Linda

Aug 102021
 

✨ CAMPAIGNING MENTORSHIP OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUNG ACTIVISTS! ✨

🌳 Are you 16-24 year old*, identify as BAME, disabled and/or working class & passionate about climate justice?

📢 Do you have some campaigning experience but want to learn more from skilled campaigners & run your own campaign?

THEN APPLY TO OUR CLIMATE.YOUTH.SOCIETY. Programme!

👉 What is the programme?

Climate.Youth.Society. The Richard Sandbrook Mentoring programme is a year-long programme designed to teach you everything you need to know to become a fantastic climate justice campaigner!

The programme is divided in two parts. The first 6 months will be dedicated to learning everything you need to know to become a successful campaigner. You will be paired with an experienced social justice campaigner who shares your background and passion and who will do everything they can to give you the skills you need to become a confident and successful activist.

The second part of the course will be implementing the skills you have learnt in a campaign of your own! You will be given a £100 bursary to start a campaign and will be supported by FOE staff as you deliver it.

👉 What do I need to do?

To join the programme, you will need to fill in this application form here (shorturl.at/kuvxH) and this EDI form (shorturl.at/fksOZ) and send to Hiba.ahmad@foe.co.uk and Hannah.Evans@foe.co.uk. They are both copied into this email and can answer any questions you have.

If you are under 18, you will need your guardian’s permission to participate. Deadline for application is 11:59 PM – Sunday 15th August.

You will need to commit to one mentoring session a month, plus attend training sessions designed to help you become a better climate justice campaigner.

👉 Got any questions? Contact Hiba at hiba.ahmad@foe.co.uk or message Hannah on Hannah.evans@foe.co.uk

*If you are older than 24 and would like to join, you will need to demonstrate barriers what barriers you have faced in your activism journey.

Hiba Ahmad (she/her)

Consultant, Youth Action Co-ordination

Friends of the Earth

I usually work 9.00-5.00 Monday- Wednesday, and 9.00-12:30pm on Thursdays

07922075529

Twitter: @HibaYAhmad

 Posted by at 21:31
Aug 102021
 

My name’s Adam Eley and I’m a journalist at the BBC. I am working on a story about the rise in social care charges faced by disabled people and how it is a growing issue affecting individuals and families across the country.

I’m happy to provide more details to anyone considering taking part, about what it will entail and what the piece is looking to achieve, and answer any questions you might have.

I’d particularly like to speak to people from Leicester or Nottingham.

If you are interested please contact me at adam.eley@bbc.co.uk 

 Posted by at 18:38
Jun 252021
 

Jodey Whiting: DWP tells high court her death was isolated case and not sign of systemic failure… despite years of evidence
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has told a court that the death of a disabled woman who took her own life after her benefits were removed was not part of a widespread “systemic” problem, despite years of evidence to the contrary.
A DWP lawyer made the argument in the high court this week, despite nearly a decade of high-profile tragedies, legal cases, campaigns, research, protests, television exposés, parliamentary debates, and reports by MPs and other organisations into deaths linked to the department’s “fitness for work” regime.
The court was being asked to order a second inquest into the death of Jodey Whiting in February 2017.
DWP was told of the court case before Christmas last year, and it was told then of the substantial evidence of the “systemic issue”, but the court heard that it had made no effort to dispute that evidence until this week.
Whiting, a mother-of-nine and grandmother from Stockton-on-Tees, took her own life in February 2017, 15 days after her employment and support allowance (ESA) was mistakenly stopped by DWP for missing a work capability assessment.
But the original inquest into her death lasted just 37 minutes and did not investigate DWP’s role in her death.
This week, the high court has been considering a request by Whiting’s mother, Joy Dove, who attended this week’s hearing in London, for a second inquest into her daughter’s death.
David Griffiths, DWP’s barrister, argued this week that Whiting’s death was the result of errors by individuals within DWP, but was not caused by flaws in the benefits system itself.
He said her death should be placed in the “context” of the “scale and scope” of the millions of claimants who DWP deals with.
But Mrs Justice Farbey, one of three high court judges hearing the case, replied: “There are a large number of claimants. It ought to be basic stuff.
“This is largely stuff that the DWP does every day and it should have systems that work to surveil.”
Griffiths said it was clear that, “on this occasion”, the systems that look out for the “well-being of the recipient” were “not adhered to”.
He said: “People make mistakes. I can understand in this arena and with the tragic events that happened that those failures are highlighted, and rightly so.
“The system has failed but it does not fail a great many times.”
He claimed that if there was a systemic problem then “given the quantity the numbers of people who are dealt with one would see far greater problems within the DWP than apparently is the case”.
Another of the judges, Lord Justice Warby, said DWP had provided no evidence about other such cases in which claimants had died.
Griffiths said that if there was a “systemic problem”, it would be “known and public to a great extent” and he assured the judges that DWP would have told the court if there was any indication that this was a systemic problem.
But Jesse Nicholls, representing Joy Dove, said there was a “very substantial amount of material available in the public domain” that indicated there was a “very serious problem” with the way DWP makes its decisions on benefits.
He said deaths had been raised in parliament, some even at prime minister’s questions, while the Commons work and pensions committee had reported on the concerns, and last year the National Audit Office had investigated the information DWP held on the suicides of claimants.
Nicholls said DWP had had six months to provide the evidence to the court “to rebut the suggestion that there is a systemic issue”.
But, he said, “they didn’t”.
Lord Justice Warby added: “They had plenty of opportunity… to put in evidence and they haven’t done it or suggested that they have evidence to put in.”
Nicholls said: “The only inference… that can be drawn is that there is a systemic problem here. It cannot possibly be suggested that that is not the case.”
Griffiths said DWP accepted that it did fail when the individuals concerned did not comply with their duties appropriately.
He said: “It had tragic consequences. That is not to say there are not systems and procedures in place which if followed would have prevented this error.”
But Lord Justice Warby told him: “An inference may be drawn that despite the appearance of working systems, there is a non-working system in the problem of culture and training and arguably so.”
He said the court would reserve its decision to a future date, but he said that he and his two fellow judges knew that it was “an important case” and were “very conscious of the importance of the legal issues, but also the personal issues”.
24 June 2021

