Government and NHS discrimination linked to COVID deaths of disabled people
Discrimination by the government as it responded to the pandemic, and within the NHS, could be to blame for disabled people’s sharply-increased risk of dying from COVID-19, according to researchers backed by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
A new study, partly carried out by ONS and based on analysis of 29 million adults in England during the pandemic, says that working-age disabled women with higher support needs have been about 90 per cent more likely to die from coronavirus than non-disabled women of the same age, even after taking factors such as underlying health conditions, poverty and whether they lived in a care home into account.
The study says that the increased risk to disabled people from coronavirus is caused by “a combination of disadvantageous circumstances”.
And it calls for urgent “protective measures”, such as ensuring younger disabled people are prioritised for vaccination.
The study is the latest to find that 58 per cent of those who died from COVID-19 in England were disabled people.
In all, between 24 January 2020 and 28 February 2021, 105,213 people died from causes involving COVID-19 in England, says the study, and about 61,000 of them were disabled people.
The increased risk of death faced by older people and those with underlying health conditions has been widely reported during the pandemic, but almost no attention has been paid to the discrimination that appears to have led to disabled people dying in disproportionate numbers from COVID-19.
The study, carried out by ONS and researchers at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), concludes: “Disabled people in England had markedly increased risk of mortality involving COVID-19 compared to non-disabled people and should be prioritised within the pandemic response.”
As well as vaccination, it says there should be a focus on disabled people’s needs within activities such as the provision of accessible health information, testing, shielding, and protection in care homes.
The study says that among people aged between 30 and 69, women seen as “more-disabled”* were more than eight times more likely to have died from COVID-19 than non-disabled women in the same age group, while more-disabled men between 30 and 69 were more than five times more likely to die than non-disabled men.
But the ONS/LSHTM article, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, also says that after allowing for factors such as people’s underlying health conditions, and whether they lived in poverty, in a less affluent part of the country or in a care home, disabled people were still significantly more likely to have died from coronavirus.
It shows that, once these factors have been allowed for, more-disabled women between 30 and 69 were 91 per cent more likely to have died from COVID-19 than non-disabled women in the same age group.
More-disabled men in the same age group were 74 per cent more likely to have died from COVID-19 than non-disabled men in the same age bracket.
These figures are higher than those previously produced by ONS (60 per cent for more-disabled women and 37 per cent for more-disabled men) in a statistical release in February, while the researchers even suggest that their figures are likely to under-estimate the link between disability and COVID-19 deaths
The study examines deaths that took place between 24 January 2020 and the end of February 2021, and so covers much of the second wave of the pandemic.
The researchers also say that disabled people were at excess risk for all causes of death during the pandemic, with only about 22 per cent of their deaths involving COVID-19.
The researchers said this finding suggests a need to improve services and access to healthcare for disabled people and to address the “drivers of disadvantage and excess mortality” they face, both during and after the pandemic.
The LSHTM researchers who were part of the study told Disability News Service (DNS) that there were “many possible reasons” for disabled people’s increased risk of death from COVID-19, “including discrimination within the health service, in the government’s response, or within the community”.
They said: “Such discrimination might have increased the risk of acquiring COVID-19 and reduced the chances of recovery.
“However, we do not have data on these factors and therefore can only speculate.”
They stressed that discrimination could also have been responsible for some of the increased risk caused by some of the factors they did take account of in their calculations, as “discrimination could lead to a disabled person living in a less-well-off area, living on a reduced income, and being susceptible to [pre-existing health conditions]”.
The LSHTM team called for more consideration to be given to preventing disabled people becoming infected with coronavirus, for example by prioritising them for vaccines, or providing accessible information; and for better access to treatment, such as providing outreach services for people who face transport barriers.
They also suggested an improvement in the “effectiveness of the treatment” for disabled people, for example through training healthcare workers how to treat disabled people “effectively and with high quality”.
And they called for more data collection and research to understand more about the association between disability and deaths during the pandemic, and to identify groups that are at particularly high risk, including people with learning difficulties.
ONS said there were “several possible explanations for the residual elevated risk in disabled people”, but it confirmed its previous statement that unfair practices or discrimination within the NHS may have been one of the causes and that this evidence “warrants further investigation”.
But an ONS spokesperson said that it could not “say with certainty whether it is or isn’t a factor, because we don’t have data on it”.
Throughout the pandemic, disabled campaigners have repeatedly raised the alarm about discriminatory treatment by the government in its response to the crisis, with DNS collating at least 24 examples of breaches of their rights in the year since the first lockdown.
The LSHTM researchers told DNS this week that discrimination by the government in its pandemic response could be a cause of some of the increased risk of death from COVID-19 faced by disabled people, although they stressed that this was only “speculation” at this stage.
Disabled campaigners have also raised concerns about discriminatory treatment within the health system that they say has put their lives at risk during the pandemic.
