CQC’s care agency COVID deaths secrecy ‘puts commercial interests before disabled people’
The care regulator has been accused of prioritising the financial interests of home care agencies over the safety of disabled people, after refusing to release information that would show which of them have reported deaths of service-users linked to coronavirus.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has told a campaigner that releasing details of which care-providers have experienced COVID-19-related deaths could put their businesses at risk.
CQC was responding to a freedom of information (foi) request from Dr Minh Alexander, a former consultant psychiatrist and NHS whistleblower.
A previous foi response to Alexander revealed that, between 10 April and 20 August, domiciliary care providers in England notified CQC of 892 deaths of service-users that were confirmed or suspected to have resulted from COVID-19.
These deaths were reported by 474 different care-providers, with 166 of them reporting more than one death.
Other than hospices that provide community services, the highest number for a single service was eight deaths.
But when Alexander asked in a follow-up foi request for details of which service-providers had reported coronavirus deaths, CQC refused to provide the information.
One CQC explanation was that just because an agency had reported a death, did not mean that service-provider was unsafe.
Another reason for the refusal was that agencies only need to notify CQC of deaths that may have occurred as a result of, or during, the provision of care by their staff, and there is “still some inconsistency in approach meaning that some domiciliary care providers notify CQC of deaths when this is not required under the regulation”.
CQC told Alexander that releasing the information “risks creating confusion as to the prevalence, spread or impact of the virus”.
And it said that “worried families” could “seek to transfer loved ones from services which have notified CQC of deaths to others which have not and which are therefore – mistakenly – perceived to be safer”.
CQC said that this “may result in significant impact upon providers who are already facing serious financial pressures” and “may act as a disincentive for providers to properly notify CQC that deaths are suspected to be COVID-19 related”.
CQC concluded: “Given the exceptional circumstances, CQC is therefore not currently releasing location-level data about death notifications by care services received during 2020.
“We are keeping this position under regular review and we do intend to publish more data when the level of risk is lower, so that the pandemic response by the government, providers and CQC can be subjected to proper, public scrutiny.”
But Alexander said she was concerned that CQC was asking the public to trust it when it had already been guilty of “an unforgivable lack of protection and accountability”.
She said: “It seems very arrogant that the regulator, which lamentably did not start requesting COVID-19 deaths data from care providers until well into the pandemic, now says, to paraphrase: ‘You’ll just have to trust us to know what’s best for now, and ask us questions when it’s all over.’
“The key issue is that we are facing winter pressures and a second wave, and there is no assurance that CQC and the government have learnt all the lessons of the first wave.”
Mark Harrison, of the Reclaiming Our Futures Alliance, an alliance of disabled people and disabled people’s organisations in England, said: “They are putting the commercial interests of private home care providers ahead of openness and transparency and the interests of disabled people of all ages.
“The other thing is that we don’t trust the CQC.
“They have demonstrated through their lack of credible inspection that they are not to be trusted.
“The care home scandals of Winterbourne View and Whorlton Hall have been broken by television companies and not by the CQC.”
He added: “CQC, at the beginning of the COVID pandemic in March, suspended inspections of the assessment and treatment units [and other services] when they should have been stepping them up.
“They put the interests of CQC and their staff before the residents, so at a time when doctors and nurses and bus drivers were putting their lives on the line, CQC went AWOL.
“They are not fit for purpose.”
Professor Peter Beresford, co-chair of the service-user and disabled people’s network Shaping Our Lives, said: “At best, the CQC response is patronising and out-of-date.
“The whole point of setting up regulatory bodies like CQC was to ensure safety, transparency and effective accountability to service-users and loved ones.
“Taking this decision flies in the face of this, especially during a pandemic where service-users have been disproportionately exposed to risk and death and official information has often been inadequate and unreliable.
“This looks like the latest wrong move from an organisation beset by failure and disaster.”
Alexander said she had started submitting freedom of information requests to CQC on home care-providers because she felt it was an area that had received less media coverage and attention than care homes.
The Guardian ran a story in August which criticised CQC for failing to release similar details about COVID-related deaths in care homes, which it said were “being kept secret by regulators in part to protect providers’ commercial interests before a possible second coronavirus surge”.
