other assessment providers, Atos and Maximus.
Glasman said: “That inquiry received thousands of angry testimonies from claimants, but Capita’s contract has just been extended for the third time, along with Atos and Maximus, who were also criticised [in the committee’s report].
“People are furious that the assessment companies and DWP are brutal to sick and disabled people in their time of need.”
*Not her real name
**WinVisible is based in London but is often contacted by disabled women across England, Scotland and Wales, and welcomes volunteers, with its casework and advocacy financially supported by the Oak Foundation and the National Lottery Community Fund
6 August 2020
Holiday Inn hotel plans to rip out hoist from its only accessible bathroom
The multi-national company behind Holiday Inn is to investigate why one of its hotels made the “discriminatory” decision to remove a ceiling hoist from its only accessible bathroom.
Holiday Inn’s Bloomsbury hotel in central London – close to two major London hospitals – does not have any rooms with wheel-in showers, but it does have one room with a ceiling-hoist in the bedroom and bathroom that allows wheelchair-users to use the bath.
But the owners of the hotel – which is run under a franchise agreement – now plan to rip out the ceiling hoist when the rental contract with the supplier expires at the end of this month.
Nicky*, a wheelchair-user who uses the hotel frequently when she needs to visit the nearby National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, was appalled when she was told about the hoist being removed.
She said the move appeared to be about “money-saving” and was clearly discriminatory.
She has been using the hotel room several times a year since 2015, and last stayed there in February for three nights while she attended two hospital appointments.
She said: “Each time we always stay at least one night, because I can’t go there and back in one day.”
She said the hotel was convenient for her because it was near the hospital.
In June, she placed a booking for one night in late July and was told that the room with the ceiling hoist was available.
But last month she was told the hotel was delaying reopening after the pandemic crisis until this month and so she cancelled the booking.
Her appointment was eventually carried out by telephone, so she did not need to travel to London last month.
But when she checked that the ceiling hoist would be available when the hotel did eventually reopen, she was told it would only be “available until end of August, then the rent will [expire] and the owners have decided not to renew”.
Now she has been left hunting for another hotel with an accessible room that is close to the hospital, in time for her next face-to-face appointment, which will probably be in November.
Nicky said: “They have made their choice. I imagine it’s a money-saving choice.
“They haven’t said they are going to remove the hoist but put in a room with a walk-in shower; they have said they are just going to remove the facility that is there and that people have been using for years.
“I am really sad because we have had something that has worked well for a number of years; we have been quite loyal customers.
“It’s like we don’t really matter. They have decided that it doesn’t matter that I can’t have a bath or a shower while I’m there.”
When contacted by Disability News Service (DNS), InterContinental Hotels Group (IHG), which owns the Holiday Inn brand, originally claimed that the room was still accessible because the hotel had a mobile hoist.
But Nicky was told when she first visited the hotel that the mobile hoist could not be used with the bath, which is why she has always used the room with the ceiling hoist.
When DNS pointed this out, IHG then claimed that because the ceiling hoist was “malfunctioning on a regular basis… the hotel took the decision to replace [it] with portable hoists”.
An IHG spokesperson said: “Unfortunately, the portable hoists are not able to be used with the bath.
“We appreciate the feedback from the guest and will keep our approach under review.”
When DNS pointed out that the portable hoists had been in use for several years, the spokesperson added later: “We have been informed by the franchise operator that they have taken measures to accommodate disabled guests.
“We will investigate this important matter further and will follow up appropriately with the hotel operator should there be any potential breach of disability law.”
*She has asked for her full name not to be used
6 August 2020
Round-up: Autistic children, looming jobs crisis, social care evidence… and Baywatch
At least 41 local authorities across England have unlawful policies that prevent autistic children from obtaining an assessment of their support needs, according to a new report.
The report (PDF) by Disability Law Service, Leeds University’s School of Law, the disability charity Cerebra and the BBC, says the councils are discriminating against autistic children by refusing an assessment unless they have another impairment or a formal diagnosis of autism.
Sir Ed Davey MP, acting leader of the Liberal Democrats and a patron of Disability Law Service, has written an open letter, which describes the policies as “unlawful, discriminatory and unacceptable” and calls on councils to review their policies and ensure they are clear and easily accessible.
