Disabled people ‘treated as afterthought again’, as England heads into second lockdown
The government has treated disabled people who are at particular risk from coronavirus as an afterthought as the country heads into lockdown, just as it did in the early weeks of the pandemic, say campaigners.
Disabled campaigners spoke out yesterday as new government guidance for those seen as clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) to the virus was rushed out less than 24 hours before a new England-wide lockdown that began today (Thursday).
There are already concerns about the content of the guidance, its accessibility, its apparent focus on leaving support to over-stretched local authorities, and its reliance on supermarket deliveries to ensure that CEV people have access to food and other vital supplies.
There are also concerns about the financial support being offered to employed CEV people who are unable to work from home but are being advised to stay at home as much as possible and not attend their workplace.
The guidance says this group may be eligible for statutory sick pay, employment and support allowance, universal credit or the government’s job furlough scheme.
The new guidance “strongly” advises all those in the CEV group to stay at home at all times, unless for exercise or doctors’ appointments.
But it also says that those living with someone who is CEV can still attend work if they cannot work from home, and that children who live with someone who is CEV, but who are not CEV themselves, should still attend school.
Although the guidance suggests that local authorities will be responsible for ensuring access to support for those in the CEV group, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) announced just £32 million in new government funding to help local councils provide that support over the next month.
It also announced a new online service which will allow CEV people to request priority access to supermarket delivery slots or tell their council they need help.
And DHSC said that people with chronic kidney disease (stage five) and those undergoing dialysis, as well as adults with Down’s syndrome, were being added to the CEV list by the NHS because of “new evidence about groups more likely to be at risk of serious illness from COVID-19”,
But disabled campaigners have raised significant concerns about the government’s apparent failure to treat those in the CEV group as anything more than an afterthought.
Svetlana Kotova, director of campaigns and justice at Inclusion London, told Disability News Service (DNS): “We welcome the guidance and the fact that the government is giving local authorities money for extra support for people who shield.
“However, we are yet to see how this support will work in practice.
“The timing of this guidance is irresponsibly late given the large increases in cases.
“Extra support should have been made available much earlier, since so many were already shielding. Yet again it feels like those who are shielding are an afterthought.”
She added: “It is also disappointing that the guidance does not mandate that shielders who work and cannot work from home must be put on furlough, so that they are not pushed into poverty by having to rely on statutory sick pay.
“It is also important to remember that many people really struggled to get on the government’s [CEV] list and it is really important to ensure those who shield, but are not on the list, get support as well.”
Fazilet Hadi, head of policy for Disability Rights UK, said: “New shielding guidance has been digitally issued with only hours to go before lockdown.
“Well over two million people will be affected by this guidance, but a significant number of those need it in a non-electronic format.
“Given the rapid increase of infection rates and the fact that new conditions have been added to the list, it feels like the people who need the most support have been left to the eleventh hour.”
She added: “All shielders are urged to shop online and to get medicines delivered.
“We know that some supermarkets have changed the parameters of their priority deliveries for shielders, including increasing the cost of minimum spend – something those on lower incomes will struggle with.
“And unless things are very different to April, new shielders could be waiting a long time for their online shopping.”
She also raised concerns about those in the CEV group who have children.
She said: “For shielders with children, the guidance says that children should continue to go to school, which seems strange advice, given the minimum contact shielders should have with the outside world.”
The grassroots disabled people’s organisation Bristol Reclaiming Independent Living (BRIL) said its members “were now beyond being disappointed with the government’s responses and communication”.
BRIL highlighted how the prime minister had been unable to answer a question from Labour’s Stella Creasy on Monday after she had asked about a mum who is CEV but works in a supermarket and cannot be furloughed, and “is worried that if she shields again, she will lose her job, but if she does not, she will lose her life”.
BRIL said the government had then issued guidance apparently without versions in easy read or British Sign Language, and apparently so far only available to those with online access.
It added: “Publishing something called ‘Guidance on shielding and protecting people who are clinically extremely vulnerable from COVID-19’, when people are now being told not to shield, but basically to ‘be careful’, is not only confusing but potentially dangerous.
“The government and Department of Health and Social Care are fully aware of their legal duties to produce accessible information, but seem to either have learned nothing over the last eight months, or are just indifferent to the needs of disabled people.”
The BRIL spokesperson added: “Many disabled and chronically ill people were ‘missed off’ the original clinically extremely vulnerable or shielding list despite being at high risk.
“As a result, many people struggled to get on priority shopping lists, get support with collecting medication and faced additional anxiety.
“BRIL are being contacted by people who are really worried about ‘lockdown 2’ and the impact it might have on them and their families.
“Once again, disabled people, chronically ill people, organisations and charities at breaking point have been left to explain what is happening and fill in the gaps. Frankly, it is not OK to do this.”
Artist-activist Jess Thom said on Twitter that the government’s guidance was “last minute and impractical”.
She said it failed to say anything about access to personal protective equipment for those who can’t socially distance, Access To Work, the use of the furlough scheme by personal assistants, “family members in high risk occupations” and “shielders in risky home situations”.
