Disability hate crime prosecutions plummet… but police stay silent
Prosecutions of disability hate crime have plunged by half in just two years, at the same time as offences recorded by police forces are rising sharply, according to “incredibly worrying” new figures.
The key explanation for the fall appears to be a dramatic fall in the number of cases passed by police to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), while the number of disability hate crimes recorded by police is continuing to rise every year.
In the last two years, the number of disability hate crimes recorded by police forces in England and Wales has risen from 8,250 to 9,943, an increase of more than 20 per cent.
But in the same two years, CPS figures show that the number of disability hate crime cases prosecuted in court has nearly halved, from 579 in 2018-19 to just 292 in 2020-21.
Last year, it fell from 360 to 292, a decrease of 19 per cent in just one year.
The number of prosecutions as a proportion of recorded disability hate crime offences is now less than three per cent (2.9 per cent).
Disability hate crime prosecutions are less than a third of the level they were in 2016-17, when there were 1,009, while police recorded offences have risen from 5,254 to 9,943, an increase of 90 per cent.
The CPS declined to offer any explanation for the dramatic fall in prosecutions, but it did provide figures to Disability News Service (DNS) which showed how the number of disability hate crime suspects referred to prosecutors by the police for a charging decision dropped to just 298 in 2020-21 across the whole of England and Wales.
This is a fall from 320 in 2019-20, 367 in 2018-19, and 924 in 2014-15.
The National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) had failed by noon today (Thursday) to say why the number of referrals had fallen so sharply, and what steps police forces were taking to correct this.
It is the third year in succession that NPCC has failed to provide an explanation for why the figures are falling so sharply and what action it is taking – if any – to stem the decline.
But Vicky Foxcroft, Labour’s shadow minister for disabled people, said: “These findings are incredibly worrying, they need to be urgently investigated.
“Sadly, we know far too often victims of disability hate crime do not get the justice they deserve, and these findings will only lead people to question whether they can trust the system.
“Frustratingly, the government’s strategy for disabled people does little to tackle this, promising a new hate crime strategy, but no actual details.
“More must be done to ensure disabled people are supported in reporting this hate crime and convictions are sought.”
A Home Office spokesperson said: “All forms of hate crime are completely unacceptable.
“We expect the police to take these crimes extremely seriously and work with the CPS to ensure perpetrators are prosecuted and victims receive justice.”
The government will publish its new hate crime strategy – which will include its plans for tackling disability hate crime – this autumn.
But the Home Office declined to say if the strategy would address the issue of falling disability hate crime prosecutions.
Last year, CPS said it was continuing to offer “support” to NPCC in its efforts to “understand” the fall.
But this year, CPS offered no comment on the continued fall in referrals or why that “support” appeared to have had no impact on the number of prosecutions.
Instead, Lionel Idan, chief crown prosecutor for London south and CPS hate crime lead, said: “Hate crime against disabled people is truly abhorrent and has a significant detrimental impact on victims and the wider community.
“The CPS has an enormous amount of sympathy and concern for all victims of disability hate crime, and always takes such offending very seriously.
“We continue to work closely with the police to improve outcomes for victims and to engage with our communities to build greater confidence and reassurance.
“When cases pass our legal tests, we will not hesitate to prosecute perpetrators of all hate crimes.”
28 October 2021
Spending review and budget come up nearly empty on disability strategy funding
The chancellor appears to have failed to provide any new funding for disabled people in the budget and spending review, other than in education and back-to-work support, despite pledges made by ministers when launching their new National Disability Strategy.
The prime minister, Boris Johnson, said in August (PDF) that the strategy would be a “down payment” on the promise to “build back better and fairer, for all our disabled people”.
But analysis of the strategy by Disability News Service (DNS) showed it was accompanied by only £3.95 million in new funding, or just 28p for every disabled person in the UK.
And when challenged about this lack of new funding by the Commons work and pensions committee, the then minister for disabled people, Justin Tomlinson – later sacked and replaced by Chloe Smith – suggested that new funding was likely to be announced soon.
He told the committee that a “huge amount” of the work of the government’s Disability Unit in the following few weeks would be to provide evidence for individual government departments that would “strengthen the likelihood” of disability-focused funding bids being successful in the spending review, which sets departmental budgets up to 2024-25.
Despite this pledge, budget and spending review documents published yesterday (Wednesday) by the Treasury appear to include no details of any such funding being agreed by the chancellor, other than for education and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).
This suggests that other government departments either failed to put in any disability-related bids to the Treasury, or the Disability Unit did not provide them with the necessary evidence.
Disabled people’s organisations have previously described the National Disability Strategy as a “cynical re-packaging of current policies and current budgets” and the lack of new funding as “an insult”.
