Government finally makes ‘shocking’ confession on power cut protection
The government has decided not to draw up any plans to protect disabled people who rely on life-saving medical equipment in their own homes in the event of a power cut, after more than a year of delays and excuses.
The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) has finally admitted that it will be left up to individual disabled people and their “care teams” to draw up plans for “how they can prepare for and respond to loss of power to their home”.
The admission comes 15 months after Disability News Service (DNS) first started asking DHSC and other government departments what plans they had to protect people who rely on equipment such as ventilators, oxygen saturation monitors, dialysis machines and feeding pumps if there was a major blackout.
The disabled Liberal Democrat peer Baroness [Sal] Brinton, who first asked questions in parliament about such protection in October 2022, told DNS this week she was “absolutely horrified” by the government’s admission.
She said: “This is a merry-go-round of civil servants trying to push the problem onto somebody else. It’s finally landed back with disabled people.”
Fazilet Hadi, head of policy for Disability Rights UK, said: “The DHSC decision not to act to protect disabled people using health-related equipment in the event of a power cut is shocking.
“It follows recent government decisions including not progressing the implementation of an energy social tariff and pushing future disabled benefit claimants on to lower rates of social security.
“The Covid public inquiry showed the complete lack of government leadership, prioritisation and planning in respect of disabled people and it appears this is an ongoing situation.
“What the DHSC should do is to work with NHS England and social care leaders to publish guidance on the measures that should be put in place to protect disabled people when threatened by power cuts.”
Mark Baggley, manager of Choices and Rights Disability Coalition in Hull, who uses a ventilator at night while he’s sleeping, told DNS he was “shocked” by DHSC’s decision, and said he had “never felt more like a second-class citizen than in the last few years as a disabled person in the UK”.
He said: “It’s further proof that this government doesn’t care about disabled people and is not even interested in working with us to find solutions.
“It would seem to me that the government wants us to pay for our electricity (and more than the average customer, if we have to use lifesaving equipment), but then doesn’t feel we are entitled to any support if there is a crisis.
“Surely, the government’s role should be identifying possible solutions to the problem?”
Grant Shapps, who was secretary of state for business, energy and industrial strategy at the time, told MPs that the government had “very developed plans” for “that sort of thing”, when questioned on support plans for “vulnerable customers” in December 2022.
DHSC told DNS in the same month that it would not release any information on how it might protect people who rely on medical equipment at home because it “relates to policy options not taken forward at that time which Ministers may choose to pursue in future”.
Even after the 2022-23 winter was over, DHSC again refused to release any information because it “continues to relate to ongoing policy formulation and development”, and it concluded that “the public interest lies in favour of withholding this information”.
Now, following another DNS freedom of information request, DHSC has finally admitted that it decided last year not to draw up any guidance or develop a “specific plan” for “individuals who are reliant on at-home medical devices during a power outage”.
It told DNS: “We have concluded that, due to the specificity of individual needs and circumstances, individuals and their care teams are best placed to develop plans for how they can prepare for and respond to loss of power to their home.”
DHSC did share the “key messages” that it developed with NHS England which aim to advise patients, carers and clinical teams “how users of at-home medical devices can best prepare for a power outage”.
These messages were passed to the energy industry for use in their own advice for disabled customers.
But they make it clear that the advice that healthcare professionals and the energy industry should pass on to those whose lives depend on such equipment is no more than to make sure they “understand how the equipment works” and to draw up their own “clear plan of action” in case there is a power outage.
They also advise them to join their local priority services register, but DNS established in 2022 that this offers no protection in the event of a blackout other than the usual “extra help”, with the industry stressing that such customers would not be exempt from any blackouts and “should seek advice from their local health service provider”.
The “extra help” is only likely to mean a warning of an impending blackout, provision of heating and cooking facilities to some customers, and the signposting of customers in vulnerable situations to support, with one power company suggesting that this signposting would include being referred to the Red Cross for “hot meals and drinks”.
Hadi said: “Being on a priority service register is in no way a guarantee of safety.”