This has included discriminatory guidance issued by health bodies on who should receive priority for intensive care treatment during the pandemic; an NHS trust telling people with muscular dystrophy it was keeping their ventilator filters for COVID patients; GPs writing to disabled patients to ask them to agree to sign “do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation” orders; the failure to provide shielding information in an accessible format; and discriminatory NHS England guidance on hospital visitors.
The LSHTM researchers said that discrimination within the NHS was a possible explanation for some of the increased risk of death faced by disabled people during the pandemic.
*The study examines the impact of the pandemic on those who had described themselves as disabled people in the 2011 census, either by saying they were “limited a little” (less-disabled) in their daily lives or “limited a lot” (more-disabled)
**For sources of information and support during the coronavirus crisis, visit the DNS advice and information page
17 June 2021
Activists ‘horrified’ by Bristol’s third damning report into multi-agency failings in four years
Council, police and other agencies across Bristol have again been found to have repeatedly failed disabled people, in the third such damning report to hit the city in just four years.
This week’s report by Sir Stephen Bubb examined multi-agency failings over many years in relation to three autistic men, two of whom also have learning difficulties.
Sir Stephen, who was commissioned to write his report by Bristol City Council and the Keeping Bristol Safe Partnership (KBSP), said his work proved that Bristol should no longer claim to be an “autism friendly city”.
The report, Building Rights, describes a history of inappropriate placements and ineffective and discriminatory support and safeguarding failures over the last decade – most but not all of it in Bristol – by inpatient mental health settings, young offender institutions, police, prisons, the NHS, supported housing providers, a private assessment and treatment unit, British Transport Police, and Bristol City Council.
It comes only three years after a report that followed the murder of disabled asylum-seeker Kamil Ahmad, and four years after a report into the murder of disabled refugee Bijan Ebrahimi, both of which exposed multi-agency failings across the city.
Sir Stephen said he had “serious concerns” about the treatment of people with learning difficulties and autistic people by the criminal justice system, “and whether their rights are being properly upheld”.
Among his concerns, he found police officers had breached their legal duties on providing an “appropriate adult” to someone who was seen as “vulnerable” after their arrest, ignored medical evidence, failed to assess if someone was fit to be detained and interviewed, and failed in their duty under the Equality Act to provide reasonable adjustments.
He also called for an expansion of community support, and he said he had collected “further evidence of the abusive nature of institutional care and failures to provide effective support”, which he said was a “continuing scandal”.
He added: “Bristol can no longer claim to be an ‘autism friendly city’ and should stop using this slogan.
“This is not to suggest that changes and improvements have not been made, but it is not appropriate to use the slogan when the evidence to support it is lacking.”
The grassroots disabled people’s organisation Bristol Reclaiming Independent Living (BRIL) told Disability News Service (DNS): “We were horrified to read about the system-wide failures that led to these three disabled men being so gravely let down.
“As a city, Bristol needs to reflect about how, and why, it has failed to listen to autistic people and people with learning difficulties for so long.
“It is deeply disappointing that, despite the talk of ‘lessons being learned’ over the 10 years since the Winterbourne View scandal, and after the avoidable murders of Bijan Ebrahimi and Kamil Ahmad in Bristol, there seems to have been a consistent failure to learn from these injustices.
“While we welcome the focus this report will hopefully bring, and the call to support independent advocacy and self-advocacy, it is beyond frustrating that the key recommendation is to remind Bristol that disabled people have rights.”
Laura Welti, manager of Bristol Disability Equality Forum, told DNS that the forum supported the report’s recommendations.
But she said the police force, city council and NHS “need to come up with a clear plan for how they are going to stop criminalising people with certain impairments, just because of those impairments”.
She said the criminal justice system “must stop putting ‘vulnerable’ people into mainstream prison provision and generic probation hostels/post-prison ‘supported’ housing”.
Welti said the report “clearly demonstrates the statutory sector and its services have repeatedly failed to learn from their own experience, and that of others”.
Sir Stephen recommended in his report that Bristol City Council draw up a charter of rights for autistic people and people with learning difficulties which should “underpin all commissioning and provision”, with services then shaped around that charter.
He also called for a new right for autistic people and people with learning difficulties, and their families, to “challenge” any decision to admit them to hospital or keep them there.
And he called for a new independent commissioner who would promote, enhance and protect the rights of people with learning difficulties and autistic people in Bristol, and help deliver a consensus on how to deliver better services and support.
He was also critical of the Independent Office for Police Conduct and called for a more accessible system of making complaints about police officers.
But BRIL said: “Bristol needs more than awareness, or ‘marking its own homework’, by appointing another commissioner.
“We need a radical change in how decisions are made, and for people in power to be accountable.”
The Bristol-based journalism website The Bristol Cable this week spoke to the families of two of the autistic men.
