Labour’s watered-down policy on high-rise evacuation ‘is insult to disabled people who died in Grenfell fire’
Labour’s refusal to introduce “genuine” emergency evacuation plans for disabled people is an insult to those who lost their lives in the Grenfell Tower disaster, say disabled campaigners.
The government quietly published its response this week to a consultation that ended more than two years ago on Conservative plans to weaken a key recommendation made by the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.
Its response shows that Labour ministers now plan to base their policy on the Conservative plans, which disabled campaigners believe will continue to pose “an unacceptable and preventable risk” to disabled people.
The Grenfell Tower fire, which began in the early hours of 14 June 2017, led to the deaths of 72 residents, and analysis of the inquiry’s final report suggests about 20 of them were disabled people.
Five years ago, the inquiry called for a new duty on owners or managers of high-rise residential buildings to prepare a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) for all residents who might find it difficult to “self-evacuate”.
But the Conservative government rejected the PEEP recommendation, even though those who responded to a consultation overwhelmingly supported its introduction.
The Home Office consulted instead on its own “alternative package” of measures, which it called Emergency Evacuation Information Sharing Plus, a weakened version of PEEPs.
This second consultation ended in August 2022, but the Home Office has only now published its response, under the new Labour government.
Labour ministers are now set to implement plans that are based on the Conservative proposals, even though the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) made it clear in the consultation that they did not go far enough to address the inquiry’s key concerns.
NFCC told the Home Office that the proposals were only “a first step in laying out how to identify residents who may be in need of assistance to evacuate their building in the event of a fire”.
It said that “more must be done to ensure that [those in charge of high-rise buildings] undertake their responsibilities in a more suitable and sufficient manner than simply providing a toolkit to guide them.
“Responsibilities should be mandated and criteria established that could result in a PEEP being developed.”
But the Home Office has rejected this advice and will instead go ahead with a watered-down version of PEEPs, which it will call “residential PEEPs”.
The individual in charge of a high-rise building – known as the responsible person (RP) – will now have to take “reasonable steps to identify vulnerable residents”.
After carrying out a “Person-Centred Fire Risk Assessment” on each of these residents, the RP will then have to identify “potential” measures to enable their evacuation that are “practical, proportionate and safe” and discuss these with the disabled resident.
It will be up to the RP what measures are implemented, and for some measures “within their flat” the disabled resident may have to pay to ensure they are carried out.
In the event of a fire, it will be up to the fire and rescue service to “fight the fire, and undertake the evacuation and rescue of vulnerable residents”, the Home Office says.
There was anger among disabled people’s organisations at the government’s proposals.
Adam Gabsi, chair of Inclusion London, who himself is a wheelchair-user who lives on the sixth floor of a high-rise building, said the government had “gone back on its word”, and he urged it to reconsider its position and “truly honour the Grenfell inquiry recommendations”.
He said: “Instead of introducing real PEEPs, they have proposed fire risk assessments for high-rise blocks and misleadingly rebranded them as ‘residential PEEPs’.
“This is not only a misrepresentation of the original recommendations but also an insult to those who lost their lives at Grenfell and to all disabled people still waiting for meaningful action.”
He said PEEPs were “an essential safeguard for disabled people, particularly those living in high-rise buildings” and would ensure that those who face barriers to evacuation are not left behind in emergencies.
He said: “The lack of PEEPs continues to put disabled residents at an unacceptable and preventable risk.”
Gabsi said London Fire Brigade “fully support the implementation of PEEPs, recognising their critical role in ensuring safety during emergencies.
“Despite this, it seems that the interests of private businesses, landlords, and financial considerations continue to be prioritised over the lives of disabled people.
“Disabled people have the right to feel safe in their homes. A genuine PEEP is not a privilege, it is a necessity. Evidence has shown that PEEPs are practical, safe, and proportionate.
“Ignoring this evidence not only undermines public trust but also perpetuates the systemic neglect of disabled people’s safety.”
Disability Rights UK (DR UK), which first highlighted the government’s plans this week, said the new government had “gone back on its word”.
In a speech in September, in response to the inquiry’s final report, prime minister Sir Keir Starmer said the government was “addressing the recommendation from [the] first report to introduce a new Residential Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan policy for anyone whose ability to evacuate could be compromised”.
DR UK said the fire risk assessments that will now be carried out would be “nowhere near a PEEP” and that calling them residential PEEPs was just “adding insult to injury”.