The only mention of disabled people in Rishi Sunak’s 7,800-word budget and spending review speech was to announce a significant increase in capital funding that will provide 30,000 new school places for disabled children and those with special educational needs (SEN).
The budget document says this will mean “more than tripling current capital funding levels to over £900 million by 2024-25”.
But even this will be split between funding to improve the accessibility of mainstream settings and money to build new segregated special schools, which is unlikely to be seen as a step forward for disability rights and equality.
The only other new disability-related funding appears to be an extra £156 million over the next three years to provide employment support for disabled people, which will focus on providing more DWP work coaches.
The government’s Disability Unit, DWP and the Treasury had not commented by noon today on the lack of new disability-related funding.
Meanwhile, there were some grounds for optimism in the chancellor’s announcement that government departments will see their spending increase by 3.8 per cent a year in real terms over the next three years.
But there is likely to be anger at Sunak’s claim that this proves that the Conservatives are “the real party of public services”.
That claim comes only a week after DNS reported how government-funded researchers linked post-2010 cuts to spending on social care and health by the Conservative-led coalition to more than 57,000 deaths in England in just four years.
Although local authorities in England were yesterday handed a multi-year settlement of an estimated average real terms increase of three per cent a year, this will depend on them increasing council tax by three per cent a year, and there was no new money for social care following the much-criticised reforms announced last month by the prime minister.
Cllr David Fothergill, chair of the Local Government Association’s community wellbeing board, said: “Social care has been on the frontline throughout the pandemic and it is disappointing that no additional funding to address existing pressures on care and support have been provided.”
Probably the most unexpected of Sunak’s announcements was a cut in the universal credit (UC) “taper rate” from 63p to 55p.
This will mean that a claimant’s UC payment will be reduced by 55p, rather than 63p, for every £1 they earn above their work allowance.
The government will also increase the work allowance – the amount that households with children or a member with “limited capability for work” can earn before their UC award begins to be reduced – by £500 a year.
Sunak said that nearly two million families would keep, on average, an extra £1,000 a year as a result of these UC measures.
He also announced a rise in the National Living Wage from £8.91 an hour to £9.50 from April 2022.
But Inclusion London pointed out that, although the cut in the UC taper rate was “welcome news”, disabled people who are out of work will not benefit.
Sunak failed to reverse the decision to end – earlier this month – the temporary £20-a-week “uplift” that was handed to all universal credit claimants at the start of the pandemic.
Disabled campaigners said the budget was – again – focusing government support on those in work, while those who are not working, or cannot work, including many disabled people, face continuing rises in the cost of living with no such government support.
Disabled campaigner Kaliya Franklin, who was a leading member of the grassroots Spartacus Network that researched issues on disability and social security, said on Twitter this morning: “Sunak is too slick to say ‘on yer bike’ but his actions are all about creating such desperate poverty that it forces people into work. And to move.
“Without any recognition of the millions not expected to work because they are caring for young children, sick or disabled.”
28 October 2021
Greens set to ‘embarrass’ other parties after backing free social care
The Green Party has become the only major political party to support free social care for all adults who need it in England, following an “overwhelming” vote at its annual conference.
The party said the proposals would put social care “on a par with the NHS”.
The policy motion (see page 112) passed by party members calls for all social care, support and independent living services to be free at the point of use and “fully publicly funded”.
It appears to mirror proposals put forward by disabled people’s organisations for a National Independent Living and Support Service (NILSS).
The Green Party motion says that all social care services should be subject to standards based on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, accountable to “local democratic bodies”, with a “secure national framework of laws, guidance and funding”.
And it says the services should be “designed and delivered locally and co-productively”, involving disabled adults, councils, the NHS, carers and unions.
The vote now allows the Greens to contrast their free social care offer with the policies of the three other main parties that will be fighting seats in England at future elections, with the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats all currently in favour of continuing to charge many disabled people for their social care.
Andy Greene, a member of DPAC’s national steering group, said the vote was a “major step forward”.
He said: “It’s a major step in the right direction and we would urge other parties to ask themselves what they are doing to respond to this.”
Dzaier Neil, national convenor of the Green Party’s disability group, co-equality and diversity officer on its national executive, and a co-sponsor of the motion, told Disability News Service (DNS) this week that the new policy was “ground-breaking” and would be an “ace card” for her party.
She said she hoped her party would now be able to “embarrass” other parties into taking the issue of free social care seriously.
She had told the annual conference in Birmingham: “We have a government unwilling to address the fact that the system is thoroughly broken, that millions of people in this country are being left without the basic support they need, and that scenario is only going to get worse.
“We are told there is no money to address this, but we know in reality there just isn’t the will.
“The pandemic has shown us that when the situation is one of life and death the funding can be found.
“And that is where we find ourselves with social care – in a situation of life and death.”