Fran Springfield, co-chair of Disability Labour, who has left her home only four times – for medical appointments – since the beginning of March, said she was “very unimpressed” with the new guidelines.
She said she feared many CEV people will not secure the support they need, either through friends, family or their local authority, to ensure they can obtain the supplies they need.
She said: “Once again, this cruel and heartless government has failed to provide any real support for those who are most clinically vulnerable.”
She said she also feared that “compassion fatigue” had set in among volunteers since the last lockdown.
She said: “With winter coming and too many people having to make a choice between eating and heating, leaving clinically vulnerable people with no support can only end in needless and preventable deaths.”
Kathy Bole, her fellow co-chair, said she believed the new guidance was being sent out too late.
She said: “The government is still sending out mixed messages and it will be those least able to cope who will suffer.”
Disabled campaigner Fleur Perry, who has been shielding since March, said: “I’m glad that action has been taken to make sure that support is available to shielders, at least on paper.
“Whether the language is clear enough and the response from local authorities and businesses will be appropriate remains to be seen.
“Nothing will personally change for me, as I have been continuing to shield for several months. I look forward to the figures going down.”
Meanwhile, the UK government’s failure to treat disabled people as a priority, despite nearly three-fifths of COVID-related deaths so far being of disabled people, appears to be mirrored across the House of Commons.
After the prime minister delivered his statement about the new lockdown on Monday, 100 MPs asked questions.
Of those 100 MPs, 18 asked questions about the government’s furlough employment scheme, but – according to DNS calculations – only three asked questions about the protection being offered to those who are CEV or previously shielded from the virus.
There were 53 mentions of the word “business” or “businesses” during the two hour-plus session, but not one mention of “disabled” people or “disability”, while apparently only one MP (Labour’s Barbara Keeley) asked about social care.
5 November 2020
BBC’s disabled-led ‘benefit cheat’ drama causes anger and disbelief
Disabled activists have spoken of their anger and distress after the BBC broadcast a drama – starring one of the country’s best-known disabled actors – that they say mirrors years of deeply damaging government rhetoric about benefit cheats.
The BBC Four drama, starring disabled actor and campaigner Liz Carr, is part of a month-long season of BBC programmes marking the 25th anniversary of the Disability Discrimination Act.
Her monologue – one of the six-part CripTales series – was written by a disabled playwright, Tom Wentworth, and had a disabled director, Ewan Marshall.
Another leading disabled actor, Mat Fraser, was “curator” of the CripTales series.
Both Carr and Fraser have previously spoken publicly about the government’s welfare reforms and its treatment of disabled benefit claimants.
Carr’s monologue, The Real Deal, was the second episode in the CripTales series.
It features her character spying on a disabled neighbour who she believes is committing personal independence payment (PIP) fraud, and ends with her informing the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).
Nearly 10 years ago, in February 2011, Carr told fellow activists at a rally that disabled people “are not scroungers or frauds. We are not vulnerable or work shy.
“Our history is littered with disabled people being scapegoated, demonised, discriminated against and oppressed. It is also a history of disabled people fighting back against this.”
But in The Real Deal, Carr’s character is seen spying on her neighbour who she suspects of exaggerating his impairment in order to qualify for PIP, before being persuaded by the neighbour to exaggerate her own impairment for a PIP assessment.
Disabled activists who have spent years highlighting and fighting against the efforts of Tory ministers to paint disabled people as benefit frauds, fakers and scroungers, were horrified by the film.
Their concern and anger contrasted with widespread support and approval for the drama from the disability arts world.
Carr, Fraser and Debbie Christie, executive producer for CripTales, have all defended the episode, although Wentworth had not commented by noon today (Thursday).
They suggested to Disability News Service (DNS) that the episode intended to explore “moral ambiguity”, offers a critique of DWP policy and the “impenetrable” PIP assessment system, and provides a “rare comedic take on the hypocrisy that can be embedded in that PIP interview system”.
But disabled activist and advocate Rick Burgess said it had been “very distressing” to watch the drama.
He said: “As someone who has helped with numerous PIP claims at all stages, Real Deal will not help people and it may harm them.
“Scroungers are not the problem with PIP, they are a government and media created propaganda tool.
“This play appeared to have fallen for that lie.”
Disabled activist Andy Mitchell also said he felt “really uncomfortable” watching the CripTales episode.
He said: “The problem with PIP is PIP, not scroungers. It feeds into Tory ‘genuine disabled’ rhetoric that has caused untold harm for disabled people.
“It was a missed opportunity to tell a really important story that too many people go through on their own.”
Another activist, Paula Peters, said she felt “deeply saddened” and “angry” watching the drama, which she said sent a “very dangerous message”.
She pointed to the “horrendous distress” caused by being wrongly accused of benefit fraud, and she said that disabled people had died because of government “scrounger” rhetoric.
Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) said it had a huge amount of respect for Carr as a politicised disabled person and “as someone who has never lost her commitment to activism wherever stardom has taken her”.
A DPAC spokesperson also said the drama had highlighted key problems with the assessment system, including “how the whole process forces us to reduce ourselves down to the most difficult parts of our lives while dismissing our strengths”.
But she said that Carr’s monologue “not only replicated government rhetoric on scroungers, it reinforced the idea of the deserving (‘real deal’) and undeserving poor and also fed into the demonisation of the white working class with a two dimensional portrayal that Channel Five would have been proud of”.
Fran Springfield, co-chair of Disability Labour, said the drama was “incredibly disturbing”.
She said: “I really can’t work out what they were trying to convey, but whatever it was it sent a very dangerous message.
“This was very disturbing to watch. Not only did it buy into the false government rhetoric of fraudsters, but it missed an opportunity to show the real impact of PIP and the tragedies the DWP and the government constantly seek to diminish.”
Fraser told DNS that those who criticised the film had “somewhat missed the point” and that The Real Deal was “a satire exposing the not fit for purpose benefit and assessment system”.
He said: “An able bodied fraudster can scam the system easily, but a woman with genuine impairments is only able to get the support she needs, by being forced to play up to an ignorant and clumsy view of what a disabled person should be.
“Rather than playing like a recruitment [tool] for the DWP… to me it’s a savage indictment of them.”
But many other disabled people yesterday added their voices to the criticism.
One disabled activist, Mary*, told DNS that she felt “physically sick watching Liz Carr act out every single Tory scrounger rhetoric in the book”, and that the play was an “open invitation to make fraud reports”.
She added: “Its damaging, irresponsible and offensive. It’s not ‘dark’, funny or informative. Daily Mail readers will love it.”
She said the film was “an absolute gift to DWP”, and she added: “It hurts so much more when it’s one of our own who should know better. It’s such a betrayal.”
She added: “What upset me the most was a very dear friend in all honesty asking me, ‘Oh god, am I a fraud?’
“I had to reassure her that no, she is not. That broke my heart.”
Mary also passed on to DNS comments from a string of other disabled people, many of them with invisible impairments, in response to the drama.
One, a mental health activist and service-user, said it was “a real betrayal of all of us” and that those involved should be “ashamed”.
They added: “Assume all the people involved think they’ll never find themselves in a situation where they’ll be reported like this, otherwise why demonstrate how to report people and give the impression everyone on PIP is somehow not genuine because the DWP force people to humiliate themselves.”
Another, an electric wheelchair-user, was another to say that the film made them “feel physically sick”.
A long-term mental health service-user, activist and former chief executive of a charity, said the film was “undoing years and years of work by disability campaigners and activists to fight against the stereotypes of fakers in the Daily Mail and right wing press”, and described it as “grim grim grim”.
Another long-term mental health service-user said the film made them feel like they should take their own life, “like I wasn’t worthy of receiving PIP and a fraud.
“I felt really uncomfortable and freaked out about it. I know that I have some members of my own family and friends, that judge me for claiming benefits.
“I just wish I was invisible right now.”
A former mental health service-user said: “It uses this visibly disabled actor as a model for [a] deserving claimant.
“The fact this is produced by disabled people makes it worse. It shows the system means you have to act a certain way but then shows everyone is either playing to that or fraudulently acting that part.”
Another former mental health service-user said: “My concern is about the snitching on your neighbour angle which may be more socially acceptable in the time of coronavirus social compliance.”
And a former service-user said that promoting anonymous reporting of strangers and neighbours for “fraud” could impact people with invisible impairments.
They said: “We are living through terrible times with COVID-19 and are directed to report to the police those who are breaking the rules.
“Disabled people may also be vulnerable to the virus and the isolation of the restrictions.
“I can see how social compliance may extend to more benefits related reporting of people who may not appear physically disabled but suffer serious mental distress or hidden disabilities. The last thing we need right now is more division and persecution.”
Christie said the CripTales writers had been given a “totally open brief to write what they wished” about “issues that engaged them” and that the intention of The Real Deal was to “explore moral ambiguity”.
Fraser said the drama was about a “genuine claimant” who was unable to “get through the questioning hoops that a PIP assessment can bring, with all the stress, self doubt and shame, that can be involved in such an unfair setting”.
He said it showed how the actions of Carr’s character, who herself “agrees to act more disabled” than she is, further highlight the systemic flaws.
He said: “Rather than an advert for the DWP, it offers a criticism of it, and rather than play into the very worst of the scrounger rhetoric, it was a rare comedic take on the hypocrisy that can be embedded in that PIP interview system, with a serious twist at the end.”
Carr said the piece had intended to highlight the flaws in the system “dramatically and playfully – showing how impenetrable the benefit system is and the reality of how we have to perform and jump through hoops to gain our rightful entitlements”.
She said: “I knew the piece was controversial in having a disabled person report another disabled person – rather than suggest this as acceptable, my hope was that this would illustrate how deeply entrenched the ideology of individualism and competition are in all of us – even disabled people.