It added: “Shockingly, the new Labour government is now rejecting the Grenfell Tower Inquiry recommendations on PEEPs, just as the previous Conservative government did, despite evidence that they are practical, safe, and proportionate.
“We are dismayed that the government has so quickly turned its back on our community.
“Once again, the interests of private businesses and public organisations have been prioritised over people’s lives.
“All disabled residents in all residential blocks should be given the right to a PEEP if they need support and adjustments to leave the block in the event of a fire.
“This is what needs to be done if disabled lives are to be equally valued.”
Caroline Collier, from Inclusion Barnet’s Campaign for Disability Justice, said: “We all need to be safe in our homes.
“Disabled residents in all residential blocks should have a clear entitlement to a personal emergency evacuation plan, which is not the same thing as the ‘residential PEEP’ proposed.
“The Campaign for Disability Justice calls for respect for disabled people.
“That includes honest conversations, and being clear about what is truly needed to properly implement the learnings from the Grenfell tragedy.
“It is also completely unacceptable that a cost barrier should be put in people’s way by requiring a financial contribution.
“The government needs to look again at this, and do better.”
The Home Office was not able to comment on the PEEP concerns by noon today (Thursday).
The government will now lay regulations in parliament to deliver its PEEPs policy, and engage with disability and other organisations on supporting guidance that will sit alongside the regulations.
5 December 2024
Young disabled people will ‘earn or learn’ or lose their benefits, Kendall’s unpublished comments suggest
Young disabled people – including those with significant mental ill-health – will lose their benefits if they do not accept offers of education or employment, according to previously unpublished comments made by work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall.
The comments, made by Kendall in an interview with the BBC’s economics editor Faisal Islam, were described as extremely concerning by disabled activists this week.
They follow nearly 35 years of attempts by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to reduce spending on out-of-work disability benefits, with evidence showing that its policies caused hundreds, and probably thousands, of deaths in the post-2010 austerity era*.
Kendall’s interview took place in October, more than a month before she published last week’s employment support white paper.
She was responding to a claim by Islam that she would either have to cut the level of out-of-work disability benefits, or remove those benefits from some current recipients.
In her response, according to the transcript – obtained from DWP through a freedom of information request – she claimed that “good work is good for mental health and for young people, there’ll be no option, no option of not earning or learning”.
She said that was “an absolute part of our youth guarantee”.
When Islam asked to clarify if the “youth guarantee” meant “no option other than earning or learning” for young disabled people, with their incapacity benefits being removed if they do not accept either option, she said: “I believe that young people with a real chance of earning or learning will take it. And we will say, you have to.”
She added: “Look, there’s been conditions in the benefit system ever since the original Beveridge report that there are opportunities to work, to get rehabilitation, to get skills, and there’s a requirement for you to take those up. I’m very clear about that.”
Last week’s white paper promised a “youth guarantee” in England, so every young person aged 18 to 21 has access to “further learning, help to get a job or an apprenticeship”.
But it did not clarify whether this would apply to all young disabled people, and what would happen to those who refused an offer of work, education or training.
Now Kendall’s comments strongly suggest that young disabled people will lose their incapacity benefits if they refuse the “earning or learning” offer.
Rick Burgess, a spokesperson for the grassroots, user-led mental health group Recovery in the Bin, said the transcript of the interview suggested that young disabled people would have to pick either working or learning or have their benefits removed.
He said DWP needed to issue “a clear unambiguous statement that the government recognises that some disabled people require long-term support to live independently and well, and not have that contingent on being working or in education.
“If that statement is not made clearly and without qualification we are right to fear a worsening wave of repression, harm, and deaths.
“The media and politicians have to raise the standard of their knowledge here and be better informed of the issues because this ignorance costs lives.”
John McArdle, co-founder of Black Triangle Campaign, said he was “extremely concerned” by Kendall’s comments, which suggested that young disabled people were “less disabled” than older disabled people.
He suggested that such a policy could breach the Equality Act.
He said: “They are putting them in danger. It’s a catastrophe waiting to happen if there are no safeguards.
“By focusing on one sub-section of the disabled community simply because they are young, it’s discriminatory.”
*The Department: How a Violent Government Bureaucracy Killed Hundreds and Hid the Evidence, John Pring’s book on the years of deaths linked to DWP, is published by Pluto Press
5 December 2024
Disabled activists pledge to continue to fight assisted suicide bill, after MPs vote in favour
Disabled activists have pledged to continue the fight against the legalisation of assisted suicide, despite MPs voting comfortably in favour of a bill that would allow it to be introduced in England and Wales.