Larry Sanders, the Green Party’s former health and social care spokesperson, who proposed the motion, said: “The NHS is based on the principle that need, not wealth, should determine the health care we get.
“Today, the Green Party backed the same principle for social care.”
Sanders, the brother of US senator Bernie Sanders – who has twice come runner-up in the race to secure the Democratic party presidential nomination – said: “The hundreds of thousands of people who need help to eat and wash, get residential care when they need it and to lead a full life under their own control, [would be able to] do so with their support paid for in the same way as the NHS.
“The Tory government said that charges should be capped at £86,000. We say they should be capped at zero.
“We also committed ourselves to good pay and conditions for care workers and to giving family carers the support they need.”
The government’s controversial social care reforms – announced last month – were met with widespread criticism from the disabled people’s movement over the inadequate level of funding, the failure to address the needs of working-age disabled people, the lack of detail, and the disproportionate impact of the plans on lower-income workers.
Labour leader Keir Starmer told DNS last year, during his successful leadership campaign, that he supported a motion – passed by Labour’s party conference in 2019 – that called for all social care to be provided free through an NILSS-type system, and for that to be funded by national progressive taxation.
But Labour has since backed away from that position, and the party was accused of betraying disabled people after a senior shadow minister told a meeting in June that calling for free social care would just “give the Tories a stick to beat Labour with”.
Labour’s shadow social care minister Liz Kendall then refused four times to say if she supported the idea of free social care, at a fringe meeting at her party’s annual conference last month.
The Liberal Democrats refused this week to confirm that their current policy was not to provide free social care for all adults who need it, or even to say what the party’s current policy was on social care charging.
Daisy Cooper, the party’s health and social care spokesperson, said in a statement: “The Liberal Democrats are working on our own proposals for social care reform and how to pay for it.
“In the meantime, we are calling for cross-party talks to ensure that we can all agree on a proper long-term solution that ensures everyone gets the quality care they need.”
28 October 2021
Eight-hour debate suggests House of Lords is split on assisted suicide
The chances of a bill that aims to legalise assisted suicide being passed by the House of Lords appear to be in the balance after nearly eight hours of debate among peers.
The organisation Dignity in Dying, which leads the campaign for legalisation, suggested afterwards that the debate showed the Lords “clearly recognises” that it is time for reform and that change was “inevitable”.
But analysis of the 130-plus speeches suggests instead that the number of peers who signalled support for the assisted dying bill during the debate was only slightly higher than the number who opposed it, despite months of campaigning from the well-funded pro-legalisation lobby.
Even if the bill is passed by the Lords, it will still need to be debated and approved by MPs.
Disability News Service analysis of the official Hansard account of the debate suggests that about 67 peers spoke in favour of the bill, and about 63 spoke against (including five whose opposition was announced by peers who spoke in the debate), with a handful who appeared undecided.
Exact figures are not possible because no vote was taken at the end of the bill’s second reading on Friday, while hundreds of peers did not take part in the debate.
The bill will now go forward to its committee stage, where it will receive detailed examination.
Among high-profile disabled peers, a majority spoke against the bill – including the crossbenchers Baroness [Jane] Campbell, Baroness Masham and Baroness [Tanni] Grey-Thompson – although Lord [Colin] Low spoke in favour, as did the former Liberal Democrat president Baroness [Sal] Brinton, who has co-sponsored the bill.
The bill would give terminally-ill and “mentally competent” adults with less than six months to live “the right to choose the manner and timing of their death”.
Baroness Campbell, who has led disabled people’s opposition to the bill for many years as founder of Not Dead Yet UK, told fellow peers that there must be “true choice” for everyone at the end of life before the “ultimate step” of assisted suicide could be considered.
She said: “I am not immune to dark thoughts when my health deteriorates and social care fails, or when I am told that I am at end of life and I am in pain – but my experience has taught me that universal patient-centred care is and has to be the first priority.”
She added: “The bill would alter society’s view of those in vulnerable circumstances by signalling to the sick that an assisted suicide is something that they might or ought to consider.
“It will result in unintended, dangerous consequences, and we all know, from other jurisdictions where similar legislation exists, that it is simply not true to say that this does not happen.”
Baroness [Tanni] Grey-Thompson said that many people had told her: “If my life was like yours, I would kill myself.”
She said: “I have a huge amount of privilege in my life, but if people think this, it becomes very easy for them to conflate disability and a six-month diagnosis, and decide that we have no right to live.”
And she added: “I believe it is fundamentally wrong to have assisted dying on the NHS when there is no right to palliative care.”
Another disabled crossbencher, Baroness Masham, said the bill had “put fear into thousands of vulnerable people who are elderly or disabled”.
She said: “Lifting the lid off lethal, poisonous drugs is frightening and dangerous.
“I have had hundreds of emails and letters from very worried people.