None of the integrated care boards approached by DNS 15 months ago were able to provide any indication that they had detailed plans drawn up.
Baggley suggested that healthcare providers could be funded to provide extra batteries or mini-generators to disabled people who rely on life-saving equipment, with this funding obtained “from some of the vast profits electricity-providers are making”.
Last week, DNS reported how UKPN, one of six distribution network operators (DNOs) responsible for maintaining the electricity network across Britain, was trialling a scheme that would loan a free portable battery pack to those relying on life-saving equipment who were signed up to the priority services register, if there was a power cut over four hours long.
But it refused to answer any questions about its plans, while the Energy Networks Association, whose members include UKPN, refused to say if the other five DNOs would run similar schemes for their disabled customers.
18 January 2024
DWP and Cabinet Office can’t find secret report that exposed universal credit flaws
The government has lost or destroyed a secret report that was set to reveal crucial details about the impact of universal credit on “vulnerable” claimants in its early years.
The existence of the report was not known about outside government circles until the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) was forced by a tribunal to release a follow-up report late last year.
But this week, two government departments claimed – after each of them originally suggested it was being held by the other – that they no longer held a copy of the report.
The report was written by the former Prime Minister’s Implementation Unit (PMIU), which was based within the Cabinet Office, but has since been scrapped.
The follow-up report, How Effective is Support for Vulnerable Universal Credit Claimants?, revealed significant flaws at the heart of the universal credit system and how DWP supports claimants it sees as vulnerable.
This report, produced in autumn 2019 and finally released in November 2023, concluded that the design of universal credit was “inadequate for vulnerable groups” who therefore needed extra help from staff through adjustments and specialist support.
It also said the support provided by universal credit was “inconsistently effective”, with some claimants “not adequately supported”, while the system for managing individual cases was “suboptimal”.
It made it clear that the introduction of universal credit in 2013 – combining six working-age benefits into a single monthly payment through a “digital interface” – had presented “more acute challenges for some vulnerable claimants”.
DWP said in November that universal credit had “transformed significantly” the support it provides to claimants, “especially those who are vulnerable”, since the report was written, and that it had “made a large number of changes to improve how vulnerable individuals are supported”.
Disability News Service (DNS) had been seeking a copy of the report since late 2021, alongside Owen Stevens, from Child Poverty Action Group, and John Slater, who first secured the universal credit papers that revealed its existence.
But the document also referred to an earlier PMIU report which “brought together what is known about the claimant experience, identifying DWP’s support mechanisms for vulnerable claimants”.
DNS submitted a request on 11 November to DWP’s freedom of information team to release this earlier report.
But when it responded a month later, it said: “We confirm that we do not hold the information you have requested.
“The report referred to within the PMIU report was commissioned and is held by Cabinet Office, not DWP.”
DNS subsequently submitted a similar request to the Cabinet Office, on 11 December.
When the Cabinet Office replied, last Friday (12 January), it said: “We are writing to advise you that following a search of our paper and electronic records, we have established that the information you requested is not held by the Cabinet Office – Equality Hub.
“You may wish to redirect your request to the Department for Work and Pensions.”
DNS asked both departments this week why they were blaming each other for not being able to provide the missing report.
Neither of them would provide a statement, but DWP suggested that both departments had searched their records and had not been able to find the report.
18 January 2024
Government ‘smokescreen’ prevents release of crucial ticket office information
The government has refused to release its assessment of how plans to close nearly 1,000 ticket offices across England would have affected disabled people and other groups protected under the Equality Act, even though those proposals have now been abandoned.
The Department for Transport (DfT) is claiming the decision not to release the assessment is in the public interest and that releasing it could undermine the commercial interests of train companies.
But the disabled-led campaigning organisation Transport for All (TfA) said this week that these excuses were just a “smokescreen” to prevent significant government failings being revealed and to stop future reforms being undermined.
TfA believes the information in the equality impact assessment (EIA) would have shown how similar future proposals could have “negative impacts” on disabled rail passengers.