One of them told the Cable: “I will never give up because my son could die today. He’s still being neglected.”
Another parent said: “I’m sick to death of people not being accountable for what they do wrong… I’ll never trust the police again.”
Only three years ago, a safeguarding review commissioned by Bristol Safeguarding Adults Board – which has since been replaced by KBSP – concluded that disabled asylum-seeker Kamil Ahmad had been failed by multiple agencies across the city in the lead-up to his murder by a racist neighbour.
The previous year, another safeguarding review had concluded that Bristol City Council and Avon and Somerset Police were guilty of institutional racism and discrimination in the way they dealt with years of complaints by Bijan Ebrahimi in the years leading to his murder by a neighbour.
The new report also comes seven years after Sir Stephen’s independent report into transforming care for people with learning difficulties in the wake of the abuse at the Winterbourne View assessment and treatment centre, near Bristol, and a follow-up report in 2016, a scandal which also exposed failures by Avon and Somerset Police.
Sir Stephen said this week in his report that it was “time to accept that this type of institutional care by its nature is abusive and must end”, and he called on the government to “make a clear commitment now to closing all such institutions and the transfer of resources into the community” by 2024.
And he said his new report showed “how little has changed” in the “wholly inadequate” system of care and support for autistic people and people with learning difficulties since 2016.
BRIL members questioned why accessible and easy read versions of his report had not been published.
And one autistic BRIL member, James Deane, said the recommendations for a charter of rights, a right to challenge admission to hospital and an independent commissioner were “meaningless language for autistics, and does not have any power.
“Having these rights but with no censure or consequences, or to make people think twice, seems like massaging us into acceptance.”
He called for autism-specific advocacy in Bristol that was designed by autistic people.
A Bristol City Council spokesperson said the council accepted all the report’s findings and that it remained “positively committed to improving the experience of autistic people, and people with learning disabilities in Bristol”, while the report provided “a clear pathway for much needed, system-wide improvements based on people’s real, lived experiences”.
A spokesperson for Avon and Somerset Police said the force had accepted its failings “and carried out a significant amount of work since the incidents referenced in the report”.
She said the force agreed with Sir Stephen that the police “should not always be the first line of response for people experiencing a situation or crisis which may be connected with their autism, learning disability or mental health”.
She added: “We’re committed to continuing our work to improve the experiences of vulnerable adults who come into contact with our officers and staff.”
She said the force had carried out a “significant amount of work” since the incidents described in the report.
This included introducing an autism lead who is himself autistic; delivering an autism training programme for officers and staff; and ensuring that anyone coming into police custody who says they are autistic, or who officers and staff believe may be autistic, will be provided with an appropriate adult “unless they specifically tell us they do not want one”.
But one autistic BRIL member said: “The focus by some on ‘awareness’ will not bring about better treatment of us, nor would any ‘reforms’ of the police… a police officer’s brutality towards disabled persons, like their oppression of BAME folk and their domestic violence rates against women, is institutional to the core.”
Another autistic person from Bristol warned that there was a “wide range of levels of understanding” within Avon and Somerset Police.
17 June 2021
Judge’s ‘astounding’ attack on Coffey’s ‘wholly unsatisfactory’ behaviour
A high court judge has accused work and pensions secretary Therese Coffey of “wholly unsatisfactory” behaviour and lacking respect for the mother of a benefit claimant whose death was linked to failures by her department.
Mr Justice Morris spoke out about Coffey’s actions as he criticised her for deciding “at the 11th hour” that she wanted the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to be allowed to provide evidence at a high court hearing next week.
That hearing will decide whether there will be a second inquest into the death of Jodey Whiting, a disabled woman who took her own life after her benefits were wrongly stopped.
DWP’s 11th hour decision to take part meant further stress and distress for her mother, Joy Dove, from Stockton-on-Tees, who has fought for justice for her daughter for more than four years, and who was left on the verge of tears during Friday’s hearing.
But she told Disability News Service this week that Coffey’s behaviour had only made her more determined to continue the battle to ensure the full truth of what happened to her daughter emerged.
She said: “I will just keep fighting and fighting.”
But she also said that Coffey’s lack of respect and understanding of her distress, and that of her family, illustrated the culture of disrespect for disabled benefit claimants and their relatives within DWP over the last decade.
DWP was informed about the family’s legal proceedings last December, and other than indicating the following month that it had not yet “taken a position” on the case, Coffey took no further action until last month, when she found out the case was due to be heard on 22 June.
She then decided that DWP wanted to make legal submissions to the 22 June hearing.
The judge said Coffey’s behaviour in leaving it until the “11th hour” to participate in the case – and to provide no explanation for her delay – was “inimical” to the court, a word which means unfavourable, unfriendly, or even hostile.