“They are right in thinking that vulnerable people will be pressurised into thinking that they are a burden, especially now, when there is an extreme shortage of people to care for elderly and disabled people.”
Lord Shinkwin, a disabled Tory peer, described how he had been left unable to talk, swallow or breathe independently after lifesaving neurosurgery.
He said: “My neurosurgeon would not give me odds even on survival, never mind recovery.
“To say that I felt vulnerable would be an understatement.
“However, the one thing that did not compound my pain, anguish and complete loss of autonomy was the fear that the law presumed to pose the question of whether my life was worth living.”
He said that, if the assisted dying bill had been law, it would have “compounded” his “acute sense of vulnerability”.
He added: “There is no doubt in my mind that I would have felt like a burden.”
Two prominent disabled peers spoke in favour of the bill.
Lord Low, former chair of RNIB and still one of the charity’s vice-presidents, said that other lawmakers around the world had “recognised that banning assisted dying is both dangerous and cruel”.
He said: “Opposing assisted dying because of speculative concerns about how safe or unsafe it might be is hypocritical when we look at the lack of protections around current end-of-life choices.
“We are told that the licensing of assisted dying is a particular threat to disabled people, but there is far more potential for abuse and harm towards disabled people under current arrangements than there would be under a robust assisted dying law – for example, through outsourcing the problem to Dignitas, or doctors making end-of-life decisions without robust safeguards, transparency or oversight.”
Baroness Brinton said the bill was “urgently needed”.
She said: “If we are serious about the risks to vulnerable people, we must accept that, under existing law, a hypothetical bad relation could encourage an elderly or disabled person to bring their life to an end.
“There are far fewer safeguards on, for instance, withdrawal of treatment, ‘Do not attempt resuscitation’ orders, or voluntarily stopping eating and drinking, in comparison to the safeguards provided in the bill, where the decision is in the hands of the individual, not other people.”
She added: “The many personal stories told today add to the clear evidence that the blanket ban on assisted dying is dangerous and cruel.
“I believe the bill proposes a robust, safe and compassionate alternative.”
The Labour peer Lord Campbell-Savours described his 40 years of ill-health and “escalating pain” that had now left him “physically diminished but in good spirits”.
He said suicide had never crossed his mind, but he understood “the dilemma of those who want out with dignity, particularly in their last weeks and months” because there are “circumstances in which the pain could become unbearable”.
But he said: “My concern is that, while I can trust those close to me in such circumstances to act in my best interests, a relaxation in the law could lead to the abuse of others whose families are not so well disposed.”
He added: “If we cannot establish adequate safeguards in committee, then I shall vote against; if we can, then I shall support the bill.”
Meanwhile, despite repeated dismissal by the pro-legalisation lobby of the arguments made by disabled campaigners in the past months and years, comments by some of those supporting the bill suggest that some at least of their concerns are well-founded.
The Conservative peer, Lord Vinson, who supports the bill, appeared to accept that there would be “abuse” of the bill if it became law – which is likely to mean disabled people dying when they do not actually want to do so.
He told fellow peers: “Yes, I accept that there are occasions when any bill or piece of legislation will be abused – nothing is watertight – but we should not so entangle the law with safeguards, to prevent some perceived abuse, to the extent that it frustrates the deeply needed reform that the bill calls for.”
Another supporter, the crossbencher Lord Aberdare, appeared to accept another of the key concerns of those opposed to the bill – that people will request an assisted suicide because they do not want to be a “burden” on family or society.
He said that “not wishing to be a burden to one’s loved ones in one’s dying days seems to me a perfectly respectable consideration for a dying person to take into account”.
28 October 2021
Ground-breaking event and report could be ‘catalyst’ for COP 26 action on disability
A new report and an event set to take place at next month’s COP 26 summit in Glasgow could provide a “catalyst” for raising awareness of the disproportionate impact of climate change on disabled people, say campaigners.
The Scottish disabled people’s organisation (DPO) Inclusion Scotland has helped to secure an event focused on disabled people and climate change for the first time in the 30-year history of the UN climate change treaty.
Inclusion Scotland will use the “side-event” on 5 November to present its new report on climate change, disabled people and climate action in Scotland.
It has been working with allies including McGill University in Canada and International Disability Alliance (IDA) to ensure disabled people have a platform at COP 26.
The Inclusion Scotland report makes it clear that disabled Scots stand to be harder hit by climate change than non-disabled people but are often excluded or disadvantaged by actions taken to address it.
The report says that disabled people have been “perhaps the most overlooked group” in negotiations, policy-making and implementing policy on climate change.
It points out that ground floor and level access properties, required by many disabled people with mobility impairments, are particularly vulnerable to flooding, while many nursing and residential homes have been built on flood plains.