Jodey Whiting: Judge asks why DWP failed to ‘pick up a phone’ before claimant’s suicide
A high court judge has asked the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) why it did not take the “common sense” step of phoning a disabled woman with a long history of mental distress – who later took her own life – before it removed her benefits.
Mrs Justice Farbey, one of three high court judges who will decide whether there will be a second inquest into the death of Jodey Whiting in February 2017, suggested that the court might be able to “infer” from the evidence it had received that there was a “systemic” failure by DWP.
Whiting, a mother-of-nine and grandmother from Stockton-on-Tees, took her own life in February 2017, 15 days after she had her employment and support allowance (ESA) mistakenly stopped for missing a face-to-face work capability assessment.
But the original inquest into her death lasted just 37 minutes and did not investigate DWP’s role in her death.
This week, the high court has been considering a request by Whiting’s mother, Joy Dove, who attended this week’s hearing in London, for a second inquest into her daughter’s death.
In December 2016, Whiting was sent a letter asking her to attend a face-to-face work capability assessment the following month.
But she failed to open the letter and so missed the WCA. She had been ill with pneumonia and receiving hospital treatment for a cyst on the brain and had been taking painkillers which affected her ability to cope with correspondence.
According to DWP’s safeguarding procedures, the department should have contacted “vulnerable” claimants like Whiting by telephone if they missed their assessment, but a report by the Independent Case Examiner (ICE) later found no evidence that this had been done.
DWP should also have considered a safeguarding visit to her home, but again there was no evidence that this was done.
The following month, on 6 February, DWP wrote to Whiting to tell her it was terminating her benefits, and she also received letters from the council telling her that her council tax benefit and housing benefit would be stopped.
She took her own life 15 days later.
The decision to remove her ESA was overturned the following month, after her mother had asked DWP to reconsider its decision.
Mrs Justice Farbey told DWP’s barrister David Griffiths this week that Whiting had been on out-of-work disability benefits since 2006, and had been in the ESA support group since 2012, after she was transferred across from the old incapacity benefit system.
She asked Griffiths: “Why on earth in these circumstances didn’t someone pick up the phone?”
She said it was “surely common sense” for DWP to call Whiting about her missed assessment if she had been claiming benefits for so long, and she asked him: “Why shouldn’t this court infer that this is a systems failure?”
The Independent Case Examiner concluded in 2019 that DWP was guilty of “multiple” and “significant” failings in handling Whiting’s case, and that it had failed five times to follow its own safeguarding rules in the weeks leading to her suicide.
Griffiths said the judge’s criticisms were “well founded” and that ICE identified “a lot of failures” around the “sad time of Miss Whiting’s death”.
But he told the court: “One has to put it in the context of the scale and scope of what DWP does.”
He added: “The system has failed but it does not fail a great many times.”
Griffiths said DWP accepted that individuals had failed to comply with their duties appropriately.
He said: “It had tragic consequences. That is not to say there are not systems and procedures in place which if followed would have prevented this error.”
Lord Justice Warby said the court would reserve its decision to a future date, but he said that he and his two fellow judges knew that it was “an important case” and were “very conscious of the importance of the legal issues, but also the personal issues”.
24 June 2021

Jodey Whiting: Fresh evidence shows need for second inquest into death ‘caused by DWP’
Fresh evidence shows that the actions of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) were a “central cause” of the death of a disabled women who took her own life after her benefits were wrongly removed, the high court heard this week.
The court has been asked to order a second inquest into the death of Jodey Whiting in February 2017.
Whiting, a mother-of-nine and grandmother from Stockton-on-Tees, took her own life in February 2017, 15 days after her employment and support allowance (ESA) was mistakenly stopped for missing a face-to-face work capability assessment.
But the original inquest into her death lasted just 37 minutes and did not investigate DWP’s role in her death.
This week, the high court has been considering a request by Whiting’s mother, Joy Dove, for a second inquest that would examine how DWP contributed to or even caused her daughter’s death.
Dove’s barrister, Jesse Nicholls, told the court that fresh evidence had emerged since 2017 which “overwhelmingly leads to the conclusion that the substantial truth” about how she died had not been revealed at the first inquest.
He said that evidence showed that DWP had been “a central cause of her death”, but that that “substantial truth” was not investigated at the first inquest.
He said that a report by the Independent Case Examiner, which followed a complaint lodged by Dove and was not published until after the inquest, had been “highly critical” of DWP’s conduct, and revealed “multiple breaches of procedures, flaws in decision-making and missed opportunities to consider Miss Whiting’s claim appropriately prior to the termination of her ESA”.
And he said a report by a consultant psychiatrist, commissioned after the inquest, concluded that there was “likely to have been a causal link between the DWP failings outlined in the ICE report and Jodey’s state of mind before her death”.
Nicholls said DWP was aware that Whiting had a history of suicide attempts and suicidal thoughts, had placed a “red flag” on its system to alert its staff to this “vulnerability”, and had also been aware that she had been referred to the community mental health team just months earlier for intensive treatment for suicidal thoughts.
As early as 2012, DWP’s assessment contractor Atos – later replaced by the US outsourcing giant Maximus – had concluded that she would be at risk if she was found fit for work or asked to carry out work-related activity.
Two years later, Whiting had written in an ESA questionnaire: “Most days I want to kill myself. If my doctor doesn’t get the pain under control I plan to kill myself.”
And in October 2016, she had written in a new ESA questionnaire: “Suicidal thoughts a lot of the time, I couldn’t cope with work or looking for work.”
But Nicholls said: “Her benefits were terminated, she felt unable to cope and she killed herself. And the DWP had been told by her of that risk.”
He said the inquest had not investigated DWP’s role in Jodey Whiting’s death “in any way”.
Jonathan Hough, representing the Teesside and Hartlepool coroner, said it had not been the coroner’s intention to “defend the clear multiple and admitted failures of DWP staff”, but that she had held a “proper and lawful inquest” that had investigated “the means by which Miss Whiting had died”, which was “sufficient” to discharge her responsibility.
He said the coroner had “treated Miss Whiting’s family with respect and sensitivity” and had mentioned in her summing up that she had had her ESA claim turned down and that that had had an impact on her.
Hough said that a fresh inquest would not “magically be able to psycho-analyse” what was the critical factor in her decision to take her own life.
He said it was “unquestionable” that the failings of DWP staff were serious but that did not mean that a second inquest was needed.
Nicholls said that a second inquest would provide Jodey Whiting’s family and the wider public with an “understanding of the facts of her death” and provide the family with “catharsis”.
He said it would also allow “public lesson-learning to take place”.
Lord Justice Warby said the court would reserve its decision to a future date, but he said that he and his two fellow judges knew that it was “an important case” and were “very conscious of the importance of the legal issues, but also the personal issues”.
Dove, who is represented by solicitor Merry Varney, a partner at law firm Leigh Day, sat alone at the back of the court throughout the two-day hearing.
She spoke afterwards of the frustration of not being able to give oral evidence during the hearing, which meant she had been unable to tell the three judges how DWP’s decision-makers had stopped her daughter’s benefits “without seeing her face”.
She told Disability News Service that this had made her daughter an “invisible woman”.
She said: “I wanted to say my piece but obviously I can’t say anything until the second inquest.”
Dove said she became tearful and had to “keep fighting to stop myself breaking down”, while listening to her barrister describe the events that led to her daughter’s death.
Dove, who was joined in court yesterday (Wednesday) by Jodey’s brother Jamie, said she was pleased that the judges had been fair in the way they had dealt with the evidence and asked their questions.
Now she is prepared to wait for weeks, or even months, for the three judges to deliver their ruling.
She said: “If it takes a long time to get a verdict I won’t mind, as long as it’s the right one.”
Even if she loses the case, she said, she will continue fighting.
She said she wants to “get some closure for Jodey where she has done something for other people to help change the system”.
But she added: “I can’t imagine ever coming to a stop fighting for my daughter. I feel as if I have to do this.”
While she was in London, she stayed at a hotel directly opposite DWP’s Whitehall headquarters.
She told DNS before the hearing that she hoped DWP staff and ministers would be able to see her.
She said: “I wanted to be here. I’m not bothered about them. I hope they can see me.”
24 June 2021