Meanwhile, the Department of Health and Social Care this morning (Thursday) announced a six-month extension of its Adult Social Care Infection Control Fund, which had been due to run out this month.
The extra £546 million can be used by local authorities to help social care providers pay staff their full wages when they are self-isolating, and to enable staff to work in only one care home, cutting the risk of spreading COVID-19.
Although the fund is focused on supporting care homes, councils can use 25 per cent of their grant on other COVID-19 infection control measures, including payments to domiciliary care providers or “wider workforce measures”.
These wider measures could include financial support to buy personal protective equipment or measures to “boost the resilience and supply” of the adult social care workforce in their area to “support effective infection control”.
17 September 2020
TUC’s access failure at annual congress is ‘slap in the face’ for disabled activists
The TUC has angered disabled union activists after failing to ensure that its annual conference was accessible to people with hearing and other impairments who tried to watch it online.
Many activists were not able to follow this week’s annual TUC Congress if they needed subtitles or British Sign Language (BSL) interpretation.
Only those whose unions had alerted TUC in advance were able to take advantage of a subtitles feed provided by a speech-to-text reporter.
A message had to be added to the TUC website during the conference – following complaints about the access failure – telling union members how to access this feed.
No BSL interpretation was available throughout the conference.
TUC Congress was open to all those interested in attending this year, rather than solely to union delegates, as it had to be held online because of the pandemic.
Paul Kempton, a deaf, retired former union convenor and local government worker, and a union activist for more than 50 years, said he had been looking forward to watching the online event, particularly Monday’s debate on the equalities impact of COVID-19, although he knew he would not be able to participate in the debate.
But when he logged on, he found “absolutely no subtitles available”.
Kempton, who is still an active member of the GMB union and is disability lead on its regional equalities committee – but was not speaking for the union – said the absence of subtitles made him feel “unwelcome and unwanted” and “excluded”.
He said: “If the TUC is broadcasting its Congress, on a publicly accessible website and with no restrictions to viewing, it should be fully accessible from the start.
“This means comprehensive, comprehensible subtitles, produced by competent, capable palantypists. There should also be BSL signers.”
After he complained, he was told that he could be linked to the speech-to-text feed, but he told the TUC that “if my deaf sisters and brothers aren’t equally welcome, neither am I”.
He said: “As it was, I didn’t see any of Congress, though I am told that subtitles appeared during Keir’s speech [Tuesday’s speech by Labour leader Keir Starmer].
“I think, in 2020, the TUC needs to face that they are failing on this, and address it very, very urgently.”
Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) has written to the TUC’s general secretary, Frances O’Grady, to express its concern.
Linda Burnip, DPAC’s co-founder and herself a UNISON member, said she was “shocked and saddened” by the lack of BSL and captions, which she said was a “slap in the face undermining our continuing efforts to educate political parties and unions to be more inclusive of disabled people and to meet those needs that put barriers in the way of our equality”.
She said: “I can’t even imagine how marginalised this has made your Disabled Workers’ Committee and any disabled and deaf union members trying to watch the event feed.”
She added: “As a completely unfunded group we have managed to organise several on-line meetings with both BSL and live captioning.
“Surely if we as a tiny campaign group can manage this there can be no excuse for a large, well funded, well resourced organisation not to do so as well.”
Another disabled union activist, Ellen Morrison, also expressed disappointment at the TUC’s failure to provide BSL and captions to all those watching.
She said: “Disabled workers already face so many barriers in the workplace – it’s not acceptable that many would have been unable to participate with this year’s online conference.
“In light of the pandemic, it’s as important as ever for disabled workers to be active in the trade union movement, especially when there are motions raised and important debate that directly affects us and our lives.
“Including BSL and live captions (which can be useful for wide-ranging impairment groups) for online events should be standard in the labour movement.”
Morrison, a Unite activist and chair of Unite’s London and eastern young members committee, said: “I helped run DPAC’s online event series this summer, and we managed it for every online event we did, and we’re not a well-funded organisation.
“If disabled activists without technical support or large resources can make online events accessible, why can’t the Trades Union Congress?”
A TUC spokesperson said the speech-to-text service had been provided to all delegates whose union had requested it in advance.