He said: “There has been a wholesale failure to comply with the letter or spirit of procedural requirements.”
Although DWP had expressed regret at any distress caused to Dove, the judge said Coffey’s conduct was “lacking in respect and understanding”, while its expression of regret “falls somewhat short of an apology”.
Merry Varney, a partner at the law firm Leigh Day, which is representing Dove, said the way that she and her family had been treated by DWP was “an absolute disgrace” and showed “no proper understanding of the impact on Joy”.
She said it was “astounding” to hear such strong words directed at a secretary of state by a judge.
Varney said Coffey’s behaviour was “completely illustrative of the culture of the DWP that we have heard many individuals and bereaved families describe – lacking in respect, understanding and no apology”.
She said Dove had now been caused “significant additional and wholly avoidable distress” as well as extra expense and inconvenience.
The judge ruled that DWP would only be allowed to make written submissions to next week’s hearing, and only on one of the three points on which it had requested to present to the court.
But that decision means that the hearing will still now run over one-and-a-half days, instead of just one, causing expensive and stressful last-minute alterations to the family’s arrangements.
Dove said: “I am appalled by the behaviour of the DWP.
“I believe they caused my daughter’s death by their callous disregard for the anguish they caused her and now, with the same abominable attitude towards ordinary people, they are causing me more distress.”
The first inquest into her daughter’s death, which took place in May 2017, lasted just 37 minutes.
The coroner had turned down Dove’s request to examine the actions of DWP.
Now she wants the high court to quash the results of that first inquest and order a second one by a different coroner.
Whiting, a mother-of-nine and grandmother, took her own life in February 2017, 15 days after she had her employment and support allowance mistakenly stopped for missing a work capability assessment.
The Independent Case Examiner concluded in 2019 that DWP was guilty of “multiple” and “significant” failings in handling her case, and that it had failed five times to follow its own safeguarding rules in the weeks leading to her suicide.
A DWP spokesperson said: “Our condolences are with Ms Whiting’s family. It would not be appropriate for us to comment further.”
17 June 2021
NHS bodies continued ‘unsafe’ mental distress scheme after being told of ‘dodgy’ data
Two NHS organisations continued to support a controversial scheme aimed at service-users in severe mental distress, despite being warned by police that dodgy data had been used to persuade other forces and health trusts to adopt the programme.
The multi-agency Serenity Integrated Mentoring (SIM) scheme is believed to have been rolled out to nearly half the mental health trusts in England.
But disabled activists have warned that it is based on coercion and denial of potentially life-saving support and is causing some service-users to live in fear of arrest or prosecution when they are in mental health crisis.
They have called for an immediate halt to the use of the SIM scheme, which they believe is unethical, unlawful and unsafe. They also want an independent investigation into its use.
Emails sent by Hampshire police and released under the Freedom of Information Act show that the force raised repeated concerns in 2018 about the data used to promote the scheme.
The force has now confirmed to Disability News Service that it warned both Isle of Wight NHS Trust and Wessex Academic Health Science Network (AHSN) – set up by NHS England – about its concerns in 2018.
Under the leadership of a police officer and a mental health professional, SIM aims to work with users of mental health services – often those at high risk of suicide and self-harm – who have not committed a crime but are seen as “high intensity users” of emergency services.
This can involve withholding assessment and treatment, and the scheme gives police officers a key role in making clinical decisions when service-users are in crisis.
SIM has received high-profile, high-level backing from NHS England, and in 2016 it was adopted by the NHS Innovation Accelerator programme, and then selected for “national scaling and spread across the AHSN Network” two years later.
Earlier this month, Disability News Service reported how Paul Jennings, the former police officer who devised the SIM scheme, suddenly shut down the High Intensity Network (HIN) that he and his wife set up to support NHS trusts and police forces that sign up to SIM, apparently as a result of the release of the Hampshire police emails.
In 2018, a series of emails from Hampshire police warned Jennings – who denies any wrongdoing – and organisations he was working with that the way he had used “erroneous” data to promote his scheme was “misrepresentative and not ethical”, and that this data was “not remotely accurate in a number of ways, and is then being presented in a way that is just not ethical”.
But despite these concerns, Isle of Wight NHS Trust and Wessex AHSN continued to support the use of SIM.
Last year, the website for The AHSN Network – representing AHSNs across England – was continuing to praise the SIM scheme, claiming that it “can bring significant breakthroughs in the lives of people whose behavioural risks are likely to result in them entering the criminal justice system or even worse, dead from accidental suicide”.
It also claimed that “the best results so far have seen crisis calls and demand reduced by up to 90 per cent”.
AHSNs were set up around the country by NHS England in 2013 to “spread innovation at pace and scale” and aim to link the NHS with academic organisations, local authorities, the third sector and industry.