And, as the COVID-19 pandemic has shown, disabled people are often among those worst-affected in an emergency, and least able to access emergency support.
The report, It’s Our Planet Too…, written by Inclusion Scotland’s policy manager, Susie Fitton, says that disabled people’s “rights, needs and perspectives have been systematically neglected in international, national and local responses to a changing climate”.
It highlights how efforts to reduce emissions in Scotland can “actively discriminate” against disabled people, through acts of “eco-ableism”.
Such acts have already included banning plastic straws without realising that some disabled people need them to drink; removing accessible parking bays to make way for cycle lanes; and setting up low-emission zones and promoting electric vehicles when disabled people rely on cars or cannot afford to buy new electric vehicles.
The report warns that planning for low-carbon cities that favour pedestrianisation “may result in urban ‘no go’ zones for disabled people reliant on cars, and taxis, when public transport is not accessible or suitable for them”.
It adds: “There is very little research evidence on the impact of zero carbon policymaking on disabled people, in Scotland, or anywhere else for that matter.”
It makes several calls for action from the UN, the UK and Scottish governments, local authorities and voluntary organisations and climate activists.
It stresses the need for governments to include disabled people in policy-making around climate change, for activists to engage with disabled people to make their protests accessible, and for the UN to recognise DPOs and allies as a key, separate grouping in negotiations.
Moira Tasker, Inclusion Scotland’s chief executive, said: “The harms caused by climate change are very real for disabled Scots.
“Extreme weather, floods and heatwaves can be catastrophic for some disabled people.
“These are the people in our society who are already more likely to be marginalised by poverty, less likely to be evacuated safely, more prone to health risks and struggle to get insurance that protects their homes.
“Despite a growing recognition that disabled Scots may be harder hit by climate impacts, current efforts to reduce local emissions, tackle waste and reduce plastic pollution and plan for future emergencies can exclude and discriminate against disabled people.
“This needs to change, and we hope this event, and our report, will be the catalyst for that change.”
Elham Youssefian, IDA’s inclusive humanitarian action and disaster risk reduction adviser, said it was an “historic moment for the disability movement”.
He said: “It is time for global leaders and climate action decision-makers to recognise that as 15 per cent of the world’s population, disabled people experience the most harm caused by climate change.
“For this reason, no climate action decision should be considered legitimate or efficient unless it is compliant with the rights of disabled people and in consultation with their representative organisations.”
Professor Sébastien Jodoin, from the Disability-Inclusive Climate Action Research Program at McGill University, which is leading on the event, added: “Disabled people are on the frontlines of the climate crisis – they are adversely affected both by the impacts of climate change and careless and ableist policies adopted to reduce carbon emissions.
“All over the world, an increasing number of disabled people are speaking out on the climate crisis and demanding ambitious and inclusive climate action from their governments.
“This report from Inclusion Scotland and this ground-breaking side-event is exactly the sort of advocacy that is needed to raise awareness of the disproportionate impacts of climate change for disabled people and to promote disability-inclusive climate action at every level.”
28 October 2021
Protesters call for action from council after years of housing failures
Protesters were outside a town hall this week to support a disabled man who has spent years being “ignored, insulted and patronised” by his local authority over the serious damage his council flat is causing to his health.
Tuesday’s protest aimed to draw attention to Hackney council’s failure to ensure safe and accessible housing for its disabled residents, and to highlight the national accessible housing crisis.
The protest was called by London Renters Union (LRU) in support of two disabled residents of Hackney, in east London, who have both experienced years of health problems linked to their housing.
The protest outside Hackney Town Hall was also supported by Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC), with a DPAC activist drawing attention to the wider crisis in accessible housing.
One of the two disabled residents, Maxime*, told Disability News Service (DNS) earlier this year how he had been left with serious health problems because of the toxic mould that has spread across large parts of his fourth-floor flat.
He has been complaining about the black mould, damp and roof and wall leaks since moving into the flat in 2017, and he believes he developed the autoimmune condition sarcoidosis because of the mould.
A consultant has told him that the mould could have triggered the sarcoidosis.
The council knew when he moved in that he had long-term neurological conditions, mental distress and chronic pain, all of which have been worsened by his living conditions.
He has been told that he is at risk of lung complications because of the mould and damp.
There are also concerns about potentially toxic fumes that continue to leak into his flat.
Despite repeated concerns raised with the council, and requests to be rehoused, he is still living in the flat, which continues to affect both his physical and mental health.
A three-page letter detailing his ordeal and calling for an urgent transfer to a new flat, drafted by LRU – which describes the “health, disrepair, mismanagement and harassment issues” he has had to face over the last four years – was handed to the council during the protest.
His disabled neighbour Mary Walsh, who also lives on the building’s fourth floor, joined him at the protest.