Labour says calling for free social care would ‘just give Tories a stick to beat us with’
Labour has given the strongest sign yet that it has gone back on its new leader’s pledge that he would introduce free social care if his party won power, after a shadow cabinet member said such a policy would be too expensive.
Thangam Debbonaire told female party members at a meeting last weekend that introducing free social care for disabled and older people would “give the Tories a stick to beat Labour with”, Disability News Service (DNS) has been told.
She apparently claimed that such a policy would cost “£100 billion” and would cost more than the annual budget of the NHS.
She also said that right-wing newspapers would attack the policy and that it would lose Labour the next election.
This week, Labour failed to deny she had made the comments.
Debbonaire, Labour’s shadow leader of the House of Commons, was speaking at a “composite meeting”, which was discussing how to combine various motions that had been proposed by constituency Labour parties (CLPs) into a single motion to be debated and voted on at this weekend’s Labour women’s conference.
Several CLPs had passed motions calling for free social care, and a draft composite motion included two references to free social care, including a call for Labour to promise “to make the provision of all social care free to the recipient as is the case for health care under the NHS” and for social care to be “needs-based and publicly funded, free at the point of use”.
But the final version of the motion, prepared just before the meeting, expunged all mentions of free social care.
One disabled party member who attended the virtual meeting told Disability News Service (DNS) afterwards that Labour had betrayed and silenced its disabled members.
She said the party was now run by “cowardly, unprincipled careerists” who “wouldn’t know solidarity if it hit them with a big stick”.
She said: “Right now, many of us are stuck fighting the DWP, the government and local authorities just to survive.
“But apparently promising us hope that we won’t always have to fight like this is too expensive.”
Only last month, DNS reported how Labour had refused to explain why a major speech by its shadow social care minister, Liz Kendall, had ignored disabled-led proposals for fundamental reform – including free social care – that were backed by Keir Starmer during his leadership election campaign.
Starmer supported the National Independent Living Support Service (NILSS) proposals during his successful campaign to be elected party leader last year, telling DNS in February 2020 that he backed a motion supporting those proposals which had been passed at Labour’s annual conference.
NILSS, which was drawn up by Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) and Reclaiming Our Futures Alliance (ROFA), would provide a universal right to independent living that was “enshrined in law”, and would introduce free social care in England, funded by national and progressive taxation.
But yesterday (Wednesday), a Labour spokesperson refused to say why the party had gone back on Starmer’s support for the NILSS motion; refused to say why the references to free social care were removed from the social care composite motion document; refused to provide the source for Debbonaire’s claim that free social care would cost £100 billion and more than the NHS budget; refused to say if the party agreed with her that calling for free social care would give the Tories a stick to beat Labour with, and that it would lose the party the next election; refused to say what the party’s message was to disabled people and allies who were fighting for free social care; and refused to say why Labour was not willing to fight for disabled and older people’s right to free social care.
But the spokesperson said in a statement: “The final motion was democratically agreed by all CLPs who attended the meeting and will be debated and voted on by National Women’s Conference this weekend.”
Meanwhile, an open letter from social care organisations – including the Social Care Future campaign group, which includes some disabled members but is not run and controlled by disabled people – has also failed to call for free social care.
The letter also fails to call for a legal right to independent living, which would allow the government to comply with article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, even though the Equality and Human Rights Commission made such a call last month.
Instead, it calls for “funding for short-term stabilisation”, “longer-term investment” and “investment in the short term to speed the shift towards a system of social care that is both sustainable and fit for the modern age”.
The letter to the prime minister, chancellor and health and social care secretary was also signed by the Think Local Act Personal partnership, the chair of the Local Government Association community wellbeing board, the Social Care Institute for Excellence, the Care Providers Alliance, and the president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services.
A SCIE spokesperson told DNS: “This was a letter agreed across a number of partner organisations and the issues that were raised by the letter were seen as the most important as we press for an update before summer recess.”
But Social Care Future has signed another statement on social care reform, which does call for free social care.
This statement has also been signed by disabled-led organisations Disability Rights UK, Inclusion London, Reclaiming our Futures Alliance, Bristol Reclaiming Independent Living and Shaping Our Lives.
It follows the government’s latest pledge to publish its repeatedly-delayed plans for social care reform by the end of the year.
They believe that organisations led by disabled people are being excluded from current discussions being held by the Department of Health and Social Care.
They want organisations and individuals to sign the statement by 4 July, before it is shared with the government.
24 June 2021