But he added: “We gave full consideration to making speech-to-text services available on the live stream for any member of the public wishing to view Congress when planning the event.
“However, we were not in a position to provide broadcast level subtitles without compromising the scope for a live public feed.”
Asked if TUC had decided it could not provide this service because of the potential cost, he had failed to answer by noon today (Thursday).
But he said earlier: “In advance of Congress, unions were advised on several occasions to notify the TUC of any access requirements for union participants.
“Following suggestions that some union participants may not be aware of this offer, we were happy to make this clear on our website.”
The TUC had not made it clear by noon today what it meant by “participants” and who this “offer” applied to.
But he added: “In terms of BSL, we would not book this unless we knew we had a requirement for it.
“This is because there is limited provision and booking it without the need or a requirement means denying it for others who do need it.
“This has long been the TUC’s approach at recent Congresses.”
17 September 2020
Disabled peers call on government to scrap Care Act coronavirus powers
Two disabled peers have called on the health and social care secretary to scrap powers given to local authorities that allow them to suspend some of their social care duties during the coronavirus pandemic.
Crossbench peers Baroness [Jane] Campbell and Baroness [Tanni] Grey-Thompson have written to Matt Hancock to express their concerns and call for him to “switch off” the powers.
They say their continuing existence is causing anxiety to disabled people. ahead of an expected second peak in coronavirus cases, and a rising number of infections.
The controversial Care Act “easements” were introduced in March as part of the government’s Coronavirus Act, and were intended to help the social care system manage the pressures caused by the pandemic.
But they led some critics to warn that the new powers would “run a coach and horses” through disabled people’s right to social care.
Among the new powers, councils were able to suspend their legal duty to carry out detailed assessments of disabled people’s care and support needs, and their legal duty to meet all eligible care and support needs.
They were told only to use the new “easements” where it was “essential in order to maintain the highest possible level of services”.
Now the two disabled peers – supported by 28 cross-party peers who signed their letter, including disabled Liberal Democrat peers Baroness [Sal] Brinton and Baroness [Celia] Thomas – have asked Hancock to scrap the powers, in advance of a suspected second peak of the virus.
Only eight councils are believed to have used the powers since they were introduced, and there are no local authorities currently operating under the easements.
But Baroness Campbell and Baroness Grey-Thompson say in their letter that there is evidence that the limited use of the easements had still had a “serious” impact on wellbeing and safety.
They say that the prospect of further use of the Care Act easements “hangs over the heads of people already so disproportionately affected by this pandemic”.
They say in the letter: “We are grateful that councils have been restrained when taking up these powers in a very strained and difficult time.
“It is truly heartening that after their use at the peak of the pandemic, we have now reached a period where no council sees the need to operate easements.
“With this in mind, we urge you to take this opportunity to switch them off.
“This would significantly reduce the anxiety felt for those who rely on care and support to live in the community.”
They say that disabled people have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic, and that “even in areas where councils have not applied easements, disabled people have seen their care provision cut”.
They point in the letter to interim findings from a COVID-19 survey hosted by the Be Human initiative, which showed there had been “cancelled support, denied access to assessments and decreased flexibility” during the crisis*.
And they say that their own discussions with disabled people’s organisations showed that the level of “fear and anxiety” caused by the prospect of the easement powers continuing was “worryingly high”.
A DHSC spokesperson told Disability News Service: “The Care Act easements were put in place to ensure the best possible provision of care to people in these exceptional circumstances.
“They are kept under review, are time-limited and should be used as narrowly as possible.
“Local authorities should do all they can to continue meeting their existing duties but if they are unable to do so, it is essential that they are able to prioritise care so that the most urgent and acute needs are met.
“Evidence shows the easements have been used appropriately by local authorities.”
Baroness Campbell also asked the Tory health and social care minister Lord Bethell last week if he would consider switching off the easement powers.
He told her: “It was my impression that they had not been used in the vast majority of areas – only in a few areas – and that, where they had been applied, their use had been of a mainly administrative rather than practical nature.
“However, I am happy to look into the question that she asks and to reply to her by letter.”
Meanwhile, in the Commons yesterday, Ed Davey, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, told the prime minister that research by the Disabled Children’s Partnership showed that three quarters of families with disabled children had their care and support stopped during lockdown.