The vote, by 330 MPs in favour to 275 against, means Kim Leadbeater’s private members’ bill will proceed to its committee stage.
Since Friday’s vote, reports have emerged in more than one newspaper suggesting that a significant number of MPs who voted in favour of the bill could still prevent it passing to the House of Lords next year if Leadbeater and her allies do not address their concerns.
This should provide further fuel to disabled activists who insist they can still defeat the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill.
As well as stressing their determination to fight on, many of the activists at a vigil outside the House of Commons on Friday – some of whom had been waiting in the cold for more than five hours by the time the vote was announced – spoke of how the vote had impacted them personally.
Among them was disabled actor, writer and activist Liz Carr, whose critically-acclaimed documentary about assisted suicide, Better Off Dead?, was broadcast on BBC1 in May, and who has played a key role in explaining the dangers of the legislation across the media in the lead-up to the vote.
She said on Friday that she was “completely gutted” by the vote and felt “exhausted” by the idea of now spending months more campaigning against the bill.
She said: “Having [to discuss] death, dying, your existence, your right to exist, having to justify that you’re not evil or cruel and that you don’t want people to suffer because you’re concerned about this bill is exhausting.
“The last few days it has just been relentless: social media, going to bed late, getting up early, not sleeping.”
She said that every disabled person who attended the vigil had a story that was “every bit as compelling as those at the end of their life who have wanted this change” and who had so far had the focus of the media’s attention.
She said the media’s focus now needed to change so the concerns of opponents of the bill received more attention.
She said: “As long as certain groups of people are devalued in society, no safeguard will ever prevent them from coercion, from abuse, from mistakes which are inevitable.
“I don’t care what the politicians say – there is this protection and that protection – it will not prevent us from unconscious bias and discrimination.
“Absolutely we will be back and we will be saying no to this bill; it’s a weak bill.
“Hopefully, when MPs start getting beneath the spin, they will understand that too.”
Paula Peters, a member of the national steering group of Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC), said the vote was “devastating”, even though she was not surprised by the outcome.
She said: “We have to now regroup and plot our next strategy and fight back and continue to fight for social justice.
“We have got to give disabled people hope in the UK that we will continue to fight for equality and social justice.
“We have got to continue to fight this bill with everything we have.
“Disabled people will be further marginalised than they are now if they bring assisted suicide into law… it’s vital for our lives that we continue to campaign… we will continue to fight for assistance to live, not to die.”
Phil Friend, co-convenor of Not Dead Yet UK (NDY UK), the grassroots group of disabled activists which has led the fight against legalisation in the UK, said the vote announcement had felt like “a kick in the stomach”, while he said a disabled woman whose wheelchair had been next to his when the result of the vote was announced “just started sobbing”.
He said he hoped some MPs might change their minds “once they sit down with disabled people”, although he admitted that “the hill just got steeper”.
Friend said there was “no question” that disabled people had the energy to continue to fight the bill.
He said: “Disabled people are fighting to make the most of their lives every single day; this is just another issue.
“The history of the disability movement is one of determination, of resilience, of over-coming.
“I don’t have any doubt that it will be the same with this.”
Mary-Ellen, who has spent years fighting anti-austerity cuts, said she felt “physically sick” when she heard the result of the vote.
She said such a law would class disabled people as a “burden” and allow that to be “a reason for state-enabled suicide”, which risked normalising eugenics.
“[It would mean] it’s our duty to die rather than be a burden, that it’s a noble thing to [take our own lives] for the good of society.”
Andy Greene, a member of DPAC’s national steering group, said disabled activists now needed to make legalisation “a toxic issue” and to campaign for it to be “socially unacceptable to be part of this”.
He said: “As a movement, we need a new plan going forward.
“We need to understand the goalposts have shifted now and react and adapt in a way that reasserts our value to society and our worth as individuals, because that is what was under scrutiny today.”
Rensa Gaunt, communications manager for Inclusion London, said: “We will keep fighting it because we have to, but it just feels like a big slap in the face.”
She said this was because disabled people were saying, “Give us what we need to have a good life,” but instead were being told: “We are cutting care packages, we are cutting benefits, but you can have assisted dying if you like.”
Disabled activist Anna Landre said there needed to be a “targeted strategy” to work on those MPs who might change their minds and vote against the bill.
She said some MPs had already said they needed more information, “which makes sense given how this bill was rushed through in a way that was really irresponsible and negligent”.
Another disabled activist, Klint Durham, who travelled from Leeds to take part in the vigil, said after the vote: “We keep fighting. We have to put disability rights on the agenda.