DPOs welcome Disability Rights UK’s decision to quit charities’ lobby group
A leading national disabled people’s organisation (DPO) has announced it is quitting a powerful lobby group of disability charities as part of a move to work mostly with other DPOs rather than non-user-led organisations.
Disability Rights UK (DR UK) said the move to quit the Disability Charities Consortium (DCC) was part of a strategy review that was intended to ensure “greater amplification” of the voices of disabled people.
The consortium is frequently consulted by the government, and these discussions are often used as proof that ministers are talking and listening to disabled people and their organisations, but it makes few if any public announcements and has no website.
DR UK’s departure means the consortium will no longer have any member organisations that are run and controlled by disabled people.
The other members are Mencap, the National Autistic Society, Mind, Leonard Cheshire, Scope, Action on Hearing Loss, RNIB, Sense and the Business Disability Forum.
Kamran Mallick, DR UK’s chief executive, said in a statement that his organisation had been looking at how it could “work more deeply, with greater listening, and greater amplification of the voices of Disabled people”.
He told Disability News Service (DNS) later: “As a leading national DPO we already work closely with a network of grassroots DPOs across the UK.
“We want it to be crystal clear to disabled people that we are disabled people working with disabled people to ensure our voices are heard directly by government.
“We want to create a stronger DPO voice based on the lived experience of disabled people, so that government listens more closely and takes action, and we want to be part of this.”
He said there had been no particular decisions taken by DCC that had persuaded DR UK to leave the consortium.
In the statement, he said it had become “clearer than it had ever been” at the start of the pandemic that disabled people’s voices were “in danger of becoming lost”.
But he said the crisis had strengthened the resolve of disabled people “to gather together our voices, speak truth to power, loudly and clearly, and make sure that we are heard”.
Mallick pointed to the new, 15-strong Our Voices group of DR UK member DPOs that has come together since the start of the pandemic, which meets regularly “to share what is working and what is not working in their local areas across the UK”, and which he hopes will expand.
He said DR UK also wanted to “make full contribution and support” to the new DPO Forum England, which has been set up by DPOs to lobby government.
He said that DR UK had “always been user-led” and was “committed to remaining user-led”, while its board, leadership team, membership and the “vast majority” of its staff are disabled people.
He said the bulk of its work would now be with DPOs, which are led and run by disabled people, although it would continue to work with DCC organisations where their collective knowledge and experience “works stronger together”.
Tracey Lazard, chief executive of Inclusion London, another influential DPO, which works with user-led organisations across the capital, said: “We welcome DR UK’s long-awaited decision to leave the DCC.
“We cannot think of one example where the DCC has used its leverage, facetime with ministers or its own huge, combined resources to support DPOs or amplify our voices.
“But we do know both the DCC and the government have benefited hugely from pretending they consult with DPOs via DR UK’s long-term membership of DCC.
“It’s vital DPOs and our wider movement work together in solidarity to ensure the needs, issues, experiences and aspirations of disabled people and our organisations are heard and we look forward to working with DR UK to make this happen.”
Ellen Clifford, a member of the national steering group of Disabled People Against Cuts, also welcomed the DR UK decision.
She said: “Over the years the government has consistently used engagement with disability charities as cover for cuts and changes that have devastated disabled people’s lives.
“There have also been dubious claims about engaging with DDPOs [Deaf and disabled people’s organisations].
“In leaving the DCC, DR UK is effectively taking away from the government the chance to justify highly regressive measures through engagement via DCC.
“This is of especial significance given the upcoming examination of the UK under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the duty under that on governments to engage specifically with DDPOs as opposed to charities.”
But Clifford was also critical of DR UK.
She said: “In 2017, Mike Oliver criticised DR UK for its lack of political activism and included them in a ‘stinging rebuke’ levelled at disability charities who he described as ‘parasitic’.
“Whether leaving DCC represents a solid new direction from DR UK remains to be seen but they are more than welcome to join the ranks of those of us who understand the importance of radical campaigning to resist the attacks on disabled people.”
A spokesperson for the consortium said its members did not think DR UK’s decision would damage DCC’s credibility, and that they “support them to do what they feel is right for them at this time”.
Asked if the consortium believed the government should now focus more on those organisations and networks that are DPOs or represent DPOs, she said: “The government needs to do much more to engage and work with DPOs and organisations that represent DPOs.
“The DCC has consistently pushed government to engage meaningfully with these groups and will continue to do so.”
Mark Hodgkinson and Diane Lightfoot, co-chairs of the consortium, said DCC had “always been an informal and flexible coalition of disability charities”.
They said that its members “continue to urge the government to engage and work proactively with a wide range of organisations, including DPOs and disabled people, to inform strategy development and to identify barriers and solutions with and for disabled people”.
They added: “As the current co-chairs of the consortium, we support Disability Rights UK’s decision to review how it operates, and seeks to maximise the impact it can have.
“Disability Rights UK undertake a hugely important role leading the sector and campaigning for change. We are extremely grateful for all DR UK has done within the DCC.
“We look forward to continuing to support them, and working with them to make sure the voices and experiences of Britain’s 14 million disabled people are heard.”
24 June 2021