A long-term resident of the building, she believes her chronic health conditions, including acute asthma, COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and emphysema, have also been affected by her housing situation, particularly through pollution from nearby traffic, and the same fumes that are affecting Maxime.
She said the building’s lift can sometimes be out of order for months at a time, which can cause her serious problems because she cannot even climb two steps when she is particularly ill.
Mary told DNS that the protest “might be the only way they take notice”.
Maxime said he was at the protest to ask the council to provide both of them with safe places to live.
He said: “I have tried to engage with the council for four-and-a-half years. I felt silenced, ignored, patronised, I have felt insulted, I have felt fobbed off, and nothing changes.
“I am in a perpetual state of damage and injury to my health.
“Today, with the help of LRU, I am hoping this damaging cycle will stop.”
Cllr Clayeon McKenzie, the council’s cabinet member for housing services, promised Maxime and Mary at the protest that the council would act on their concerns.
Among others supporting the protest were Green Party London Assembly member Zack Polanski and Dzaier Neil, national convenor of the Green Party’s disability group and co-equality and diversity officer on its national executive.
Neil, a disabled activist and Paralympic gold-medallist, told DNS that disabled people faced significant discrimination in trying to secure good quality accessible housing.
She said she was particularly concerned about how many local authorities were renting out accessible properties to non-disabled people, and how many young disabled people were being housed in residential homes for older people.
Andy Greene, a member of DPAC’s national steering group, said Max’s ordeal was an example of the “chilling” way disabled people were being treated.
He said he believed that at least 1,000 other people in Hackney, and in every borough in the city, and across the country, were having similar housing experiences.
He told DNS that he believed the solution to the accessible housing crisis was to look at new technologies such as 3D house-printing, and to “be bold and brave and at least explore these as options when we are at such a crisis point”.
He contrasted this with merely shovelling more funding towards private sector developers and landlords – rather than tenants’ organisations and disabled people’s organisations – a solution which he said had “got us into this crisis”.
He told the protest that disabled people had developed their own solutions to crises in the social care and welfare systems, but had yet to come up with an answer to the “housing emergency”, even though hundreds of thousands of disabled people across the country “are living in homes that are not fit to be living in”.
He said: “What we need to do as disabled people, as housing activists and tenants, is to come together and create a vision of what housing in this country could look like that serves our needs.
“I say demand a better future, demand a solution to the housing crisis, but make those solutions ourselves.”
Clare, an LRU organiser, told DNS that the union had organised the protest because the council did not appear to accept the impact his housing was having on Maxime.
She said that tenants across London, and the country, were not being believed when they complained about their housing, and she called for “massive investment in housing, and housing owned by communities”.
Cllr McKenzie said in a statement later: “I met with Maxime and Mary this week at Hackney Town Hall, and listened to their experience with respect to their housing condition and assured them that I would ensure that the issues they raised would be dealt with urgently.
“We have carried out a range of repairs to the property already including the installation of a new kitchen recently in one of them, however, I acknowledge there is more that needs to be done.
“The housing team will arrange to visit the properties and make a full assessment of the outstanding work and work with Mary and Maxime to get them done to their full satisfaction, including supporting them with their future housing need.
“I want to say I am wholeheartedly sorry if we have fallen below the standards expected of us in this instance.
“Fixing the issues for these residents is a top priority for us.
“We endeavour to give all of our residents a good, secure home, and eight out of ten residents are satisfied with our repairs and maintenance services.
“We will of course see what lessons we can learn to ensure situations like this are resolved as quickly as possible in future.”
Shown the statement, Maxime said the response sounded “hollow” because of the length of time he has been asking the council for help.
And he said Cllr McKenzie appeared to be ignoring his clear request to be moved to new safe housing, which he made because he can no longer cope with the “trauma and struggle attached to this property”.
*He has asked for his surname not to be used
28 October 2021
TUC calls for action on home working for disabled people
The TUC is calling for action to make it easier for disabled people to work from home, after a huge majority of those who have done so during the pandemic said they wanted to continue being able to do so.
A YouGov poll for the TUC found nine in 10 disabled workers surveyed who worked from home during the pandemic wanted to carry on doing so, at least some of the time.
Nearly two-thirds (63 per cent) of those had worked from home said it had given them greater control over their working hours, while two-fifths said it had reduced their tiredness and fatigue.
In a report, the TUC says there was widespread anecdotal evidence – before the pandemic – of disabled people being denied the opportunity of working from home, and other requests for flexible working.
This is despite employers’ duties under the Equality Act to make reasonable adjustments for disabled workers who face barriers in the workplace.
But many of those questioned in the survey said they had lacked the basic equipment that would allow them to do their jobs at home during the pandemic.
More than a third (34 per cent) lacked proper office equipment such as a desk, chair or computer, while one in 11 disabled workers (nine per cent) who worked from home experienced impairment-related difficulties in taking part in online meetings.