“We have had years of austerity; what disabled people don’t need now is legislation to kill them.
“We need proper support, proper funding for the NHS and social care in particular, and that is what we should be demanding from our MPs.”
5 December 2024
Majority of disabled MPs voted against assisted suicide bill, figures show
A strong majority of disabled MPs voted against legalising assisted suicide on Friday, despite Kim Leadbeater’s private members’ bill easily passing to the next stage of the parliamentary process that could lead to it becoming law.
Analysis of the voting records shows that, of those MPs who have publicly self-described as disabled people, six voted against the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill while just two voted in favour.
Labour MPs Jen Craft, Marsha de Cordova, Vicky Foxcroft, Liam Conlon, Emma Lewell-Buck and Marie Rimmer all voted against the bill, while Labour’s Diane Abbott, who has a long-term health condition, also voted against.
Both of the disabled MPs who voted in favour of the bill – Labour’s Dr Marie Tidball and Liberal Democrat Steve Darling – said they were doing so to allow the bill to move to the next stage of the legislative process, where it will be discussed in detail by a committee of MPs.
Daisy Cooper, the Liberal Democrat deputy leader, who has spoken of having a “hidden disability”, but has never publicly identified as a disabled person, also voted in favour of the bill.
Other significant political figures who voted in favour of the bill included the care minister Stephen Kinnock; John McDonnell, who has been a powerful supporter of the disabled people’s anti-cuts movement; former prime minister Rishi Sunak; former Conservative work and pensions secretary Mel Stride; Labour work and pensions ministers Liz Kendall, Alison McGovern, Emma Reynolds and Andrew Western; and the prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer.
Those voting against the bill included the minister for disabled people, Sir Stephen Timms; deputy prime minister Angela Rayner; health and social care secretary Wes Streeting; Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey; and Labour MP Neil Coyle, a long-standing member of the work and pensions committee, who previously worked as a director of Disability Rights UK, and for the former Disability Rights Commission.
Debbie Abrahams, who chairs the work and pensions committee and has frequently spoken in parliament on disability rights issues (see separate story), had previously told her local newspaper that she opposed the bill, but she did not vote on Friday.
Tidball was the only disabled MP who spoke in Friday’s debate.
There is likely to be particular disappointment over her support for the bill among disabled people, as she spoke out during the pandemic – as coordinator of Oxford University’s Disability Law and Policy Project – about the possibility that discrimination within the NHS had caused disabled people to be at a higher risk of death from Covid during the pandemic.
She had also claimed in June 2020 that the Conservative government had “failed to protect the lives of disabled people” in the early months of the pandemic.
She told MPs on Friday of her experience of major surgery on her hips when she was six and was “in so much pain and requiring so much morphine that my skin began to itch” and asked her parents to let her die.
She said: “That moment made it clear to me that if the bill was about intolerable suffering, I would not vote for it.”
But she said this experience had given her “a glimpse of how I would want to live my death: just as I have lived my life, empowered by choices available to me; living that death with dignity and respect, and having the comfort of knowing that I might have control over that very difficult time”.
She added: “The choice of assisted dying as one option for adults when facing six months’ terminal illness must be set alongside the choice of receiving the best possible palliative and end-of-life care, or it is no choice at all.”
Diane Abbott spoke in the debate of her “many reservations” about the bill, particularly its insufficient safeguards.
She said: “Robust safeguards for the sick and dying are vital to protect them from predatory relatives, to protect them from the state and, above all, to protect them from themselves.
“There will be those who say to themselves that they do not want to be a burden; I can imagine myself saying that in particular circumstances.
“Others will worry about assets they had hoped to leave for their grandchildren being eroded by the cost of care.
“There will even be a handful who will think they should not be taking up a hospital bed.”
Vicky Foxcroft, now a government whip but previously Labour’s shadow minister for disabled people, spoke in late October of her concerns about the bill.
She spoke then of her concerns about the “necessary safeguards to protect vulnerable people while still offering the legal right to end one’s life”, and that the palliative care system “is not in the state it needs to be in to support assisted dying”.
She also said in October that she had spoken to many disabled people during her time as shadow minister who had “outlined very real fears on what legalising assisted dying might mean for them”.
She said this had had “a profound and moving effect on me and… reinforced my view that any consideration of assisted dying must come at a time when our public services are more resilient so that no individual sees assisted dying as their only option”.