“It was of course not my intention to cause harm or hurt – I consider the roles I accept very carefully and thoughtfully and feel those of us with a profile have a responsibility to challenge.”
*Not her real name
5 November 2020
Disability Union ‘will build power and a national voice for disabled people’
A new independent user-led organisation – modelled on a trade union – is hoping to provide disabled people with a collective voice powerful enough to influence policy at a national level, while also offering them solutions to their disability-related problems.
The Disability Union, which launches officially on Monday, will concentrate at first on providing a problem-solving service for disabled members who face issues in areas such as housing, benefits or social care.
But the hope is that the union will eventually provide an “authoritative voice” for disabled people that is capable of influencing policy-making at a local, regional and national level.
The plan is to occupy a space that is not currently filled by grassroots organisations of disabled activists like Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) and WOWcampaign on the one hand, and national disabled people’s organisations like Disability Rights UK (DR UK), The Alliance for Inclusive Education and Shaping Our Lives on the other.
The union is the idea of disabled campaigner George Baker, whose ambition is to create “the first democratic and campaigning union which fights for disabled people in the workplace, in the social care system and in society at large”.
He stressed that he did not want to replace organisations like DPAC and DR UK, but to provide something different and new.
Baker told Disability News Service: “What it’s about is building power for disabled people, giving us an influential voice to make sure we are not marginalised.”
He wants The Disability Union to be “the connective tissue that will bring the disability community together”, connecting disabled people “to all the support that is out there”.
Members and backers of the union already include prominent disabled figures, including Martyn Sibley, co-founder of Disability Horizons, campaigners Fleur Perry and Ellie Tait, and Jane Hatton, director of the user-led disability employment social enterprise Evenbreak.
Union membership – £4.99 a month for those who are on a low income or are unemployed or retired, or £12.99 for those in work on a stable income – is open to all those who self-identify as a disabled person, with the union’s work funded through these membership fees and funding for specific projects.
The long-term aim is to run the organisation democratically, like a union or political party, with meetings and decisions taken by members.
But in the early stages, as it builds membership, the union will focus on helping members with their disability-related problems – using peer support and advice – through its website and its Facebook page, and by phone*.
Baker said: “Disabled people share an awful lot in common. We share the same struggles and deal with the same people all the time.”
He said the union believed that nearly every disability-related issue “boils down to one of three things”.
The first is that disabled people “are not made aware of existing solutions because they are not connected enough to each other, or those solutions are not publicised enough”.
The second is that “where solutions are available, disabled people are not supported to access them effectively”.
Baker said: “This is particularly true with the benefits system, where applications are deliberately complex and are therefore only accessible to people who are particularly good at explaining their needs.”
The third is that, when social change is necessary, “there is no voice of authority that truly represents disabled people and can apply the pressure necessary to change policy or attitudes”.
He said: “The Disability Union exists to address all three problems so that we can finally have the power to secure the respect, influence and change we need.”
But he added: “We are not interested in replicating the work everybody else is doing. We just want to build on it and spread the word.”
The union is also working towards creating a “universal statement of disability”, which will provide a single document that asks a series of questions about how a person’s impairment affects them day-to-day, and what their needs are in different areas of their lives.
The long-term hope is that the government and other public bodies will accept this document instead of asking disabled people to repeatedly fill in complicated forms to secure the support they need.
Baker said the union “has to improve lives” because disabled people are often “treated in the most awful way for no reason”.
He said: “Campaigning is important, but actually people need help now. I want us to make a real difference as quickly as possible.
“I am confident that if somebody comes to us with a disability problem, we can find a way to resolve it.”
He added: “One of the criminal things is that there is tonnes of knowledge, but it is just not in one place. It is impossible to find it.”
The aim is for the union to have 500 members by the end of the year, and between 3,000 and 5,000 by the end of 2021.
Baker said: “After that, the sky is the limit. I want us to be the voice of change. The more members we have, the stronger the union is.
“My goal is to have an enormous number of members so we can start affecting policy decisions.”
*The Disability Union’s phone number is 0333 050 8046
5 November 2020
Disabled students call for strict new rules for universities that fail on access
A disabled students’ organisation has called for strict new rules on access to higher education, and – as a last resort – for universities to lose their licence to operate if they fail to meet them.
Disabled Students UK (DSUK), a grassroots organisation led and controlled by disabled students, spoke out after a new report exposed the “unhappy situation” and “undue pressures” facing disabled students.
The report by the independent Higher Education Commission, co-chaired by disabled peer and former home secretary Lord Blunkett, heard how many disabled students were unable to sit in lecture theatres, access learning materials, or secure the reasonable adjustments that had been set out in their support plans.
The Arriving at Thriving report said disabled students faced a “heavy administrative burden” in applying for the support they needed, and then being assessed and chasing up that support.
It said there was a “great deal of evidence” of problems with the disabled students’ allowance (DSA) system.