The grassroots, user-led mental health group Recovery in the Bin said this week: “It’s readily apparent the NHS is incapable of investigating its own failures in regard of SIM/HIN.
“Only an independent investigation will address a culture of abuse, disbelief, and cruelty towards mental health service-users, attitudes which clearly played into the lack of scrutiny for the evidence base and ethical standards of the network.”
This week, the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP) backed SIM service-users and mental health activists, including those from the StopSIM coalition, who have raised concerns about SIM.
It warned how some service-users placed under SIM had been prosecuted and even imprisoned after continuing to self-harm, attempt suicide or report suicidality.
And it called for NHS England to launch an investigation into AHSN Wessex’s response to the warnings from Hampshire police.
RCP said in a statement: “We acknowledge that it has been patients subject to these approaches who have had to do the work of identifying concerns.
“There will be some difficult learning here; any review must examine why professional frameworks did not identify or act on these concerns.”
NHS England has written to mental health trusts across England, calling on them to review their use of the scheme.
But it has so far refused to say if it was concerned by the new information from Hampshire police, or if it will now order an independent investigation into the use of SIM-type schemes across the NHS.
By noon today (Thursday) it had had nearly 16 days to respond to these questions.
Isle of Wight NHS Trust, which provides acute, community, mental health and ambulance services on the island, had also failed to comment by noon today, 16 days after it was first approached to explain how it responded to the warnings from Hampshire police in 2018.
NHS Hampshire, Southampton and Isle of Wight Clinical Commissioning Group had also failed to comment by noon today, a week after it was approached for a comment.
But in a statement released yesterday, Wessex AHSN did comment.
It said that it had not been involved in setting up SIM, which it said was developed by Hampshire Police and the Isle of Wight NHS in 2013 as a pilot project.
A Wessex AHSN spokesperson said: “In 2016, the AHSN was commissioned by Hampshire Police and the Isle of Wight NHS to analyse data collected by them on that small pilot project.
“The AHSN analysed that data but was not requested to audit the data. No concerns were raised at that time by Hampshire Police or the Isle of Wight NHS about that data.”
He said Wessex AHSN did not become aware of concerns about SIM until mid-2018.
He said: “It is not for the AHSN to comment on the veracity of and usage by Hampshire Police Force of its own data.
“Isle of Wight NHS has not made the AHSN aware of any concerns about the pilot data.
“In any case, at this point – the first half of 2018 – thinking about the SIM model had evolved considerably, in particular in London, where a number of partners had come together to understand the potential of the model and further develop it.
“From late 2017 onwards, NHS RightCare commissioned the national roll-out of SIM through to November 2018; and NHS England then commissioned the AHSNs from April 2018 through to March 2020, when that national commission came to [an] end.”
He added: “This is a critical and challenging area of care and the AHSN welcomes actions to review services for high intensity users.
“Our involvement in SIM ended in March 2020. We welcome the review initiated by NHS England and Improvement.”
17 June 2021
Agility and versatility of DPOs helped them deliver vital pandemic services, says report
The agility and versatility of disabled people’s organisations (DPOs) across England has helped them deliver vital support to disabled people during the pandemic, according to new user-led research.
A report on the first stage of the National Lottery-funded project found that local councils, health bodies and larger charities often relied on DPOs to reach those “hardest hit” by the COVID-19 crisis.
It says that DPOs often had more “strength and versatility” than other organisations, which allowed them to continue working and providing their services during the pandemic.
The report says: “For some DPOs there has been an increase in Local Authority recognition, in recognition that they are the best placed organisations to meet the needs of the local disabled population.”
It contrasts this with the big disability charities, many of which faced a loss of income as their charity shops were forced to close and their fundraising activities had to stop, which caused “negative impacts on service delivery”.
The report adds: “This pandemic has really brought to the fore the value of lived experience leaders and their organisations.”
It suggests that because disabled people often have to “navigate difficult processes in their daily lives”, the ability to deal with these barriers “can mean that organisations run and controlled by disabled people are able to negotiate through the pandemic by being responsive, agile and inclusive”.
One DPO said it had provided three councils with “front-line access” to disabled people receiving direct payments; supported the creation of self-directed support plans; created risk appraisals for existing care packages; completed welfare checks on behalf of its largest local authority; and was responsible for ensuring personal assistants could access vaccinations in its region.
The research by Disability Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly saw 36 DPOs respond to a survey about their experiences during the pandemic, with 27 of them also sharing their thoughts at online events.
The survey results suggest that DPOs have experienced no significant loss of staff during the pandemic, although there has been a sharp drop in disabled volunteers.
But it did find that most of the DPOs questioned (26 of 35 who answered the question) had funding concerns about their future sustainability.
Most of the DPOs did not use the government’s job furlough scheme, with only eight out of 36 saying they currently had staff furloughed.
The report also says that use of the Zoom online meeting service appears to have become a “staple” for how DPOs work, both with their own staff and with clients.