5 December 2024
Mirror backs columnist who claimed ‘millions’ of disabled people were wrongly claiming benefits
A left-wing national newspaper has backed a veteran columnist who claimed that “millions” of disabled people were dishonestly claiming out-of-work disability benefits.
The column came just three days before a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary on disability benefits was described by disabled campaigners and allies as an “atrocity” and “shamefully inaccurate and prejudicial” (see separate story).
Paul Routledge, who is described by The Mirror as “a Fleet Street legend”, wrote on Friday that “millions of people who could, and should, be in work sign on for long-term sickness benefits”.
He also claimed that mental health was “the ‘bad back’ of the 21st century” because it was “easy to self-diagnose, virtually impossible to disprove”.
He provided no evidence for either of his claims.
The column came two years after The Mirror launched its Disabled Britain series of articles by disabled writers – including Disability News Service editor John Pring – which was aimed at “showcasing the lives of disabled people and the issues important to us”.
Disabled journalist and author Rachel Charlton-Dailey, who edited Disabled Britain and subsequently wrote a series of columns for The Mirror, said she was “sickened” by Routledge’s column.
She said: “The media hostility towards disabled people has been an infuriating thing to try and combat as a freelance disabled journalist.
“However, I’m especially sickened by seasoned columnists using us as a punching bag when they should know better than to publish unsubstantiated lies about benefits claimants that can cause a lot of harm and add to the public’s distrust of us.
“I, not for the first time, feel like Disabled Britain was used as a pawn to redeem The Mirror for past harmful articles about disabled people and that they’ve learnt nothing from the meetings and guidelines that worked alongside Disabled Britain.”
Dr Natasha Hirst, the disabled president of the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), who has frequently spoken out about discriminatory reporting in the media, said: “There are a multitude of barriers that prevent disabled people from accessing the labour market.
“The impact of long Covid, and lack of timely health services, plays a significant role, as well as negative attitudes from employers and lack of accessible transport and housing.
“The NUJ is calling on all publications and broadcasters to be proactive in changing the narrative on disability.
“We can’t be too cautious right now about how disability issues are portrayed and it’s important to provide enough space to do justice to the complex and nuanced issues affecting disabled people.”
Asked if the Mirror stood by Routledge’s column, or if it would apologise for the errors, un-evidenced claims, and disablist hostility, a spokesperson for the newspaper claimed the article was “appropriately nuanced”.
He said: “The Mirror has a proud track record of standing up for the rights of disabled people and campaigning for disability rights, including with our 2023 campaign Disabled Britain [Charlton-Dailey pointed out that the campaign was actually in 2022].
“While we always welcome a variety of views from our columnists, and believe that the column in question was appropriately nuanced and making an argument around the need for more good jobs in this country, we are very clear in our editorial position.
“We will continue to advocate for the rights of disabled people in our campaigning work and oppose discrimination in all forms.”
Routledge’s column was just the latest in a stream of articles and programmes in the mainstream media that have made un-evidenced, hostile claims about disabled people on out-of-work benefits in the last year, and it comes as the new government prepares its own reforms of the disability benefits system, which are set to be published in a green paper in the spring.
5 December 2024
Channel 4 documentary on benefits was ‘atrocity’ and ‘insult’ to disabled people in poverty, say activists
A Channel 4 documentary that claimed to expose the “scandal” of the disability benefits system has been described as an “atrocity” and an “insult” to the millions of disabled people in poverty.
The film for Channel 4’s Dispatches, presented by Fraser Nelson – former editor of the right-wing magazine The Spectator – caused outrage among many disabled people who watched it.
It claimed to show that the social security system can “drive people towards benefits rather than work”, and that the costs of supporting disabled people who cannot work “threaten to derail the government’s hopes of economic growth”, and it asked the question: “Are we getting sicker? Or lazier?”
It came only three days after The Mirror newspaper backed a veteran columnist who claimed that “millions” of disabled people were dishonestly claiming out-of-work benefits (see separate story).
They are just the latest in a stream of articles and programmes across the mainstream media that have made un-evidenced, hostile claims about disabled people on out-of-work benefits in the last year, and they come as the new government prepares its own reforms of the disability benefits system, which are set to be published in a green paper in the spring.
There were multiple concerns about accuracy and unevidenced claims in the Dispatches programme, while the radical working-class media organisation The Canary pointed out that Nelson had failed to state he was on the advisory board of the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ), the right-wing thinktank that devised universal credit and whose policy director Edward Davies was interviewed in the programme.
The documentary came just two years after a Dispatches programme produced in association with Disability News Service (DNS) won an award at the British Journalism Awards after exposing the “cruel and inhuman” disability assessment system.