It also concluded that disabled students are often forced to interrupt their studies because of the “financial burden, a lack of support, and struggling to fully access their teaching and learning”, while the complaints process creates further barriers.
A survey carried out for the commission found that many disabled students were seen by staff and other students as faking or exaggerating their impairments, or just being lazy.
In 2018-19, there were 272,000 disabled students at English universities and colleges.
Among its recommendations, the commission calls on the government to create a new system to support disabled people from the classroom, through university and into the workplace, and to reform the DSA system.
And it says every university should appoint a senior leader to take responsibility for the experiences of disabled students.
Although the report includes evidence from students and universities in Scotland and Wales, its recommendations are aimed at universities, regulators and government bodies in England.
The report has been welcomed by DSUK, which described it as “an important first step toward increased equity”.
A DSUK spokesperson said: “The report suggests that a lack of training causes staff not to understand how to implement reasonable adjustments or make their teaching accessible.
“In line with our own experiences, the report details students being treated as if their conditions are not real, their symptoms are exaggerated, they are lazy or simply need to work harder.”
It said the report demonstrated that the “persistence of failures” in securing equality for disabled students since the Equality Act 2010 became law was due to “failures of oversight”.
DSUK welcomed the report’s call for the Office for Students (OfS) – the independent regulatory body for higher education in England – to do more to monitor disabled students’ access.
This includes recommendations for OfS to: ensure universities provide information about the training they provide staff on disability inclusion; research how universities are reducing the administrative burden on disabled students; and monitor the quality of disabled students’ experiences in higher education.
Universities have to submit access and participation plans to OfS, and cannot secure public funding or award qualifications to students without doing so.
OfS shares about £40 million a year between the universities it registers, depending on their predicted number of disabled students.
But DSUK wants OfS to produce “clear and transparent” rules around access – created in consultation with disabled students – that all universities in England will have to follow, with possible penalties for those that fail to comply to include financial fines or even deregistration as a university.
Phen Woolley-Gale, political outreach director of DSUK, said: “Many higher education providers claim that they do not have access to adequate funding to fulfil their legal obligations with respect to disabled students’ access.
“We want to see the OfS require proof of these claims.
“For those who are not able to prove that they cannot come up with the money, we want to see monetary penalties imposed in an amount that will make non-compliance the less financially beneficial choice for the provider.
“For those who are able to prove that they cannot come up with the money for accessibility, we want to see the OfS provide funding specifically earmarked for their needs in order to become compliant.
“We would suggest that this funding could be sourced from the penalties imposed on willfully non-compliant providers.
“Deregistration needs to be on the table, but it also needs to be a last resort.”
She added: “The body of evidence showing rampant non-compliance across the sector is already here and it is only growing; we will not tolerate more delays.
“It’s been 10 years since the Equality Act became law; disabled students have waited 10 years for regulatory bodies to follow through on their promises to put us first and ensure we have fair access to our education. We shouldn’t have to wait any longer.”
Chris Millward, OfS’s director for fair access and participation, said: “I welcome the insights from the Higher Education Commission report.
“We will discuss with the Disabled Students’ Commission (DSC)* how best to address the issues highlighted in the report, while continuing to regulate universities and colleges in a way that reflects their diversity of mission and students.”
A spokesperson added: “We intend to discuss the findings of the report with the DSC, which the OfS helped to set up specifically to advise on issues such as this – as such we are unable to respond to specific recommendations at this time.
“The DSC next meets in early December, after which we will be able to provide more information.”
*An eight-strong independent group set up by OfS, half of whose members are senior university figures, but which includes two representatives of disabled students
5 November 2020
Outrage over ‘eugenicist’ lockdown comments of itsu boss
Disabled campaigners have expressed outrage at the boss of a fast-food chain – and its PR agency – after he said he would prefer to sacrifice “a few thousand lives of very old or vulnerable people” rather than having another national lockdown.
The comments of Julian Metcalfe, founder and chief executive of itsu, were described as “cruel and dehumanising” and “a sign that eugenics is very much alive”.
Metcalfe told a newspaper last week: “Society will not recover if we do it again to save a few thousand lives of very old or vulnerable people.
“The young people of this country will be paying for this for the next 20 to 30 years.”
But itsu’s efforts to defend its chief executive also backfired, when its public relations agency, London-based Spider, refused to say anything other than claiming his comment was “taken out of context”.
Despite Disability News Service asking what context could excuse his comments, Spider refused to answer any emails or phone messages.
Metcalfe was also founder of Pret A Manger, but that chain hurriedly pointed out that he had not run the business for more than 10 years and that the company does “not agree with his opinion”.
There was widespread anger from disabled campaigners at his comments, and at Spider’s efforts to protect him from criticism.
A spokesperson for the Disability Caucus of the Women’s Equality Party – all of whom are disabled party members – said Metcalfe’s statement was “deliberately inflammatory and hateful towards disabled and older people.
“Disabled people have been subjected to this sort of violent, discriminatory abuse throughout the pandemic.