All but one of the DPOs said they had started delivering existing projects and services in new ways during the pandemic, including through Zoom, social media, or by providing online support.
And 14 of the DPOs said they had developed new “wellbeing” services, such as digital inclusion projects, mental health and peer support, befriending services, and prescription and food parcel deliveries.
But the report also warns that many of the projects that DPOs can no longer operate because of the pandemic are social and leisure services, and those that rely on human contact, which will be “a major problem for some groups of disabled people”.
Dr Theo Blackmore, project manager for the research, said: “The project grew from a recognition that there are over 100 DPOs across England, many of which are working in isolation from other DPOs, and which therefore have very few opportunities to share experiences or to learn from others dealing with the same issues.
“These organisations offer a lifeline to many thousands of disabled people through the services they provide, and yet often operate on a funding knife-edge.
“I was concerned about the effects of the pandemic on these organisations, their buildings and the services they provide.”
He added: “I would hope that this work provides a foundation for the creation of a strong network of DPOs, in contact with each other to provide mutual support and learning.”
The next stage of the two-year project will provide a programme of peer support, bringing DPOs together online to share their experiences and their solutions.
*For more information about the project, email: theo@disabilitycornwall.org.uk
17 June 2021
Activists vow to clear Osime Brown’s name after Home Office scraps deportation
Autistic rights campaigners have vowed to fight to clear the name of a young, black autistic man after the Home Office finally agreed this week not to proceed with deporting him to Jamaica, a country he has not visited since he was four.
The Home Office decision to withdraw the deportation order for Osime Brown followed rallies in Westminster and Glasgow last weekend, and a petition now signed by more than 425,000 people.
His mother, Joan Martin, said the Home Office had “made the right decision for Osime to remain with his loving, caring family” but that they would “fight on” to clear his name.
Brown – who also has PTSD and a heart condition – served half of a five-year prison sentence following a conviction for robbery, attempted robbery and perverting the course of justice, in connection with the robbery of a mobile phone.
He has always insisted he is innocent of the charges and one witness said he attempted to stop the crime.
Emma Dalmayne, chief executive of Autistic Inclusive Meets (AIM), who has played a leading role in the campaign to have the deportation cancelled, welcomed the Home Office decision but said that she and other campaigners would now join the family in fighting to clear his name and overturn what she said was a clear miscarriage of justice.
She said: “That’s what we are going to be doing next. It hasn’t finished.”
Dalmayne, who began the petition and worked closely with Martin and her son on the deportation campaign, said: “He didn’t commit a robbery. He tried to stop a robbery.”
She has now changed the title of the petition to “Justice For Osime Brown, Clear Osime’s Name!”
She said: “We have got over the first hurdle, now we have the second one.”
She said the case showed the “ongoing persecution” that autistic people are still facing.
Dalmayne said: “Osime’s incarceration was a miscarriage of justice. All of it was a miscarriage of justice.
“He shouldn’t have been put inside, he shouldn’t have been arrested, really.
“I understand why he was because he was present but when the witness for the other side… said Osime had actually rushed forward and tried to stop what was happening when he saw a scuffle happening, that should have counted for something, and it didn’t.
“He was the only one of them that went to prison out of the boys. There was nine of them.”
She said he should not have been put on trial. “He should not have been put in that position. He didn’t understand what was going on.”
She said that “everything needs to change” in the criminal justice system, particularly for black disabled people who are arrested.
She said: “I’m not going to sit here and say it is all over, because it’s not.
“Joan just spoke to me and she’s saying it’s not over and justice has to be served.”
Dalmayne, who herself is autistic with autistic children, said the Home Office decision had been a relief.
She said: “I am relieved, but I think I have woken up a bit angry now. I was crying yesterday [when Joan Martin called to tell her about the Home Office decision], but I have woken up a bit pissed off because this shouldn’t have happened in the first place.”
She said the Home Office had been forced to cancel the deportation because of the public pressure.
She said: “Once AIM got the ball rolling with the petition, and the press started to come forward, it was like a snowball effect.
“I don’t think they could have said they were going to send him [to Jamaica]. I think there would have been riots.
“It would have got to people going to the airport and laying under the aeroplane and things like that.
“We thought we were going to have to do that. Stay around [Osime’s] house in case they came.”
In a statement, Martin thanked those who had supported the family through the “long, and painful ordeal”, and said that without them her son “would have been condemned to a very short and miserable life”.
She said: “Because of you, Osime will remain at his home.”
She added: “I hope this is a reflection and learning curve for people in power, to know that they are dealing with real people, real lives, and when they make wrong choices or decisions people are injured, sometimes to a point of no return.”
Despite the decision to cancel the deportation order, the Home Office refused to confirm yesterday (Wednesday) that the deportation was not going ahead, or to explain why it had reached the decision.