The grassroots, user-led mental health group Recovery in the Bin (RiTB) described the new documentary, Britain’s Benefits Scandal, as an “atrocity”.
Rick Burgess, an RiTB spokesperson, said: “We see what this is, it is a cycle repeated endlessly of government working with media to ready the way for another round of DWP abuse.
“Shame on everyone involved.”
The documentary was described by Disability Rights UK as “an insult to the millions of disabled people on the poverty line”.
The Benefits and Work information and advice website suggested that the “shamefully inaccurate and prejudicial” documentary was part of attempts at “softening up British public opinion” before the green paper was published.
Many disabled people on social media were even more scathing and angry, describing the programme as “quietly hateful”, “dehumanising”, “scapegoating”, “distressing” and “demonising”.
John McArdle, co-founder of Black Triangle Campaign, said he believed the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) was “emphatically” behind the “false narrative” displayed in the string of recent articles and programmes.
He said the last 14 years had shown that this hostile rhetoric – stirred up by DWP – always increased before major disability benefit reforms were announced.
He said: “They are trying to say the benefits bill is bankrupting the country and it’s simply not the case.”
A Channel 4 spokesperson failed to address concerns raised by DNS about the documentary, including inaccuracies and misleading statements made in the programme, and its failure to mention Dispatches’ own award-winning documentary that had exposed the assessment system.
The executive producer of the documentary, Eamonn Matthews, chief executive of Quicksilver Media, which made the documentary for Dispatches, insisted yesterday (Wednesday) that the documentary was “factually accurate” and claimed that Nelson “was on the [CSJ] advisory board which is no longer active”.
When DNS pointed out that Nelson had described himself as a member of the CSJ advisory board in an article he had written for the Glasgow Herald, which was published on the same day as the documentary, Matthews declined to comment further.
The Channel 4 spokesperson said that Dispatches had “a history of investigating serious issues with the benefits system and holding the government to account on this” and he claimed that Nelson’s “investigation” had “revealed problems recognised by experts and politicians across the political spectrum”.
He claimed it was “based on deep and meticulous research”, and was told “through those affected: claimants, assessors and ministers all reflecting on a failing system.
“We wanted to give voice to claimants, place them at the centre of the film, as they are too often erased from the debate.
“Throughout the film Fraser emphasised that this is a story of good people caught in a bad system.
“Hearing from them directly we are hoping to tackle damaging stereotypes into which this debate too often descends.
“Part of the purpose of the film was to highlight the difficulties and stigma that some people can face and to give them their voice in the discussions around the benefits system that they are rarely given.”
5 December 2024
Just 16 MPs attend debate on disability rights, days after hundreds vote for assisted suicide
Just a handful of MPs attended a debate to mark the international day of disabled people, four days after the House of Commons voted in favour of a bill that would legalise assisted suicide.
More than 160 MPs had told the speaker that they wanted to take part in Friday’s debate on the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill – with 330 MPs eventually voting in favour to 275 against – although there was only time for about 80 MPs to make a contribution.
But only about 16 MPs turned up to a debate four days later to celebrate disabled people’s rights, and apparently not a single Conservative MP.
Tuesday’s adjournment debate (watch from 19.08) on the UN’s International Day of Persons with Disabilities was led by Labour’s Debbie Abrahams, who spoke of how disability hate crime had increased “almost sevenfold” since 2010, and the need to implement the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
She also spoke of the “culture of fear” faced by disabled people who cannot work and rely on social security, and the deaths of countless claimants linked to reforms introduced by Conservative-led governments.
Abrahams became the first MP to mention The Department* in a Commons debate.
The book, written by Disability News Service editor John Pring, exposes how the actions of the Department for Work and Pensions led over three decades to the deaths of hundreds, and probably thousands, of disabled claimants.
She told MPs how she had got to know the families of three of the disabled people who had died and whose stories are told in the book – Errol Graham, Philippa Day and Jodey Whiting – who she said were “appallingly let down by the government of the day who should have been there for them”.
Abrahams, who chairs the Commons work and pensions committee, also highlighted the “decimation of services” relied on by disabled people, the “absolute nonsense” of train companies ordering new rolling stock that will not provide level access boarding, the discrimination faced by disabled children and young people in the education system, and the disability employment and disability pay gaps.
She said that disabled people across the world were “leading as innovators, creators, athletes, entrepreneurs, educators and advocates” and were “showing us that a more inclusive world is not only possible but essential.