Nearly a third (30 per cent) said their mental health had worsened because of working from home during the pandemic, while 26 per cent said it had improved.
Those who said it had worsened were twice as likely to say they lacked proper office equipment compared to those whose mental health had improved (50 per cent versus 25 per cent) and were more than twice as likely to have experienced impairment-related difficulties in taking part in online meetings (17 per cent versus seven per cent).
But despite these challenges, nearly all disabled workers (90 per cent) who had worked from home during the pandemic wanted to continue doing so in some form, at least part of the time.
The report says proposed government reforms – currently out for consultation – would do little to change the current “weak and fundamentally flawed approach” to the right to request flexible working.
Instead, it says, the government should ensure that disabled workers who have worked from home during the pandemic can continue to do so, and that disabled workers are not penalised for accessing flexible working as a reasonable adjustment, by making flexible working the norm in all workplaces.
And it calls on the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to update its code of practice on employment to include more good practice examples of reasonable adjustments, including working from home and the provision of appropriate equipment and software.
It also says the commission should receive more funding to carry out “targeted enforcement” of workers’ rights to reasonable adjustments.
The report also calls on employers to review their policies and ensure they comply with their duty to make reasonable adjustments – including offering working from home and flexible work patterns – “as soon as is possible”.
Amy Bishop, a member of the TUC’s disabled workers’ committee, said the research showed that “when disabled people are given the equipment they need, working from home can be hugely beneficial”, as was shown by the pandemic.
She said: “We need to ensure disabled workers have their reasonable adjustments put in place in a timely manner, and remind employers that adjustments can also include changes to working hours and location.”
She added: “Personally, I have been lucky to work for a supportive employer who has enabled me to work flexible hours and partially from home for a number of years.
“This enables me to manage my pain, nausea and fatigue levels as well as my artificial nutrition, much more easily than if I was having to travel into the office every working day.
“Working in this way has kept me in work despite multiple health challenges during this time.
“The difficulty is if I ever wanted to work in a different role or for a different organisation; job adverts just don’t include options for flexibility, making it very difficult to find anything suitable.
“This equally applies to those disabled people who want to enter or re-enter the workforce; society does not make it easy to find suitable, good work.”
Frances O’Grady, TUC general secretary, said: “During the pandemic, many disabled people were able to work flexibly or from home for the first time – often after being previously told that it was not possible in their job.
“Even amid the grief and isolation of the pandemic, these changed working patterns improved the experience of many disabled people at work.
“We can’t go back.”
An EHRC spokesperson said the commission welcomed the “recognition that additional funding would help us carry out our important work to tackle discrimination and disadvantage” but did not agree that the code of practice needed to be updated.
She said: “We have long said that flexible working, including working from home, is a useful reasonable adjustment to help disabled people to access and stay in work.
“The pandemic has shown that flexible working is possible for many jobs.
“It should be a day-one right for everyone, except for a genuine business reason.
“We already have clear guidance for employers on how to make reasonable adjustments for their staff, including home working.”
28 October 2021
Million-pound programme could transform how museums treat disability history
A ground-breaking programme – backed by National Lottery funding of nearly £1 million – aims to transform the way disability history is represented by museums, address the inequality disabled people face in their workforces, and improve access.
More than 20 museums across England will take part in Accentuate’s Curating for Change work placement programme, thanks to £950,900 from The National Lottery Heritage Fund.
Accentuate hopes the project will improve the way disability history is represented in museums and improve the accessibility of their collections.
Over the next 30 months, it will offer 18-month fellowships to eight disabled people – and 40-day traineeships to another eight disabled people – who want to pursue careers within the museum sector.
Each of the fellows will spend their 18 months researching a museum’s collection, with the aim of “uncovering hidden narratives relating to disabled people”.
Esther Fox, the disabled head of Accentuate, said: “It is crucial that these narratives are interpreted and presented from a lived experience of disability perspective to ensure a nuanced and authentic representation.”
Only four per cent of the museum workforce currently self-identifies as disabled.
Fox said: “Currently the representation of disabled people in museums, both as staff and within collections, is significantly lacking.
“This is not only inequitable, it is also a seriously missed opportunity to understand new perspectives of heritage and ways to meaningfully engage a wider range of people with museums.”
Accentuate says disabled people’s history is rarely exhibited in museums, while there are few objects in collections that reflect that history.
It hopes its project will embed change within the museums taking part, with lessons that can be shared across the sector, and provide a “much-needed platform” for disabled curators to demonstrate their skills and insights.
Fox said: “We have undertaken significant consultation with D/deaf, disabled and neurodivergent people in the development of Curating for Change.
“We have heard about the extensive barriers they have faced.