Davey, who has a disabled child and is patron of Disability Law Service, said the Coronavirus Act was “partly to blame, as it relaxed the duties to assess and meet the needs of disabled people”.
He said he had seen legal advice “that suggests that the prime minister’s government broke international law when the Coronavirus Act reduced the rights of disabled people”.
Boris Johnson told him: “I must say that I am not aware of that particular allegation about the legal effect of the Coronavirus Act, and I would be only too happy to write to him very shortly to clarify the matter.”
*The initiative is hosted by In Control Partnerships and Disability Rights UK, and the survey is continuing to collect disabled people’s experiences of the pandemic, with the partnership offering advice where appropriate
17 September 2020
New rail replacement access rules are ‘too little, too late’
New rules published by the rail regulator could push the industry to take the need to provide accessible rail replacement vehicles more seriously, but they have been branded “too little, too late” by a leading disabled campaigner.
The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) published the updated rules yesterday, the latest stage in the industry’s response to a legal action brought by accessible transport campaigner Doug Paulley.
His judicial review forced ORR last year to take legal advice on whether alternative vehicles provided for rail passengers during disruption such as engineering work had to be accessible to disabled people.
That advice stated that, with a few minor exceptions, all rail replacement vehicles must be accessible, and the train companies, and their bus or coach providers, were at risk of criminal prosecution if they were not.
Now, in response to that advice, and following a public consultation, ORR has produce an updated version of the rules it sets for train and station operators.
They will now have to ensure they take “appropriate steps” to secure accessible vehicles from bus and coach companies, particularly during planned engineering work on the rail network.
They will also have to improve passenger information during rail disruption to ensure “passengers know where and when accessible buses and coaches will be operated”; and make it clearer that, if needed, passengers must be offered an “appropriate alternative” to an inaccessible bus or coach, such as an accessible taxi.
If there is a planned disruption to the rail network, ORR now says that waiting times for rail replacement services should be similar for disabled people using taxis or other alternatives, compared with non-disabled people using inaccessible buses or coaches.
But the new rules will not solve the shortage of accessible buses and coaches available to the rail industry.
Because of this shortage, ministers have twice been forced to extend an industry exemption from access laws which allows rail companies – by applying for a “special authorisation” from a transport minister – to continue to use older buses and coaches even if they do not comply with the Public Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations (PSVAR) 2000.
The latest exemption stretches until the end of this year.
The new ORR rules highlight the legal requirement for rail replacement bus and coach services to comply with PSVAR unless a special authorisation is obtained from the minister. Failure to comply with PSVAR is a criminal offence.
Paulley said the new rules were “a step forward” and “broadly positive” but were “too little, too late”, and he said there was still a shortage of accessible buses and coaches available to be used as rail replacement vehicles.
He said: “It is very clear that my legal threat last year has caused immense work and turmoil throughout the industry and regulators, which is a good thing because they are finally having to take it seriously.”
But he added: “Is it going to deliver what we deserve and need now and what the law says we are entitled to, which is fully accessible rail replacement vehicles now?
“Or is it going to deliver that in the near future? I don’t think so.
“Ultimately, it doesn’t solve the problem, and it’s a difficult problem, and we are where we are, but we shouldn’t be where we are, and the industry has let disabled people down and I would include the ORR in that and the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency [the PSVAR enforcement body for buses and coaches].”
He said he also wished that ORR had been even stricter and made it so that any operator running an inaccessible rail replacement vehicle, except with a special authorisation from a minister, would be breaching the terms of their operating license.
Paulley said it would now be up to the Department for Transport (DfT) to decide at the end of this year whether it would extend the special authorisations for a third time.
But he said the new ORR rules had not solved the “panic” within the industry over the shortage of accessible vehicles, caused by years of failing to address its legal requirements.
He added: “Ultimately it comes down to the DfT and what they are going to do.”
Stephanie Tobyn, ORR’s deputy director, consumers, said the new rules made it clear that “train companies are responsible for obtaining accessible vehicles during rail disruption, and for providing passengers with useful information on where and when accessible vehicles will be used.