Instead, it said in a statement: “In order to protect the public it is right that foreign nationals, convicted of crimes with prison sentences of 12 months or more, are automatically considered for deportation under the 2007 Borders Act.
“The Home Office reviews all cases when new information is provided and all decisions are made in accordance with the law.”
17 June 2021
Government finally faces court hearing over failure to provide BSL interpreters
The government has been forced into court to defend its failure to provide on-platform British Sign Language (BSL) interpreters for “urgent” and “critical” COVID-19 televised briefings.
The judicial review hearing* yesterday (Wednesday) was the latest stage in the #WhereIsTheInterpreter campaign, which began in March 2020 after early televised briefings provided no access to an interpreter.
The case is being taken by Katie Rowley, from Leeds, who is Deaf, and argues that the government has breached its duties under the Equality Act.
More than 100 deaf people across the country had arranged to watch the high court case online, while many others were set to watch from community facilities and deaf organisations.
The #WhereIsTheInterpreter campaign, led by Lynn Stewart-Taylor, has raised money through crowdfunding to pay for independent expert evidence and court fees for the case, while Stewart-Taylor and fellow Deaf activist Mark Hodgson walked from Gloucester to Downing Street last October to raise funds for the judicial review and deliver a petition.
Campaigners have been calling on the government to act since the early weeks of the pandemic, when the government issued a series of crucial public announcements relating to the closure of schools and public spaces, lockdown, shielding and furlough, but which were not accessible to tens of thousands of Deaf people who use BSL as their first language.
Following pressure from Deaf campaigners, the government arranged for an “in screen” interpreter to be available, at first only on the BBC News channel, and then later also through government social media channels.
But there were later coronavirus briefings where there was no interpreter available, even on the BBC News channel.
Rowley has collected evidence of five televised briefings where there was no BSL interpreter, and another two where there was only an interpreter for part of the broadcast.
Her case is that providing an on-platform interpreter avoids any technical issues, ensures that a BSL-interpreted version is available on any channel, and “demonstrates an inclusive approach by the government”.
The devolved governments in Scotland and Wales have both provided on-platform interpreters for their televised COVID-19 briefings.
Before the hearing, Rowley said: “The pandemic has been a very worrying time for everyone but to be pregnant and unable to understand the information coming from the government made it absolutely terrifying.
“Then government COVID briefings were essential for everyone to know what was going on and how to best keep safe – yet they were not accessible to the tens of thousands of people who have BSL as their first language.
“The late inclusion of an in-screen interpreter, which was then inconsistently available, is just not good enough.”
Her solicitor Chris Fry, founder of Fry Law, who has acted for the #WhereIsTheInterpreter campaign since March last year, said before the hearing: “Ensuring that information is provided in an accessible format can rarely be more important than in the midst of a pandemic.
“This case has brought Deaf people together in the most remarkable way to challenge the government to do better, and to fulfil what we say are its obligations under the Equality Act.
“It’s about time that the Deaf community is ‘levelled up’ by this government.
“They have a number of obligations under the law to ensure that the information they provide is accessible to Deaf people and my client believes that they breached these obligations in relation to the COVID briefings.
“We hope that the court will agree and that the government will review its provisions for the Deaf community to ensure that they have the same access to information as everyone else.”
The court’s decision was yesterday reserved until a future date.
A government spokesperson said: “We are committed to supporting disabled people through every stage of this pandemic and have established BSL interpretation at the No10 press conferences via the BBC News channel and iPlayer, available on all TV packages as part of Freeview.
“The BBC has also made their video feed for the BSL interpreter available to all other broadcasters and for use on No10 social channels.
“We continue to work across government to ensure that information and guidance is fully accessible.”
Fry is also representing about 350 deaf people in legal claims against the government over the failure to provide an interpreter for the first COVID-19 briefings.
Those cases have been placed on hold until the outcome of Rowley’s case.
*For a detailed report on yesterday’s court hearing by deaf journalist Liam O’Dell, visit the Limping Chicken website
17 June 2021.
Disabled student wins right to challenge DWP over universal credit ‘discrimination’
A disabled student has won the right to challenge efforts by ministers to prevent him and thousands of others in his situation from claiming universal credit while they are studying.
Flinn Kays argues that many disabled students should be entitled to claim out-of-work benefits while they are studying because they cannot support themselves with a job to the same extent as non-disabled students.
But Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) regulations prevent disabled students undergoing a work capability assessment (WCA), which means they cannot claim universal credit (UC).
When universal credit was approved by parliament, it was agreed that disabled students who could show they had limited capability for work – and already received attendance allowance (AA), disability living allowance (DLA) or personal independence payment (PIP) – should be exempt from the rule that it cannot be claimed by full-time students.