DWP ‘may have unlawfully deprived tens of thousands of PIP claimants of back-payments’
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) may have acted unlawfully after potentially depriving tens of thousands of benefit claimants of thousands of pounds each in back-payments, campaigners believe.
Now, after taking legal advice from a leading social security barrister, the Benefits and Work advice and information website wants to hear from claimants who may have been affected to help with a potential legal action.
The call relates to a high court ruling in December 2017 that found DWP had acted unlawfully by introducing new rules that were “blatantly discriminatory”.
Those rules meant that people who were unable to plan or undertake a journey due to overwhelming psychological distress would receive fewer qualifying points when assessed for PIP, with many receiving a lower level of financial support as a result, or even no PIP at all.
The new rules were only introduced because an upper tribunal ruling had found – in the case of a claimant referred to as MH – that DWP was wrong to say such PIP claimants should not be entitled to those points.
After the then work and pensions secretary Esther McVey said she would not appeal the court’s ruling, DWP announced a huge review of 1.6 million PIP claims to see how many had been wrongly assessed and were now entitled to backdated PIP payments.
The cost of implementing the court judgement – and a separate DWP error in the case of a claimant known as RJ – was estimated to be up to £3.7 billion over the five years to 2022, while ministers initially said that about 164,000 disabled people could receive back-dated payments as a result of the MH ruling.
But Benefits and Work has grown increasingly alarmed at DWP data which has shown far fewer claimants have benefited from DWP’s trawl through its records.
Barrister Tom Royston, of Garden Court North Chambers, has told Benefits and Work that there is significant public interest in bringing a legal case to establish if DWP has acted unlawfully.
Royston, who also acted for MH, said the DWP figures showed that, by January 2021, it had examined nearly 900,00 cases but had made back-payments in only 3,700 of them, which meant the proportion of those benefiting from the trawl (0.4 per cent) was 35 times fewer than DWP had predicted.
Benefits and Work says DWP has remained silent on why so few claimants are benefiting from the review, while its attempts to secure answers through freedom of information requests had been “comprehensively blocked”.
Now the website wants to hear from PIP claimants who have received a letter from DWP about the review in the last three months to tell them their PIP award has not changed as a result of the trawl.
The letter is likely to refer to changes in PIP law “that affect how the Department for Work and Pensions decides PIP claims” and will mention the MH versus DWP tribunal judgement and how it “relates to how ‘overwhelming psychological distress’ is considered when assessing the ability of someone to plan and follow a journey”.
Benefits and Work is asking anyone who has received a letter like this in the last three months to complete a short survey.
DWP told Disability News Service this week that its original published estimates were produced before knowing the full details of which claimants would be eligible for additional payments.
It believes it was clear that these estimates would probably change once the guidance implementing the judgment was produced and implemented.
A DWP spokesperson said: “The MH/RJ administrative exercise remains a priority for us and we want to ensure people receive any money owed to them as quickly as possible.
“In supporting the government’s response to the coronavirus pandemic, this work was paused, but restarted again in October.
“We will issue a further update later this year.”
Meanwhile, the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman has published a report that concludes that too many disabled people are having their PIP claims unfairly rejected, while the system for dealing with further evidence, “a critical part of how decisions on PIP are made”, is “characterised by confusion”.
The ombudsman, Margaret Kelly, said the report – which criticises both Northern Ireland’s Department for Communities and its contractor Capita – found that “repeated opportunities were missed to make the right payment as early as possible in the process”.
24 June 2021

Minister’s letter sparks fresh fears of government delays to accessible housing reform
Disabled campaigners have raised fears that the government is attempting to delay introducing measures that could help solve the accessible housing crisis.
Members of Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People (GMCDP) raised the concerns after seeing a letter written by a government minister to Manchester MPs.
Lord Greenhalgh, the minister for building safety and communities, had been asked about the government’s plans for increasing the supply of accessible housing, after the MPs had been approached by GMCDP.
GMCDP was concerned about continuing delays to government action, following an accessible housing consultation that ended last December.
The consultation offered five possible options for reform – including a “do nothing” option” – but the government did not suggest which of those options it supported.
One of the options – backed by GMCDP in the consultation – was to raise the minimum access standards for all new homes (apart from in exceptional cases) and to force a minimum proportion of homes to be built to an even stricter wheelchair-accessible standard.
Similar measures have been in place in London for the last five years, with a minimum of 10 per cent of new homes in the capital now having to be suitable for wheelchair-users.
Now, nearly seven months after the government consultation ended, Lord Greenhalgh has told the MPs in a letter that the government is also carrying out research into the “prevalence and demographics of impairment in England” and the “ergonomic requirements and experiences of disabled people”.
GMCDP’s member-led housing working group has raised concerns about this research programme.
It has told Disability News Service (DNS): “In the view of GMCDP this is an attempt to further delay making a decision about this issue.”
The group said the need for more accessible housing was “obvious” and “acknowledged”, while it said that many non-disabled people prefer the slightly more generous standards of an accessible home.
The need for a research programme on the “prevalence and demographics of impairment in England” was therefore “unnecessary to demonstrate the need for accessible homes”, the group said.
An MHCLG spokesperson said: “The number of accessible homes has nearly doubled in a decade and we have recently consulted on ways of improving the accessibility of new homes.
“We are also conducting vital research to ensure we have the most up to date information about the needs of disabled people so they can be fully taken into account when developing future policy.”
MHCLG said the research mentioned by Lord Greenhalgh was about collecting data on disabled people and their practical needs, and that it was linked to, but separate from, the accessible housing consultation and would inform the possible updating of technical standards.
If the consultation indicates the need for changes to the regulations or guidance, the research will make sure that these changes accurately reflect the prevalence of impairments and the need for accessible housing, the department said.
But MHCLG also admitted that the research, which has only just begun, is not expected to report for another 12 months, adding to concerns about delays in any reforms.
The department said the researchers would meet, survey, record and measure the lived experiences of disabled people.
And it denied that there had been any steps taken to delay action, suggesting that both the consultation and the research were designed only to improve the provision of accessible housing.
MHCLG said the research would cover both homes and non-domestic buildings, and will collect up-to-date data of relevance across government, in the interests of disabled people and disabled people’s organisations.
Earlier this month, DNS reported how ministers were set to spend £30 million on projects across England that could lead to more than 17,000 new homes, but were refusing to insist that a single one of them was built to strict accessibility standards.
The GMCDP working group said that a commitment to build 17,000 accessible new homes “would contribute significantly to addressing the current shortage and would support disabled people to live independent lives, so we find the information in your article truly shocking”.
They added: “GMCDP would support any campaign to encourage the Government to publicise the outcome of their consultation.”
Successive Tory ministers have been repeatedly warned of the dire shortage of suitable accessible housing.
24 June 2021