“Yet despite progress, significant barriers remain, and the number of disabled people reaching their full potential is still far too low.
“Many disabled people – children and adults – still face discrimination, inaccessible environments, unequal access to education, employment and healthcare, and worse.”
Because it was an adjournment debate, only Abrahams and the minister for disabled people, Sir Stephen Timms, were able to deliver speeches, although other MPs could make brief interventions.
Among them were the disabled Liberal Democrat MP Steve Darling, his party’s work and pensions spokesperson, who called on the government to ban floating bus stops and praised the campaigning work of National Federation of the Blind of the UK.
He also spoke of the discrimination faced by disabled people and his concern that they do not have “the full force of the law behind them when they are discriminated against” and instead must go through the civil court system.
Other MPs who spoke in interventions included the DUP’s Jim Shannon, Labour’s Warinder Juss, Jonathan Davies, Richard Baker and Samantha Niblett, and Liberal Democrat Layla Moran.
Sir Stephen spoke in his response of the government’s plans to support more disabled people into work through its Get Britain Working white paper.
He spoke of his meetings with disabled people and their organisations, including the DPO Forum England, and the government’s regional stakeholder network.
And he said the government had appointed lead ministers for disability in each government department to “represent the interests of disabled people and champion disability inclusion and accessibility in their department”.
He said: “I will chair regular meetings with them and encourage them to engage directly with disabled people and their representative organisations as they take forward their departmental priorities.”
Meanwhile, Glasgow Disability Alliance (GDA) marked the international day of disabled people by announcing – due to a lack of funding from the Scottish government and local authorities – that it was preparing to make more than two-fifths of its staff redundant.
And it warned that if its core grant from the Scottish government’s Equality Inclusion and Human Rights Fund was not protected, another six staff would be at risk of losing their jobs.
Tressa Burke, GDA’s chief executive, who is herself facing redundancy, said that other disabled people’s organisations (DPOs), including Inclusion Scotland and Disability Equality Scotland, were “in the same position”, which she said was “shocking and shameful given our vital roles”.
She said there had been a “lack of action, diluted ambition and broken promises” in the Scottish government’s Disability Equality Plan, while social care charges “plunge disabled people into poverty and are a backdoor tax which only disabled people pay”.
She said: “I find myself frequently despairing about how we have come to this point where disabled people are once again at the back of the queue, the bottom of the pile and fighting to survive, be seen and heard.
“DPOs like us are a lifeline to disabled people. We need to be protected and investment is required so that we can keep providing lifelines and facilitate the voices and lived experience disabled people face.”
*The Department: How a Violent Government Bureaucracy Killed Hundreds and Hid the Evidence, John Pring’s book on the years of deaths linked to DWP, is published by Pluto Press
5 December 2024
Assisted suicide vote will make other campaigning tougher, say activists
The decision of MPs to vote in favour of legalising assisted suicide will make it harder to find the time and resources to campaign on many other crucial disability rights issues over the next six months, disabled activists have warned.
Many campaigners who attended a vigil outside parliament on Friday were left demoralised by the vote by 330 MPs in favour to 275 against to allow the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill to proceed to the committee stage.
But despite anger and frustration at the result of the vote, there was determination from key figures in the disability movement to continue to fight to defeat the bill (see separate story).
The bill’s progress through the Commons is almost certain to demand a huge commitment of time and resources from disabled people’s organisations, grassroots groups and individual disabled activists over the next nine months.
Many of those activists at the vigil told Disability News Service on Friday that this was a real concern.
Rensa Gaunt, communications manager for Inclusion London, said disabled people “are not able to fight everything all the time”, with key legislation and policies “coming through so quickly it’s alarming”.
She said Inclusion London had been forced to “split our attention”, with the assisted dying bill, the mental health bill and social security reform among its priorities.
She said: “I worry that people have not even been talking about the mental health bill when it’s a massive piece of legislation. The timing is shocking.”
When asked before the vote if it could swamp other key campaigns if MPs voted in favour, Baroness [Tanni] Grey-Thompson said: “Completely, because it already has.”
Disabled activist Anna Landre said the disabled people’s movement “was already stretched so thin, given austerity and cuts”.
She said: “I am concerned about that, but we are going to continue to keep fighting.”
She had said earlier: “I am worried about the things that are in the pipeline; we know DWP is doing research on potential changes to personal independence payment and other things that could need our energy, and certainly this passing would take away from meaningful efforts on other fronts where we are fighting.”