“In all circumstances, whether the vehicle used is a bus, coach or taxi, waiting times for passengers should be similar.
“We have also written to the rail industry setting out a range of additional proposals and suggestions for further improvements from respondents to our public consultation, as well as our proposal for an industry forum to help identify and better manage the availability and use of PSVAR-compliant vehicles at times of high demand.”
17 September 2020
DWP silent as it stops answering questions from Disability News Service
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has stopped answering questions from Disability News Service (DNS), and is refusing to explain why it has taken the “totally unacceptable” step.
Since early July, DWP’s press office has failed to provide a meaningful response to questions submitted by DNS on 10 consecutive news stories.
There has been no explanation from DWP for the apparent refusal to respond on issues including the deaths of benefit claimants, the failure of minister for disabled people Justin Tomlinson to engage with disabled people’s organisations, and the silence of the government’s Disability Unit during the coronavirus pandemic.
In two of the stories, the DWP press office suggested that it could not respond for legal reasons, but with the other eight there was no explanation for the department’s refusal to comment.
The stories DWP refused to comment on include the department being accused of “careless cruelty” after it mistakenly sent out letters to disabled claimants during the pandemic that informed them their disability benefits had been stopped for failing to fill in review forms.
It also failed to comment on its own research which showed that levels of satisfaction with working-age disability benefits had plummeted in the two years to spring 2019.
The department continues to respond to requests from mainstream news organisations, but not to those from DNS, which is run by a disabled journalist, John Pring, and was founded in April 2009.
A Guardian journalist confirmed yesterday (Wednesday) that DWP was continuing to provide responses to Guardian queries.
This week, DNS asked DWP why it did not appear to be responding to questions, and whether it agreed that its policy appeared to be discriminatory.
DWP had failed to comment by noon today.
Over the last decade, DNS has reported on links between DWP and the deaths of disabled benefit claimants, DWP’s breaches of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, evidence of flaws in DWP programmes such as Disability Confident, and misleading statements made to parliament by work and pensions ministers.
Over the last six months, DNS has also exposed repeated breaches of disabled people’s rights by the government during the pandemic.
In July, DNS reported how DWP had re-introduced benefit sanctions, while millions of disabled people were still shielding from the virus, a move described by disabled campaigners as “barbaric” and “life threatening”.
Linda Burnip, co-founder of Disabled People Against Cuts, said: “We are saddened to hear that DWP is failing to answer the important questions put to them by DNS, which is totally unacceptable whatever the reason.
“We hope that this failure of DWP press office is urgently resolved.
“The work and investigations carried out by DNS have uncovered many facts which we’re sure DWP would have preferred to keep covered up and provide a vital resource for disabled people and our campaigns for equality and justice.”
17 September 2020
Mayor defends failure to include disabled people in COVID ‘recovery board’
The mayor of London has defended his decision to set up a board of nearly 30 senior figures to oversee the recovery from coronavirus in the capital without including any members representing disabled people.
Membership of the London Recovery Board is made up of “elected leaders and senior stakeholders” from local authorities, business, the community and voluntary sector, trade unions, further and higher education, the NHS and the police.
The aim of the board – which is co-chaired by the Labour mayor and the Labour chair of London Councils, Cllr Peter John – is to co-ordinate the planning for London’s long-term recovery from the coronavirus crisis.
Part of its job is to support communities that have been “most impacted by the virus” and “narrow social, economic and health inequalities”.
Its members include representatives from the London Resilience Faith Sector Panel, Operation Black Vote, management consultants Planet Communications, and The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
But there does not appear to be a single disabled person among its 29 members, and there is no disabled people’s organisation (DPO) represented on the board.
This failure comes despite the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on disabled people.
In June, Inclusion London, the pan-London DPO, published research showing that disabled people had faced the “grim effects” of discrimination and inequality in every area of their lives from the beginning of the pandemic.
The following month, Disability News Service published research which showed that the government had breached the rights of disabled people in at least 17 different ways during the coronavirus crisis.
One prominent disabled campaigner, who asked not to be named, said: “Disabled people who live in, work or visit London should be disappointed in this awful oversight which excludes us from the long-term recovery plans being formulated for this city.
“Time and time again we see that disabled people bear the brunt of any downturn in the economy and disruption to public services.