But despite those regulations, it eventually became clear that DWP staff were rejecting the claims of disabled students after UC began to be introduced in 2013, and were only allowing disabled students who had already been found to have “limited capability for work” to qualify for the exemption.
The policy is believed to have affected thousands of disabled students.
Last year, work and pensions secretary Therese Coffey finally admitted that the policy was unlawful, and two disabled students were allowed to undergo a WCA to establish their limited capability for work after the high court concluded that DWP had misunderstood the relevant law.
But following the ruling, Coffey introduced new regulations which changed the law so that other disabled students receiving AA, DLA or PIP and making a claim for UC would not be referred for a WCA, and so would have their claims rejected.
She made the change to the regulations on 3 August, the first working day after she told the court she would not be defending the judicial review.
Coffey also gave parliament just one day to consider the new regulations before they came into effect, rather than the usual three weeks, and failed to comply with her statutory duty to consult DWP’s advisers, the social security advisory committee.
She blamed the “capacity restraints” caused by the pandemic.
Kays, a first-year psychology student at Bath Spa University, has now been granted permission to seek a judicial review of the new regulations.
He is arguing that Coffey unlawfully failed to consult on the regulations; that they are discriminatory under the European Convention on Human Rights; that they are irrational; and that they breach the government’s public sector equality duty.
He receives the enhanced rate of both the mobility and daily living components of PIP, but he has to use that money to meet his general living expenses.
He believes he should be entitled to about £900 a month in universal credit, but his application was rejected, and he was not asked to attend a WCA.
He said: “Because of my disabilities, I am not able to supplement my income to the same extent as a non-disabled student is.
“I believe it is unlawful and also discriminatory that I am being prevented from claiming universal credit.”
Lucy Cadd, his solicitor, from law firm Leigh Day, said: “The government says that it has always been its policy intention to prevent disabled students from claiming universal credit.
“However, all of the parliamentary debates that occurred in 2011-2012, just prior to the benefit being introduced, clearly indicate that the intention was very much for the position to remain as it was under legacy benefits, which was that disabled students most certainly could claim means-tested benefits whilst studying.
“It is already twice as likely that a non-disabled student will attain a degree level qualification than a disabled student – this gap will only increase if disabled students are not able to supplement their income with UC.”
Disabled Students UK (DSUK), a grassroots organisation led and controlled by disabled students, welcomed permission being granted for the legal action.
Amelia McLoughlan, DSUK’s network director, said disabled students had been concerned about the issue since 2017.
She said: “As Flinn has stated, disabled students are often not able to supplement their income to the same extent as non-disabled students.”
She said DWP’s policy appeared to suggest “an equivalency between disabled students’ capacity to study and their capacity to work”, an “oversimplification” which was “incredibly concerning”.
She said: “The policy does not take into account the complexities of disability, the already difficult and administratively burdensome environment disabled students are subject to within university education (as described by the Arriving at Thriving report), or the significant barriers to employment disabled people face.”
She added: “Rejecting universal credit applications purely based on whether the applicant is in full-time education has a significant financial impact on individuals.
“We know from our members and disabled students we encounter, that many disabled people simply can’t afford to study and many are under significant financial stress.
“Therefore, we would welcome research assessing if this has impacted disabled students’ decision-making when considering applying for university admissions, or if this has resulted in disabled students having worse academic and/or health outcomes due to financial stress.
“This is a timely issue as our latest survey shows 54 per cent of disabled students report experiencing increased stress, anxiety or worry due to financial pressures during the pandemic.
“This only further demonstrates the importance for the secretary of state, and the government at large, to consult with disabled people, including disabled students, on policies that directly affect their lives.
“Policies such as this culminate in regulation that creates unequal opportunities and prevents the government from closing the gap in degree qualification achievement between disabled and non-disabled people, currently at 16.2 percentage points according to the ONS.”
Ken Butler, welfare rights and policy adviser for Disability Rights UK, which has campaigned on the issue for four years, said: “The granting of this new judicial review is great news and hopefully will be as successful as the original.
“Following representations by DR UK, both the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the work and pensions committee of MPs have previously recommended that receipt of PIP or DLA should mean – as for employment and support allowance and housing benefit – that disabled students be treated as having a limited capacity for work for UC purposes.
“Student finance for disabled students is inadequate, as shown by the fact that many would qualify under the UC means test if they were only eligible.
“In addition, student finance is often unavailable during the whole summer vacation.
“That new regulations blocking UC entitlement were so swiftly introduced last year casts doubt on the government’s commitment to ensure disabled people’s access to education.
“In addition, in turn it casts doubt as to the government’s commitment to increase the number of disabled people in employment.”
A DWP spokesperson said: “We are unable to comment on an ongoing legal case.
“Students, including those with a disability or health condition, can access support for their higher education courses through various loans and grants funded through the student support system.”
17 June 2021
News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com