Theatre leaders ‘behaving almost criminally’ over call to reopen with no social distancing
Theatre leaders are behaving “almost criminally” by demanding the government allows them to fully reopen venues without any social distancing, according to one of the founders of the UK Disability Arts Alliance.
Andrew Miller, who has just completed three years as the government’s disability champion for the arts and culture sector, said he was “extremely alarmed” by claims from senior theatre leaders and executives that it was safe to do so for those who are “clinically extremely vulnerable” (CEV) to the virus.
He said such claims were “utterly without foundation or evidence, almost criminally so”.
Last month, the alliance marked the first anniversary of its #WeShallNotBeRemoved campaign, which has pushed for an inclusive recovery for the arts and culture sector and to ensure that Deaf and disabled people do not face discrimination as the industry reopens.
But Miller told a panel at The Stage’s Future of Theatre conference last week that the cultural sector was “fast heading to a two-tier reopening.
“For the fit and able first, then sometime later for disabled and ‘vulnerable’ people.”
He said this would represent a “catastrophic failure for a sector that prides itself on its ‘inclusivity’”.
Miller said that the government’s Events Research Programme (ERP) – which is testing how post-lockdown crowds can safely return to sports and cultural venues – would produce no evidence on CEV people as the ban on their participation in the test events was overturned too late to produce any useful data.
He said: “Both the sector, and CEV people, urgently need scientific data from the ERP to support a safe return for everyone.
“#WeShallNotBeRemoved has requested this from DCMS [the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport] and we are awaiting a response.”
He told Disability News Service (DNS) this week: “We have to move with caution to ensure the live events sector reopens for everyone.
“#WeShallNotBeRemoved was started explicitly to campaign for an inclusive recovery, as we foresaw reopening could become very messy for disabled people.”
Miller said that the data was needed to give the sector and CEV people assurances “that we are not any more at risk of COVID transmission at indoor venues than the encouraging results for the general population established at the initial trials where CEV people were banned”.
He said DCMS needed to capture data about the gender, disability and minority ethnic status of all those taking part in the next round of trials.
He said: “It is vital this data is publicly shared at the earliest opportunity to enable CEV people to assess their own levels of risk, and for venues to put in place any appropriate measures.
“And without the right data to guide my own decision-making, even as a doubly vaccinated individual, I would not feel personally comfortable or safe booking a theatre ticket in the current environment.”
He said venues needed to be “upfront” about their COVID safety measures for disabled audiences and share publicly how they had implemented the Seven Inclusive Principles the campaign published last September.
These principles include meeting the requirements of the Equality Act, ensuring the provision of reasonable adjustments, and adhering to the social model of disability, and the need for co-production with disabled people when developing operating or re-opening plans.
Miller added: “We already know that disabled people’s confidence in returning to live events attendance is trailing behind that of the general population.
“As disabled people represent 12 per cent of the national audience, it is a commercial as well as a moral responsibility for the industry to get this right.”
When approached by DNS, DCMS refused to confirm that there would be no data about CEV people from the first round of the ERP, and it refused to say if it accepted Miller’s concerns, and if it did, what action it would take to obtain data on CEV people and protected characteristics data.
But a DCMS spokesperson said in a statement: “It is the responsibility of the attendee to decide whether or not it is appropriate to attend a pilot event.
“The ERP science board advises caution for the clinically extremely vulnerable people attending the pilot events on public health grounds, however these groups are not excluded from involvement in the pilots.”
24 June 2021

News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com

 Posted by at 20:34
Jun 232021
 

A leading barrister has told Benefits and Work that the way the LEAP review has been carried out may be unlawful and that there is a significant public interest in bringing an action against the DWP to establish if that is the case.

In order to prevent many tens of thousands of claimants from losing out, we now need to hear from claimants who have received a LEAP review letter in the last three months.

 

The MH case
Benefits and Work has obtained the opinion of a leading social security barrister, Tom Royston of Garden Court North Chambers, who successfully acted for the claimants in the original MH case. It was this case which led to the LEAP review, so Tom Royston has very detailed knowledge of the issues.

In the MH case, it was found that the DWP had been misapplying the law in relation to psychological distress and following the route of a journey.

Claimants should have been awarded the standard rate of PIP mobility if, because of overwhelming psychological distress, they needed someone with them to follow the route of an unfamiliar journey.

And they should have been awarded the enhanced rate if they could not follow the route of a familiar journey without having someone with them for the same reason.

Instead, the DWP had been awarding just 4 points, not enough for any award of the mobility component at all.

The LEAP review was intended, the DWP said, to identify all the claimants who had missed out on the correct rate of the PIP mobility component since November 2016 and make back-payments where applicable.

However, increasing doubts have arisen about whether the LEAP review, which began in June 2018, is a genuine and effective attempt to identify the many thousands of claimants who have been underpaid.

 

Counsel’s opinion
In a forensically detailed 19 page document, counsel examines issues such as:

  • The DWP’s understanding of the changes to the law as a result of MH
  • The way that evidence was collected for the review
  • The possible use of computer programs to select cases and make decisions
  • The duty to make reasonable adjustments
  • The duty to comply with the public sector equality duty

The opinion details the areas where additional evidence is needed and concludes that:

“In my opinion there is an arguable case that SSWP’s [Secretary of State for Work and Pensions] review is unlawful . . . and there strikes me as being a significant wider public interest in any such case, both because the legality of large scale public projects is always important and because there are strong reasons in this case for believing that many affected individuals would not be able to take effective remedial action by themselves”

As evidence that the review may be unlawful, Tom Royston cites the huge difference between the number of claimants that the DWP said would be affected by the MH case and the number who have so far received a back-payment via the LEAP review. He notes:

“By January 2021 almost 900,000 old cases had been looked at again, and changes had been made in only 3,700 of them. Thus, in respect of this group, the actual proportion of beneficiaries (0.4%) appears to be 35 times smaller than the previously estimated proportion (14%) . . . If on taking your car to the garage for repairs, you had been quoted £400, you would, to put it mildly, require explanation if the bill later presented to you was ultimately £14,000. Or if SSWP introduced a new benefit to which she thought 2% of the population would be entitled, but to which in fact 70% of the population turned out to be entitled, one assumes the Chancellor of the Exchequer would want some explanation.”

But the DWP have remained utterly silent on the huge disparity between their estimate and the number of awards they have actually made.

And our efforts to find out more via the Freedom of Information Act have been comprehensively and cynically blocked.

If this contemptuous review is an attempt by the DWP to avoid obeying the courts, and if they succeed, it effectively spells the end of landmark cases that result in thousands of claimants getting the benefits they have been unlawfully denied.