“Most specifically, inaccessible recruitment practices, lack of flexibility in terms of remote and ‘on site’ working, lack of flexibility with working hours, employers not understanding the support available (such as Access to Work).
“Also, many jobs require extensive qualifications or ability to do physical things such as drive, lift boxes, climb ladders, which is often impossible for disabled people, even if they would be able to fulfil the role in every other way.
“There is also a significant problem with entry level jobs.
“Some people we heard from said they had done some sort of training programme, but they weren’t then deemed to be experienced enough to move into a curatorial role within a museum, but they were too experienced to go on further training or internship programmes, so they were stuck in a catch-22 situation.
“The fellowships aim to address this move into a curatorial career and to support museums in looking at ways to meet access needs rather than seeing these as barriers.”
All the fellowships and traineeships will be paid roles, and will include mentoring and professional development support, opportunities to build connections with the museums taking part in the programme, and access and travel bursaries.
The project will also set up disability heritage co-production groups at each of the museums hosting the fellowships – thanks to extra funding from Art Fund – to support the research and offer advice on creating content, and test different and accessible ways to interpret the disability-related material, both digitally and within the museums themselves.
Museums taking part in the programme include The British Museum, Museum of Liverpool, Black Country Living Museum, the National Railway Museum in York, Museum of London, and the Thackray Museum of Medicine in Leeds.
Fox said: “There is a commitment from right across the sector to improve equity and representation and Curating for Change will deliver the activities that will make this change a reality.”
Accentuate has also established a Museums Strategic Disability Network, which includes museums and organisations such as the Museums Association, the University of Leicester’s Research Centre for Museums and Galleries, and the Association of Independent Museums, and disabled-led organisations working in the field such as VocalEyes and Dash Arts.
The network will use lessons from the programme to help to identify policy recommendations and develop an action plan for the wider sector.
Accentuate works to create opportunities for disabled people in the cultural sector and is part of the cultural development agency Screen South.
28 October 2021
Appeal court overturns controversial sex worker ruling
The court of appeal has overturned a controversial legal ruling that found it would be lawful for a care worker to enable a young disabled man to pay for time with a sex worker.
A Court of Protection judge concluded in April that a care worker would not be breaching the Sexual Offences Act if they supported the man, known as C, to contact, visit and pay a sex worker.
But three court of appeal justices, including the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett, have unanimously ruled that this was wrong.
Lord Burnett said that if the care worker acted in this way it would place them at risk of breaching section 39 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Section 39 of the act says it is unlawful for a care worker to cause or incite someone they are caring for to engage in sexual activity if that person has a “mental disorder”, with a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.
C, who is autistic and has learning difficulties, told his advocate in 2018 that although he wanted a girlfriend, he “considered his prospects of finding one to be very limited” and “wanted to be able to have sex and wished to know whether he could have contact with a sex worker”.
The case was brought to the Court of Protection by C’s local authority, after C’s advocate told his social worker about his request.
Lawyers for justice secretary Robert Buckland – since sacked and replaced by Dominic Raab – told the court at the time that the state should not “facilitate, encourage or promote” such actions and that government policy was “to seek to protect those involved in prostitution and, more generally, actively to discourage it”.
But the Court of Protection judge, Mr Justice Hayden, had said the government’s position was “logically unsustainable” because the act of paying for sex was legal and so he “may not obstruct those who wish to participate in lawful transactions nor, logically those who wish to help them”.
Now the court of appeal has over-ruled this.
Lady Justice King said that although the core of the Mental Capacity Act was about “achieving autonomy for an incapacitated adult”, it was “not however the role of the Court of Protection to endorse an act which would be unlawful” and that the motive of the care worker and whether C had consented were both “irrelevant”.
Lord Justice Baker, the third member of the panel of justices who heard the appeal, added: “The Mental Capacity Act and the Court of Protection do not exist in a vacuum.
“They are part of a wider system of law and justice… Where Parliament has expressly decided that certain conduct should be a criminal offence, it is no part of the Court of Protection’s role to declare that it is lawful.”
The government, which had appealed the original ruling, welcomed the court of appeal’s judgement.
A government spokesperson said: “We welcome this judgement which accepts our concerns that the original ruling could have had significant unintended consequences on how we tackle sexual crime.”
28 October 2021
Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week
A student who uses a wheelchair has not been able to access her university class rooms despite paying £9,000-a-year for the privilege: https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/disabled-student-pays-9000-a-year-but-is-still-not-be-able-to-access-her-lectures/
A disabled man who was forced to drag himself upstairs to use the loo for eight years has won a huge payout. Brent Council has been ordered to pay £27,000 and issue an apology to the resident, referred to as Mr X, the Local Government Ombudsman confirmed: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/disabled-man-forced-crawl-upstairs-25295763
28 October 2021
News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com