Disabled student Nye Steele, who travelled from Coventry to take part in the vigil – speaking before the vote – said campaigning against the bill “definitely” would edge out other activism, such as work on the mental health bill and fighting austerity.
He said: “How are we going to fight this as well?”
Paula Peters, a member of the national steering group of Disabled People Against Cuts, said: “It’s going to have an impact. We are all burned out from constant fighting.
“Yes, it’s going to impact on our capacity to campaign, but somehow we have got to give hope to disabled people across the UK that we continue to fight, organise and mobilise.
“In the dark days of Cameron and Osborne we kept going. We have got to. You can see that in the vigil today, [disabled people] united in a common cause.”
5 December 2024
The truth about Liz Kendall’s BBC mental health wards work coach claim
Work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall had to ask the BBC to alter a news story that suggested she wanted to send employment advisers onto mental health wards, after she failed to dismiss the idea during an interview.
Disability News Service (DNS) has obtained a transcript of the interview that took place in October between Kendall and the BBC’s economics editor, Faisal Islam, as well as copies of emails exchanged between government press officers and the BBC.
The transcript and emails – obtained by DNS under the Freedom of Information Act – show that Kendall failed to make it clear during the interview that she did not want to send employment advisers onto mental health wards.
It was only after the BBC published a news story on 16 October, co-written by Islam, that suggested that “job coaches could visit seriously ill patients on mental health wards” that a Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) press officer emailed the BBC to ask for the claim to be removed.
The DWP press officer told the BBC: “To be clear, the Secretary of State didn’t say that the government would be placing the work coaches in hospitals or on hospital wards.
“Rather, she outlined plans to join up employment supports with mental health services in the community.
“The current wording suggests that this would be within a hospital setting. This is not what the Secretary of State said.”
This may reassure many disabled people who were concerned at apparent plans to send employment advisers or even DWP work coaches into mental health hospitals to push them towards work.
But the interview transcript also shows that it was Kendall’s blundering response to a question from Islam that led to the BBC publishing the claim about mental health wards.
Islam had asked Kendall: “We’re hearing things like putting job coaches in hospitals. I mean, that’s [sic] that sounds slightly surreal, isn’t it? I mean, people are waiting for…”
According to the transcript provided by DWP, Kendall did not rule out sending job coaches into hospitals, but appeared instead to dismiss Islam’s concerns about such a policy.
The DWP transcript shows her replying: “Absolutely not let me tell you just this.
“Just this week in my own city, I went to in [sic] an employment support service run by our mental health team.
“This is for people with serious mental health, serious. And the results of getting people into work have been dramatic, and that the evidence clearly shows that it is better for their mental health.
“They have fewer relapses, and they spend less time in hospital.
“So those Employment Advisors, if you actually speak to the people who felt that they were written off they didn’t have have [sic] a chance, the support they got.
“The results are really strong. So it is something that we really need to focus on, putting those Employment Advisors into our mental health services.
“It is better for people. It’s better for the economy, but we just have to think in a different way.”
The BBC story was later amended – on DWP’s request – to remove the suggestion that Kendall wanted to send work coaches into mental health wards, to remove her comment about putting employment advisers into mental health services, and to change the headline.
The grassroots, user-led mental health group Recovery in the Bin (RiTB) blamed both Kendall and the BBC for allowing the apparently false claim about job coaches on mental health wards to be published.
Rick Burgess, an RiTB spokesperson, said that “in a sensitive policy area where lives are in the balance, both the media and government have to do a lot better otherwise we can reasonably surmise they do not care the harm they cause to us”.
5 December 2024
Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week
The government has announced £740 million of funding to increase the number of places for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) in mainstream schools in England. The money, part of the £6.7 billion of education spending announced in the budget, will be targeted towards adapting school buildings to make them more accessible: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c36e106n667o
A disabled MP says disabled children and their families are being failed by the current system of home to school transport. Jen Craft, the Labour MP for Thurrock, also said that “education can be thrown into turmoil” when a child turns 16, as many cannot access their schooling. More than 30 MPs spoke in the hour-long debate: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gpl4j4pr9o
Benefit claimants are increasingly finding that they are financially better off being signed off sick rather than actively seeking jobs, employment minister Alison McGovern has claimed. McGovern told the Lords economic affairs committee that the social security framework is failing both those who are long-term sick and taxpayers. With the cost of sickness benefits expected to hit £100 billion by 2030, McGovern said: “It’s obvious that the system is not financially sustainable.”: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/benefits-workforce-mental-health-mcgovern-b2658385.html
5 December 2024
News provided by John Pring at