And we only have one chance to beat it.

Because, on this occasion, in an unsuccessful effort to persuade MPs to reverse the court’s decision the DWP published estimates of the large number of claimants who would benefit if the law stood.

Without that information we would have very little hope.

And you can be sure the DWP won’t make that mistake again.

 

Have you had a LEAP review letter?
As the next step towards discovering whether the LEAP review is fair, we need to hear from claimants who have received a LEAP review letter in the last three months telling them that their award has not been changed.

The LEAP letter won’t mention the word LEAP, but it will probably start by saying something like:

Personal Independence Payment

Changes in PIP law – we have looked again at your PIP and it has not changed.

There have been some changes in Personal Independence Payment (PIP) law that affect how the Department for Work and Pensions decides PIP claims.

It will also say something about the MH judgement as well. Such as:

MH v DWP tribunal judgement. This relates to how ‘overwhelming psychological distress’ is considered when assessing the ability of someone to plan and follow a journey.

If you have had a letter like this in the last three months, we have created a short survey of 6 questions https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/LEAP-3-month

which we need you to complete to give us the means to take the case forward.

It was Benefits and Work readers’ brilliant responses to our previous LEAP survey that allowed us to identify grounds for a challenge to the LEAP review.

Now we need your help to take the next step.

Please spread the word about this survey as widely as you can, the more people who respond the better our chances of holding the DWP to account.

 

 Posted by at 21:47
Jun 102021
 

 

Prime minister refuses to criticise Tory peers who made disablist comments

The prime minister has refused to criticise four Conservative peers who made discriminatory and disablist remarks about disabled peers working in the House of Lords.

Boris Johnson’s refusal to speak out came in response to a disabled constituent who wrote to him after reading last month’s Disability News Service (DNS) story about the comments made by Lord Farmer, Lord Howard of Rising, Baroness Noakes, and Viscount Trenchard.

They had been speaking during a debate on the continuing use of remote participation and “hybrid” sittings, which have been introduced in the Lords during the pandemic.

All four argued that the Lords should quickly return to “normal” and end the adjustments that have allowed disabled members and those shielding from coronavirus to vote and contribute to debates from their homes*.

One of the Tory peers argued that “personal infirmity should not provide grounds for exemption from normality”, while continuing the adjustments post-pandemic would be “extending the logic of equality beyond reason”.

Another suggested that those members who “cannot or will not” attend the Lords should retire as peers, while a third said it was “inconceivable that those who aspire to take part in the governing of this nation should not make the effort to attend parliament, whatever the difficulties”.

Deborah King, co-founder of Disability Politics UK, who lives in the prime minister’s Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency, told the prime minister in an email that she was “very concerned” about the attitudes of the four peers and was sure he would want to act on them.

She asked Johnson to contact the government’s chief whip in the Lords to “let him know that one of your constituents does not have the same views of disabled people as they do” and that she values the contribution made by disabled peers.

She added in her email: “This is particularly so when the perceived stigma of disability means that some [prospective parliamentary candidates] do not even mention their disability during election campaigns for fear of prejudice affecting the result.”

King told the prime minister that hybrid proceedings were “important in ensuring proper access to the proceedings of Parliament and help to ensure proper representation of disabled people”.

But when Johnson replied, he ignored the concerns she had raised about the four Tory peers.

Instead, he said only that the government “values the vital contribution all members of the House make to legislative scrutiny”, and then wrote at length about hybrid proceedings and remote participation.

Johnson’s decision to condone the comments made by the four Tory peers comes in the same week that he failed to criticise England football fans who booed players taking a knee as an anti-racism gesture before two recent friendly internationals.

The Conservative party has refused to answer questions about the comments made by the four peers, or to say if it believes they were disablist and discriminatory, or if it would take any action against them.

Justin Tomlinson, the minister for disabled people, issued a statement that also appeared to condone their comments.

The disabled Liberal Democrat peer Baroness [Sal] Brinton, who took part in the Lords debate virtually, as she has had to shield from the virus during the pandemic, told DNS this week that the silence from the prime minister, from Tomlinson and the Conservative party “speaks volumes” at a time when there are “substantial barriers for disabled people in politics”.

She said: “Does this mean that the prime minister is condoning the discriminatory and disablist comments by members of his own party?

“I had hoped that he would lead by example in light of his government’s intentions to finally publish their disability strategy.”

Baroness [Jane] Campbell, a disabled crossbench peer, who also took part in the debate virtually as she has been shielding, said she was “disappointed that party leaders have not yet openly demonstrated some acknowledgement” of the discrimination faced by disabled peers, or proposed any ideas on how to tackle it, but she said there was “still time”.

She said she had found the Tory peers’ comments “unpleasant to hear and wished all peers were more aware of the consequences of such discriminatory remarks”.

She said: “The majority of my fellow peers work in a mutually supportive way with one another, but we know that there are some who hold the same out-dated attitudes as many people outside the Westminster bubble.

“The debate on remote participation has offered a timely opportunity to tackle disability discrimination head-on and change it.”

She called on all peers to “come together to create an environment where everybody no matter what their disability, can contribute equally.

“The responsibility to take this forward must not be simply left to disabled members to raise, it is not our problem alone.

“We are a self-regulating House and therefore it is everybody’s duty to tackle discrimination on every level.”

Baroness Campbell said she now wanted to work with the authorities in the Lords to ensure there was “meaningful consideration and action, especially regarding reasonable adjustments”, so that “equal participation” and the Equality Act “become a reality across the parliamentary estate”.

Vicky Foxcroft, Labour’s shadow minister for disabled people, said: “It is alarming that both the prime minister and his minister for disabled people appear to condone the comments made by these peers.

“This only serves to reinforce the message that the government does not take disabled people’s rights seriously.

“With so few disabled politicians in parliament, it is obvious that the way we do business needs to change, reform and become more inclusive.

“Disabled people must be at the very heart of our decision-making.”

A spokesperson for Number 10 had refused by noon today (Thursday) to say why the prime minister had failed to criticise the comments of the four Tory peers; why he was apparently condoning their disablist, discriminatory comments about disabled people; and why he had refused to take any action.