The campaign has not yet named any individual local authority, but Sir Ed is to write to each of the 41 councils identified in the study to give them a chance to respond and amend their policies.
A coalition of nine disability organisations has called on the government to take urgent action to avoid a “looming employment crisis” among disabled young people.
In a joint letter, they warn that, because of the impact of the pandemic, disabled young people will be hit by the “double disadvantage” of discrimination and more competition for jobs, and the risk of long-term unemployment, when they try to move from education to employment, unless the government acts.
The coalition – led by National Deaf Children’s Society (NDCS) and including the disabled people’s organisation Disability Rights UK – wants to see the government make changes to its Plan for Jobs, which was released last month.
Among their recommendations, they want to see careers advisors trained to work with disabled people; online job searching made more accessible; and the £1,000 incentive for businesses taking on apprentices to be extended to all disabled young people, rather than just those with education, health and care plans.
NDCS estimates there are more than 500,000 disabled young people aged 16-25 in the UK.
A Citizen’s Advice survey has found that some disabled people are at least twice as likely to face redundancy as non-disabled people.
The survey of more than 6,000 people across the UK found that one in six (17 per cent) of the working-age population is facing redundancy.
But the proportion facing losing their jobs rises to 27 per cent for disabled people, and 37 per cent for disabled people whose impairment has a significant impact on their day-to-day life.
The proportion rises even higher for those who have been shielding, with half (48 per cent) of those who are clinically extremely vulnerable to COVID-19 at risk of redundancy.
Carers and parents (39 per cent) are also at sharply increased risk of redundancy, says Citizen’s Advice.
Jamie McGlynn, contact centre manager at Citizens Advice Manchester, said: “We’re seeing a lot of redundancy issues, but it gives you a sinking feeling when someone who’s been shielding, is a carer or has young kids tells you they’ve been picked as the first to go.
“People are absolutely wracked with worry. One lady with underlying health conditions told her employer she felt unsafe about returning to work as another worker had COVID symptoms but wasn’t isolating. The next week she had her redundancy notice through.”
A disabled women’s organisation has called for an abolition of care charges, an end to the “profit-making market” in social care, and the development instead of a system of free, flexible, high-quality support, with disabled people able to decide “what support we need and from whom”.
The call came in evidence submitted to the Commons health and social care select committee by WinVisible, which supports and campaigns for disabled women.
WinVisible made clear in its submission that it opposed “the integration of health and social care into one huge monolith which will make institutional life-and-death decisions over our heads”.
It added: “We are not objects to be placed wherever professionals dictate.
“We are continually fighting against institutions and uncaring professionals.
“The assumption that professionals know what’s best for us is patronising and discriminatory. We want to decide what support we need and from whom.”
The evidence was submitted as part of the committee’s inquiry into the social care funding needed over the next five years, shortages in the social care workforce, and the long-term reforms needed to social care funding.
A disabled motorists’ charity has launched its annual survey of the levels of abuse of accessible parking bays.
Disabled Motoring UK (DMUK) usually asks those taking part in its Baywatch surveys to visit supermarket carparks and count how many vehicles are parking in accessible bays without displaying a blue badge.
But this year, because of the pandemic crisis, DMUK is instead asking blue badge-holders to take part in an online survey during August, answering questions about their parking experiences at supermarkets and on “everyday journeys” over the last 12 months, and the impact of the pandemic on blue badge spaces.
DMUK will use the survey results to tackle supermarkets and other parking providers over their policies on parking for disabled people.
Baroness [Tanni] Grey-Thompson, who supports the campaign, said: “It’s so sad that Disabled Motoring UK has to run its Baywatch campaign.
“Disabled bay enforcement should be mandatory, especially for the big supermarkets that can afford to invest in policing their car parks.
“I see disabled parking abuse every day, it’s never a surprise to me, including at my local supermarket.
“There is a real lack of understanding about how essential these bays are to disabled people and I applaud DMUK’s Baywatch campaign as it plays a vital role in highlighting the issue of disabled parking abuse at supermarkets.”
6 August 2020
News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com