“It seems we are seen as either an inevitable, acceptable loss, or encouraged to go back to the days when we were hidden away in institutions.
“Whilst it is valid to be concerned about our economy and the negative impact a lockdown might have on society, it is possible to express those concerns without making cruel and dehumanising comments about disabled and older people.
“We need to be having constructive conversations about how we protect those who are more vulnerable to COVID-19, rather than furthering the divide by suggesting we are holding the economy to ransom.
“If our economic model cannot cope with the fact a significant portion of our population may need to be protected in a time of crisis, then we should be looking at alternative economic models.”
Anne Pridmore, a former chair of the British Council of Disabled People, said Metcalfe and Spider’s actions were “outrageous” and that they should be “taken to task”.
She said: “Julian Metcalfe obviously does not value elderly or disabled people.
“To suggest that disabled people don’t deserve to live and that their lives don’t matter is outrageous.
“May I politely remind him that 76 per cent of the 11 million disabled people in this country were not born disabled and if he is lucky enough to escape disability he certainly cannot escape old age.”
She added: “During this pandemic disabled people have been forgotten, many struggling to find any support from local authorities or even have easy access to personal protective equipment.”
Disabled activist Vikki Walton-Cole, who was also critical of Spider’s actions, said: “As a disabled person I was utterly horrified that Metcalfe publicly stated opinions which suggested disabled people’s lives weren’t worth saving.
“This view, which is being repeated over and over in society for the last 10 months, is a sign that eugenics is very much alive as a school of thought when disabled people’s lives are dispensable, especially when there is profit to be made.
“The excuse that this comment was taken out of context does not make this opinion any better.
“There is no context where disabled people’s lives are less important than others just by the fact a person is disabled.
“It is clear that Metcalfe does not want to apologise for his views or want the business of 20 per cent of the UK population.”
Disabled campaigner Susan Angel told Metcalfe via email that she was “utterly disappointed and annoyed” by his comments, adding: “Everyone should be thinking of each other, not how much money they will lose from profits off the back of everyone funding your business.”
Disabled campaigner and retired Paralympian Chris Channon, who has been shielding from the virus, said he was “disgusted” by Metcalfe’s comments.
He said: “A society can only be judged by the way it deals with its citizens – especially those at the bottom of the pile for whatever reason.
“Even if you’re lucky enough to get through life with a degree of ‘normality’ there’s always the risk of illness or accident to land you in the disability world.
“I would also like to say to people like Metcalfe that I have overcome much in my life to the extent that I have made useful contributions to people’s lives.
“I wish him a happy and healthy life and hope that he reflects on and retracts his rather stupid comments.”
5 November 2020
Burnham hides from scrutiny over ‘abhorrent’ COVID care home policy
Staff working for Greater Manchester’s mayor have repeatedly refused to say if he backs government plans that will see hospital patients with coronavirus discharged into care homes, even though he suggested to his own disabled advisers that he did not.
Andy Burnham has been widely-praised for his high-profile complaints about the lack of central government financial support for the north of England during local lockdowns.
He also told his own panel of disabled advisers that hospital patients who have tested positive for COVID-19 should not be discharged into care homes in Greater Manchester, although the panel said later that he had agreed to further discussions on the issue with senior officers.
But when Disability News Service (DNS) tried to confirm that Burnham’s policy was to fight the government policy – which disabled activists from Manchester have described as “abhorrent” – his office repeatedly refused to clarify his position.
The policy will see patients in England who are set to be discharged from hospital into a care home after a positive COVID-19 test result admitted first to a “designated setting”.
They will have to be cared for in this designated setting – which must be approved by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) – until the end of their isolation period.
Although some of the designated settings will be “stand-alone units” where only service-users with coronavirus will be admitted, others will be care homes which have “separate zoned accommodation and staffing” for service-users with coronavirus and other parts occupied by residents who have not been infected.
The policy, drawn up by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and approved by CQC, has alarmed disabled activists because it risks repeating the outcome of the scandal that occurred early in the pandemic, when hospital patients were discharged into care homes without being tested for COVID-19.
That government failing was believed to have caused the loss of thousands of lives of older and disabled people.
DNS first asked Burnham’s office to confirm his position on the policy last Wednesday (28 October).
An initial response did not arrive until the following Tuesday (3 November).
A Greater Manchester Combined Authority spokesperson said in that statement: “We can confirm that at the recent Disabled People’s Panel meeting the mayor said that COVID patients should not be discharged from hospital directly into care homes if they are still infectious.”
But the spokesperson then suggested that some patients could indeed be discharged into care homes, apparently in line with the government policy, without clarifying whether Burnham was or was not supporting that policy.
When asked to clarify the mayor’s position, a spokesperson said the mayor’s office had “no desire to add to the statement”, while providing some further confusing background information.
A further DNS attempt at clarification produced further “background” information that again failed to produce a simple answer on whether Burnham backed the government policy.
The spokesperson then called DNS for another “background” conversation, before Kevin Lee, director of the mayor’s office, called DNS yesterday (Wednesday) morning.