DfT had rejected a previous freedom of information request by TfA to see the document, arguing that it could be used to “formulate” government policy if passenger watchdogs objected to any of the proposed closures and train companies decided to ignore those objections.
Weeks later, transport secretary Mark Harper announced that ministers had asked train operators to withdraw their closure plans, reversing the government’s previous position supporting the closures.
Disability News Service submitted a fresh freedom of information request after the proposals were abandoned, but Harper’s department confirmed this week that it was still refusing to release the EIA.
It claimed its decision was still in the public interest.
DfT argued – as it had last year – that the scope of the EIA was “wider than just the proposal to close station ticket offices” as it also covered “other aspects of the stations reform policy that are subject to ongoing consideration by the Department”.
DfT also argued that train operating companies – and their Rail Delivery Group umbrella organisation – would be “less likely to share commercially sensitive information” if the EIA was released.
And it suggested that information within the EIA could undermine the position of the train companies in their ongoing negotiations with trade unions on “modernisation of employment terms and conditions and roles”.
The DfT civil servant who reviewed the decision not to release the EIA concluded: “I should reiterate that the Department does fully recognise that there is a strong public interest in favour of disclosure of the equality impact assessment, and once the policy on station reform has been settled, we expect to be able to disclose it.”
But Ezra Johnson, campaigns and communications officer for Transport for All, said: “We continue to disagree with the refusal of freedom of information requests on live policy formulation grounds, as it means vital information is not disclosed at the right time to the very people who would be most impacted.
“In this case, we suspect that the EIA would not only reveal significant failings on the government’s part during the ticket office process, but would also highlight the scope for future, similar proposals to have their own negative impacts.”
He added: “We maintain that the government should have released the documents during the consultation period, so the public could make an informed decision.
“We’re also concerned that some of the disastrous ‘mitigations’ in the original proposals could still be under consideration, and without publication of the impact assessment there can’t be a transparent assessment of the consequences.”
These mitigations included the increased use of mobile staff teams that would cover multiple stations, and an “increasingly heavy reliance” on digital ticketing and information finding “without meaningful offline alternatives”.
He added: “Ultimately, industry have admitted that the ticket office closures were designed to save money.
“While ticket offices have been saved for now, industry and government are likely to be looking at how they can cut spending in other ways.
“We have to remain vigilant, and ensure that any other projects being proposed under the banner of ‘rail modernisation’ will actually benefit our community, rather than being a smokescreen for more cuts, fewer staff, and a less equal treatment of disabled passengers.”
18 January 2024
DWP set to waste thousands fighting release of two secret reports
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is set to waste thousands of pounds of public money fighting two rulings by the information commissioner that it must release secret reports affecting millions of disabled people.
It is the latest example of how the department has used delaying tactics for many years to avoid being held to account over its own actions that have been linked to countless deaths of disabled benefit claimants.
The information commissioner ruled late last year that DWP should release both reports to Disability News Service (DNS).
The first report was a written assessment of how the government’s decision to abolish the work capability assessment (WCA) would impact millions of disabled people and other groups protected under the Equality Act.
DNS has been seeking the information since the move to abolish the WCA was announced in the spring budget, with details included in the government’s new Transforming Support white paper.
Under the plans, disabled people who cannot work will only be able to qualify for a new health element of universal credit if they also receive personal independence payment (PIP), disability living allowance, or, in Scotland, adult disability payment.
But this would also mean that it would be left to DWP’s over-worked work coaches – who will usually have no health-related qualifications – to decide if a disabled person should carry out work-related activity.
DNS had told the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) that although the WCA has been “closely linked to the deaths of hundreds of disabled people”, the plans to scrap it could lead to further deaths of claimants.
In a decision notice, the information commissioner said he “considers that DWP has failed to consider the strength of the public interest in the timely understanding and scrutiny of the decision to remove the Work Capability Assessment” and noted “a particularly strong public interest in disclosure of information relating to disability benefits reform”.
The second report describes the impact of DWP errors on “vulnerable” benefit claimants, which it has admitted could have a “negative” impact on its reputation.