“To omit the voices of disabled people from the work of the Recovery Board sends yet another signal that disabled people just don’t matter to the GLA [Greater London Authority].”
Although Inclusion London is not a member of the London Recovery Board, it is a member of a sub-group of the board, the London communities strategy group.
Tracey Lazard, chief executive of Inclusion London, said: “Inclusion London welcomes the opportunity to be a member of the London communities strategy group, which has a specific remit to ensure the needs and views of London’s diverse communities are understood and fed into both the work of the [London Transition Board and the London Recovery Board].”
But she said that one channel for community insight and expertise was “simply not enough”.
She said Inclusion London hoped that board members would carry out additional engagement with DPOs and members of the mayor’s equality and diversity advisory group “to ensure the specific needs of Deaf and disabled Londoners, who have been so disproportionately affected by COVID-19, are understood and addressed” in the “vital work” they will be overseeing.
A spokesperson for the mayor of London did not explain why there were no disabled people or DPOs on the board.
But she said the board and the taskforce that supports it were “committed to working with a range of community groups and partners, including disabled Londoners and Deaf and disabled people’s organisations”.
She said: “The board is clear that London’s recovery can only be achieved through partnership, and has engaged with experts and Londoners – especially those who have been hardest hit by the pandemic, such as disabled Londoners – to agree a set of missions which will aid the city’s recovery.”
She said that the mayor’s equality and diversity advisory group – which includes representatives from DPOs – provides “advice and guidance” on the recovery programme.
And she said that “representatives from civil society – identified specifically for their intersectional expertise – have been appointed to the taskforce to lead on equalities issues”.
London Councils declined to comment.
17 September 2020
Disabled people ‘badly let down by government’ during pandemic, says TUC
Disabled union activists have backed TUC calls for the government to take action to help disabled workers disproportionately affected by the coronavirus crisis.
The TUC warned this week that disabled people were set to face some of the highest rates of job losses, with many unlawfully targeted for redundancy by their employers.
In a statement issued at the annual TUC Congress, which was held online for the first time, the TUC general council said that disabled people who had been asked to shield during the crisis had been “particularly badly let down by government”.
Many were now at risk of losing their jobs because they could not travel safely to work or carry out their job roles safely, the general council said, but were being denied continued access to the government’s job retention scheme, which is due to close this autumn.
It said that by insisting that the scheme would remain closed to new applicants and would close completely this autumn, the government was “leaving too many people at unnecessary risk of redundancy”.
The statement, which also looked at the impact of the pandemic on wider structural inequalities, said that many disabled people were among those who do not earn enough to qualify for sick pay.
Graeme Ellis, co-chair of UNISON’s national disabled members’ committee, said the pandemic [watch his speech from one hour 55 minutes] had shown that inequality and unfairness were “hard-wired into working lives”.
He said: “Black workers and disabled workers are both twice as likely to die of coronavirus.
“That’s not an accident of birth, it’s because we are more likely to be in lower paid frontline jobs. And that’s because of discrimination.”
Ellis said his employer had supported him to work from home as a benefits adviser during the pandemic, while the government’s Access to Work scheme had provided him with equipment such as a plasma screen and the software he needed.
But he said that many disabled workers were “forced to continue to go into the workplace even though they could have done their jobs from home, putting them at greater risk.
“Home working must be a reasonable adjustment for disabled people who want it and that must carry on into the future.”
Ellis called on the government to give disabled people a new right to work from home.
Steven McGurk, Community’s national executive council member representing the union’s disabled members, told congress [watch from two hours nine minutes] that many disabled people still felt unsafe and had not been able to return to the workplace.
He also said that disabled people were twice as likely to experience domestic violence, and that victims of abuse will have been spending extended periods of time with an abuser during the pandemic.
McGurk said the trade union movement must demand from the government that its plans for recovery from the pandemic tackle structural inequality.
He said: “The status quo is just not good enough. This means building inclusive institutions that are powerfully inclusive, a zero-tolerance attitude to discrimination, and taking action to protect victims of domestic violence.
“It means a decent wage and decent work for everyone, and opening access to all kinds of work to everyone.”
17 September 2020
News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com