Lee spoke at length “off the record”, and when he refused to promise to produce a written statement confirming what he had said, DNS asked him to produce a clear, on-the-record response to whether Burnham supported the government policy.
He refused to do so, repeatedly referring back to his office’s earlier statements, which DNS had already told him were not clear.
Shabaaz Mohammed of Manchester Disabled People Against Cuts, said: “The mayor did tell the disabled people’s panel that infectious people will not be put in care homes.
“Therefore [if that is the case] he doesn’t support government policy to return people who have COVID-19 to care homes.
“Manchester Disabled People Against Cuts are keen for his office and Greater Manchester to commit to that.
“We urge Andy to confirm formally that he is on the side of disabled people against the government’s deadly policy.
“Our demand, alongside disabled people across the country, is that only with a negative COVID test should people be discharged into care homes.
“Many residents died during the first wave; it must not happen again.”
A spokesperson for the panel said: “At last week’s meeting, as with all panel meetings, there was a frank and open discussion both between panel members and with Andy Burnham on a number of topics including care homes.
“The discussion at the meeting was productive, and it was agreed that we would continue this important discussion at our next meeting.
“The panel had the opportunity to raise its concerns around COVID and care homes, discuss the key issues, and have commitment from the mayor’s office that the required leaders would meet with the panel.”
Meanwhile, the Local Government Association (LGA) has made it clear that it supports the government policy.
Cllr Ian Hudspeth, chair of LGA’s community wellbeing board, said: “The use of ‘zoned’ accommodation is not new, and such accommodation is often used in care homes to successfully manage outbreaks of infection, particularly in winter.
“Councils, providers and CQC are working incredibly hard on the issue of this designated accommodation in relation to COVID-19 and many councils have identified accommodation for CQC to approve.
“These decisions should not be rushed and DHSC must listen to all concerns that councils and their partners raise to ensure the policy developed is not a ‘one size fits all’ solution, and reflects each area’s individual circumstances.
“We are clear that councils must have the flexibility to adapt to the needs of their residents, including ensuring an individual’s wishes on discharge are enabled and that the scheme builds on local arrangements.
“If these conditions are met and it is the best approach for the individual, then we are not opposed to the use of ‘zoned’ accommodation to minimise the risk of cross-infection.”
5 November 2020
Rees-Mogg accuses shielding MPs of ‘shirking their duty’ by working from home
A government minister has accused MPs who are disabled or are otherwise shielding from coronavirus of shirking their “duty” by refusing to come to the House of Commons to take part in debates during lockdown.
The comments by the leader of the House of Commons, Jacob Rees-Mogg, came despite his own government this week telling people seen as clinically extremely vulnerable to the virus that they should work from home and should not visit their workplaces.
His comments also came days after Disability News Service reported how some MPs were risking the lives of disabled parliamentarians and House of Commons staff – and those with long-term health conditions – by flouting COVID-19 safety measures.
Rees-Mogg was twice asked on Monday whether he would re-introduce rules to the House of Commons that would allow disabled MPs and others who are shielding from coronavirus to play a full part in the democratic process.
Since early June, virtual participation in the Commons chamber for shielding MPs who are working from home has been limited to asking oral questions and urgent questions and responding to ministerial statements, and they have been unable to take part in debates on motions and legislation.
Vicky Foxcroft, Labour’s shadow minister for disabled people, who herself is at heightened risk from COVID-19 as a result of a long-term health condition and is currently shielding, reminded Rees-Mogg that the government’s advice to clinically extremely vulnerable people was to stay away from their workplaces and work from home.
She said: “Will the Leader of the House commit to setting a good example and allow members such as myself to participate in debates and votes remotely, as we could at the start of the first lockdown?
“I know that he is reluctant to do that, but as the prime minister has said, we must make sacrifices to save lives.
“This is not just about keeping MPs safe; we must also consider everyone who works on the parliamentary estate.”
But Rees-Mogg told her that “the whole point of a debate is that there is a back and forth, and that requires interventions. It is not possible to do that remotely.”
He later said that MPs should “lead by example” and that MPs should join the cleaners and security staff who were “working every day”.
He said: “We should be proud to be doing the same as them and working here physically.
“Duty may not be a fashionable word, but it is the right word to use.
“It is our duty to hold the government to account and to legislate, and to do that properly, we need to be here.”
Another MP with a long-term health condition, the SNP’s Dr Philippa Whitford, told Rees-Mogg that she took “great offence” at the inference that she was “somehow shirking my duty” by declining to travel to and from Westminster during the pandemic.
She said: “With England going into lockdown, the prime minister has just said that the most vulnerable should only work from home, so I, too, call on the Leader of the House to restore and maintain full virtual participation until next year to ensure that all Members can fully represent their constituents throughout the COVID crisis and the end of the EU transition.”
Rees-Mogg refused to comment further, other than referring Whitford to his earlier answer.