The report contains “worst case scenario” information that DWP has calculated about the impact of its errors on claimants, which it appears keen to keep hidden from the public, and probably includes estimates of how many claimants have been harmed by its errors.
DWP has argued that this information was only intended to be considered by its serious case panel and that “some of the information, if presented in its current format, could have a negative reputational impact on DWP”.
But the information commissioner said there was a “strong public interest in the timely understanding and scrutiny” of the recommendations made by the report, and “in understanding DWP’s approach to preventing future errors and safeguarding issues”.
ICO has confirmed to DNS that DWP is appealing both decision notices to the information rights tribunal.
DWP declined to comment because of this ongoing legal action.
18 January 2024
Laws on self-driving vehicles risk creating new access barriers, disabled peers warn
Legislation that will set up a safety framework to allow the introduction of self-driving vehicles across the UK must not be allowed to create new access barriers, two disabled peers have warned the government.
They told the House of Lords this week that changes to the automated vehicles bill would have to be made to ensure that all self-driving vehicles were accessible to disabled people.
Conservative peer Lord [Chris] Holmes told the Lords on Monday, during the bill’s committee stage: “Automated vehicles are either accessible, or they should not be pursued.
“They have such potential to enable mobility through technology, transforming people’s lives, be they older people, disabled people or any member of our society.
“If accessibility is not the golden thread that runs through all their development and deployment, this project should not proceed any further.”
He proposed an amendment that would ensure the transport secretary had to prepare a “statement of accessibility principles” – with disabled people involved – that would be applied when assessing if an automated vehicle met the necessary level of accessibility.
He said that the vehicle itself as well as the booking platform and physical infrastructure such as kerbs and drop-off points would all need to be accessible.
He added: “We have spent many decades putting right inaccessible buildings, infrastructure and public realm that was built and conceived of long before accessibility, inclusion and inclusive by design were even considered, let alone deployed.
“That is still a work in progress, but we need to be absolutely certain that we are not potentially building new systems, vehicles and infrastructure that are inaccessible by design.”
His fellow disabled peer, Baroness [Sal] Brinton, former president of the Liberal Democrats, who supported his amendment and is also pushing for changes to the bill, said: “This is not something that affects a few people; it is a major, really important part of automated vehicles, increasingly so as we become an elderly society, because it is less likely that people will be able to make their own journeys.
“One reason why so many disabled people cannot travel around is because they do not have access to the right vehicles.”
She proposed an amendment that would set up a statutory advisory panel – with disabled members – to design national minimum standards on the accessibility of self-driving passenger service vehicles.
She told fellow peers: “If we do not tackle this right at the start, it will prevent disabled people using these vehicles, because they will not be involved in the process.”
They were supported by the Green peer Baroness Bennett, who said it was likely that automated vehicles would initially be used as public transport, rather than by private individuals.
She pointed to hearings held by the Commons transport committee, which had “exposed insufficient accessibility right across the transport sector”.
She said the UK was “starting from scratch” with self-driving vehicles and “could get it right from the beginning, so we should absolutely aim to do so”.
Lord Tunnicliffe, a Labour shadow transport minister, said he was “very sympathetic to the whole problem of access” and supported the “general direction” of the amendments proposed by Lord Holmes and Baroness Brinton.
But Lord Davies, a junior transport minister, said the measures in the bill “already provide scope to consider accessibility at every stage” and will mean that anyone seeking authorisation to run a service would have to explain how it would consider accessibility and how they would avoid their vehicles “unfairly discriminating against particular groups”.
He said equality and fairness were “likely to be included” as part of a statement of safety principles, so ordering “a second set of accessibility principles may create overlap”.
And he said that those organisations applying for permission to run self-driving public services “will not only be required to show how they are designing services to meet the needs of older and disabled people but obliged to publish reports on how those needs are being met in practice”.
He said public bodies would also have duties under the Equality Act’s public sector equality duty.
And he said the government was already planning to set up an accessibility advisory panel to “advise on the granting of permits and assist in the development of national minimum accessibility standards”, while it would continue to receive independent advice from the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee.
He agreed to discuss the issues with Lord Holmes and Baroness Brinton before the report stage of the bill in early February.
But Lord Holmes told him: “The reality is that the current measures on accessibility in the bill are not specific and are insufficient.
“The bill needs to be beefed up on accessibility, otherwise it will be a game of catch-up and missed opportunities.
“The minister said in winding up that there is ‘scope’ for that, but scope is not actuality.
“He said that there is potential and opportunity, but opportunity is not inevitability.”
He added: “The opportunity that accessible automated vehicles provide cannot be left to go the way of other transport developments over the previous 200 years.”
18 January 2024
Labour’s election ‘campaigning bible’ ignores disabled people… and the care crisis
A new Labour party “campaigning bible” is likely to concern disabled activists after the 24-page document failed to mention disability, social care or accessible transport and housing, but mentioned “working people” 18 times.
The document (PDF) was sent out to Labour parliamentary candidates this week ahead of a general election that is almost certain to be held later this year.
Let’s Get Britain’s Future Back suggests that issues of crucial importance to disabled people are unlikely to feature as priorities in Labour’s election campaigning.
Although this does not mean there will be no disability policies in the party’s election manifesto, it does suggest that disabled activists will have to fight hard for their concerns to be heard during the general election campaign.
The failure to reference disabled people, disability or social care was first highlighted by a disabled campaigner yesterday (Wednesday) on social media.
Although there is a section on repairing the NHS, there is no mention of repairing the social care system.
There is also no mention of addressing the harm caused by social care charging, which research by disabled campaigners has shown leads to tens of thousands of people across the country every year having debt collection action taken against them by their local authorities over unpaid charges.
Disability News Service (DNS) reported in October that Labour had dodged a promise made in 2022 that it would produce a policy on whether it would reduce or scrap care charges if it won power at the next general election.
Although Let’s Get Britain’s Future Back fails to mention disabled people, there are 18 mentions of “working people”.
The party, and Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, have been continually criticised for their focus on working people, and their failure to highlight the many concerns faced by disabled people and those who cannot work.
Both Labour and the Conservatives almost completely sidelined disabled people at their party conferences, DNS research revealed in October.
In Manchester, only three of 21 Conservative ministers mentioned disabled people or disability in their main conference speeches, with just nine mentions of the words “disabled” or “disability” out of 44,000 words.
In Liverpool, only three of 24 conference speeches by Labour shadow ministers mentioned disability or disabled people, with 10 mentions in a total of 36,000 words, although there were commitments made by one shadow minister to the social model of disability, co-production and independent living.
18 January 2024
Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week
Hundreds of thousands of disabled people could be refused financial support in government plans for universal credit, new research has revealed. These people will be at risk of benefit sanctions if they do not engage with the jobcentre, as the Department for Work and Pensions is set to tighten its regime to drive people into work. Around 230,000 people with serious mobility problems preventing them from working will not get any extra universal credit by 2029, according to figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility requested by anti-poverty charity Z2K: https://www.bigissue.com/news/social-justice/dwp-benefits-disabled-ill-universal-credit-lcwra/
Care providers in England are warning they can’t afford to keep operating, and increasingly are handing back contracts to provide care as their financial struggles continue. A survey found that 43 per cent of providers have been forced to hand back contracts or close part of their service in the last 12 months. The survey from Care England and the charity HFT also found many providers struggling to cover increases in the national living wage: https://www.channel4.com/news/crisis-in-adult-social-care-the-charities-having-to-turn-away-those-needing-care
ParalympicsGB has expressed “deep concern” at the UK government’s decision not to have a minister of state for disabled people. Chief executive Dave Clarke said the move means disabled people “do not have a voice at the top level of government”. The role was downgraded to a junior level last month. An open letter to the prime minister, signed by 57 sporting bodies, has called for the role to be reinstated: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/disability-sport/67955065
18 January 2024
News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com