5 November 2020
Round-up: £1 million funding for DPOs, work inquiry, TUC pay gap report… and Baywatch
Nearly 100 disabled people’s organisations (DPOs) across the UK have secured more than £1 million in funding to help them deliver grassroots emergency support to disabled people during the pandemic.
A total of £1,092,906 of funding from the National Emergencies Trust (NET) Coronavirus Appeal will be handed to 98 DPOs.
Projects that have secured funding include those offering advice on benefits and accessible employment, training, and IT support, while other DPOs will use the funding to improve access to their own websites.
Tracey Lazard, chief executive of Inclusion London*, one of the coalition of DPOs that oversaw the release of funding, said: “The sheer demand for this fund, from DPOs that were locked out of mainstream emergency fund awards, shows the overwhelming need for the peer services that DPOs offer disabled people during times of crisis.
“It also shows how DPOs, run by disabled people, are best placed to know what disabled people need to maintain and protect our rights and our inclusion, choice and control.”
The disabled people’s and service-user network Shaping Our Lives* (SOL) has secured four years of funding from the National Lottery Community Fund.
It said this will allow it to continue and extend its work across the country, “advocating for the inclusive involvement of people with lived experience of using health and social care services”.
It has also adopted a new mission and vision, and relaunched with a new logo and slogan: “Inclusive Involvement Matters.”
Professor Peter Beresford, co-chair of SOL, said in a video that many user-led organisations had already been lost because of the funding crisis DPOs have experienced in recent years.
He said SOL would be working in “new and strong inclusive ways, to make sure that, in these difficult and changed circumstances, people as service users, as disabled people, have a real organisation, nationally, on your side”.
The Commons work and pensions committee has launched an inquiry into the disability employment gap, and how the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) can provide better support for disabled people in the jobs market.
The inquiry will examine trends in the disability employment gap – the difference between the employment rates of disabled and non-disabled people – the impact on the economy of low employment rates for disabled people, and the assistance available to support disabled people both in and out of work.
Among other areas it will cover, the inquiry will look at the ongoing impact of the pandemic on disabled people’s employment rates, and the effectiveness of DWP’s much-criticised Disability Confident scheme.
Last month, Disability News Service (DNS) reported how the government’s repeated claims that its policies have transformed the employment prospects of disabled people over the last seven years had been challenged by academics who suggested their figures were simply the result of a statistical quirk.
A link to that story has been passed to the committee by DNS.
The deadline for submissions to the inquiry is 18 December.
New analysis by the TUC has found that disabled people earn on average a fifth less than non-disabled workers, with the gap widening by more than a quarter (27 per cent) over the last year.
The analysis shows that the “disability pay gap” rose from £3,000 to £3,800 per year over the last year for someone working a 35-hour week.
Disabled women face an even bigger pay gap, being paid around £6,700 less a year than non-disabled men.
The TUC said the figures mean that disabled people effectively work for free for the last 60 days of the year and in effect stop getting paid on 1 November.
And it warned that the pay gap will “almost certainly” increase again because of the impact of the pandemic.
It said the key reasons for the pay gap are that disabled people are more likely to be working in part-time jobs, which tend to be lower paid; that they are over-represented in lower-paid jobs; and that they tend to leave education earlier than non-disabled people; while it is also linked to unlawful discrimination, structural barriers and negative attitudes.
A disabled child from Sheffield missed out on years of education because a council failed to provide suitable alternative schooling for him, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has found.
The ombudsman found that Sheffield City Council was responsible for a “catalogue of errors”.
When the boy – who is now 15 – could not stay at his first secondary school, he was placed in alternative education on a much-reduced timetable, but this was with an unregistered provider that failed to provide him with “proper formal schooling”.
The boy left his first secondary school in 2015 but did not start his second school until April 2018, and he did not complete a full week’s education until March this year.
The ombudsman found 12 separate faults with the way the council handled the family’s case, including a delay in creating an education, health and care plan for him when he left primary school, which should have been completed in 2015 but was not finished until December 2017, with his mother not receiving a copy until May 2018.
The council has agreed to apologise to the family and pay them nearly £20,000 to make up for the boy’s lost education, which will be used for his educational benefit.
The council has also agreed to carry out a full audit of its alternative education provision.
Results of an annual survey of accessible parking have shown “alarming” levels of abuse across the UK.
Nearly 800 people took part in the annual Baywatch survey, which examined blue badge spaces controlled by both supermarkets and local councils.
It found that that 96 per cent of respondents did not think local authorities were doing enough to tackle abuse of the blue badge system, while 87 per cent found that bays for holders of blue parking badges in supermarket carparks were either “often” or “very often” abused.
It also found two-thirds (66 per cent) of respondents had seen accessible spaces being removed because of the pandemic.
Disabled Motoring UK, which runs the annual survey, said the results “should be the wake up call that the parking industry needs to once and for all provide adequate parking provision to disabled motorists and make sure it is enforced correctly”.
*Inclusion London and Shaping Our Lives are both Disability News Service subscribers
5 November 2020
News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com