But she said in a statement: “The government is committed to supporting disabled people play an active role in all aspects of life, and will deliver a National Disability Strategy which will be underpinned by their direct insight and lived experience, as well as guidance from charities, stakeholders and disabled people’s organisations.

“We value the contribution of all members of the House of Lords make to legislative scrutiny, and want to ensure all members can continue to participate.

“It is for the House of Lords to make a final decision about the form proceedings should take after the COVID-19 pandemic has ended.”

*Lord Farmer, a former treasurer of the Conservative party, said that extending hybrid arrangements post-pandemic would be “another example of extending the logic of equality beyond reason”.

He said that “for the sake of the public who are paying our way, personal infirmity should not provide grounds for exemption from normality” and that “parliamentary participation is for those able to bring vitality to proceedings”.

He said that “if infirmities of mind or body make that vital contribution impossible, any permanently lowered bar to participation serves peers’ interests, not those of the public.

“The previous norm should be reinstated: those of us who cannot come to the House cannot contribute.”

His colleague, Lord Howard of Rising, called for the Lords to “resume our usual proceedings at the earliest possible opportunity” and said it was “inconceivable that those who aspire to take part in the governing of this nation should not make the effort to attend parliament, whatever the difficulties”.

Baroness Noakes called for the Lords to “get back to normal as soon as possible”.

She told fellow peers that there were “no good reasons for hybridity in future” and that “those who are ill or otherwise unable to attend for periods of time can take leave of absence”, while those who “cannot or will not, for whatever reason” attend in person can retire instead.

A fourth Tory peer, Viscount Trenchard, made it clear that he did not believe that “those with disabilities, in poor health or pregnant should be allowed to continue to participate remotely”.

He said it was “an unfortunate fact that if a noble Lord’s condition or circumstances prevent his or her attendance and ability to participate fully, it is hard to argue that that member is fully capable of exercising his or her functions as a legislator”.

He added: “I welcome the fact that it has become easier for those with disabilities to participate fully, but exceptions to physical attendance requirements should be minimised.”

10 June 2021

 

 

Ministers ignore accessible housing while spending millions on thousands of new homes

Ministers are to spend £30 million on projects across England that could lead to more than 17,000 new homes, but they are refusing to insist that a single one of them is built to strict accessibility standards.

Despite announcing funding for more than 160 projects, ministers have imposed no requirement for any of the housing schemes to include any accessible homes.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) says the plans for better use of public land could see more than 17,000 new homes being built, with funding awarded through the Land Release Fund (LRF) and the One Public Estate programme.

But MHCLG confirmed this week to Disability News Service (DNS) that there would be no obligation for any of the projects to include a certain proportion of homes built to the M4(2) standard, which includes 16 accessible or adaptable features, or to the M4(3) standard, for homes that are fully wheelchair-accessible, or can easily be adapted to be so.

Instead, it will be left to local authorities – which set their own policies on how much new housing should be built to M4(2) and M4(3) standards in their own areas – to decide how many of the homes should be built to higher access specifications.

Cllr Pam Thomas, a disabled city councillor in Liverpool and chair of the city council’s corporate access forum, said the government’s failure showed “that the voice of developers is allowed to take precedence over the voice of disabled people”.

Disabled campaigner Fleur Perry, who has previously written to housing secretary Robert Jenrick to warn him that his failure to act on accessible housing could be unlawful, said the government’s refusal to set minimum numbers of accessible homes with the new funding was “a missed opportunity to build accessible housing”.

An MHCLG spokesperson said: “The number of accessible homes has nearly doubled in a decade and we have recently consulted on ways of improving the accessibility of new homes.

“Councils are best placed to decide how much accessible housing is needed in their area, and set these requirements in their Local Plans.”

But Perry said: “We know that 1.8 million people live in houses that do not meet their needs, and we know (from personal experience, anecdotes, and research) that this has a huge impact on the day-to-day lives of disabled people.

“We also know that some local authorities aren’t doing anything.”

She said that more than half (52 per cent) of local authorities have failed to include any accessible housing requirements in their Local Plan, which may be a breach of the Equality Act’s public sector equality duty.

And she pointed out that the Equality and Human Rights Commission found in 2018 that 84 per cent of local authorities surveyed did not feel that they had good data on the number of disabled people currently inappropriately housed.

She said this cast doubt on whether local authorities really were “best placed” to choose how much of the £30 million should be used to build accessible housing.

She said: “This is an assumption, not reality, and I will be writing to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ask them to reconsider.”

A consultation on whether the government should introduce higher accessibility standards for new housing in England ended last December, with ministers yet to announce their next steps.

Perry said: “We need more accessible housing.

“It’s a key component of independent living and the lack of accessible housing is a solvable problem.

“We know that this a national issue and I think that central government need to be acting. I look forward to reading the results of last year’s consultation.”

Thomas, who has a PhD on the physical inaccessibility of homes for owner occupation, said MHCLG’s response suggested that it was “out of touch with, or doesn’t care about, the research and reality of the dire shortage of accessible and adaptable housing”.

She said that the “doubling of a totally inadequate number of accessible homes in a decade means very little”, particularly as most of them appear to be in London, which introduced stricter standards for new homes in 2004.

Ministers have been repeatedly warned about the chronic shortage of accessible housing, with the equality and human rights watchdog warning three years ago that more than 350,000 disabled people in England had unmet housing needs, with one-third of those in rented accommodation living in unsuitable properties.

That same year, research by Disability News Service showed how representatives of the home-building industry were engaged in a countrywide campaign to defeat attempts by councils to ensure more accessible homes were built in their areas.

Thomas said Liverpool City Council had included a requirement in its draft Local Plan several years ago that 90 per cent of all new homes should be more accessible and adaptable for people with mobility limitations and 10 per cent should be easily adaptable for wheelchair access.

The local plan “is still going through the very long statutory process to gain the approval of the government’s planning inspector”, with developers objecting to the accessible housing requirement and insisting, she said, that “the case has not been made that accessible and adaptable housing is wanted or needed”.

She said: “We have been able to get the agreement of some developers through persuasion that it need not cost them any more to use inclusive design from the design stage, but because the law does not give us the power unless the Local Plan is approved, we cannot insist if the developers refuse.”

Only last August, the government was accused of “showing contempt” for disabled people after publishing an “utterly shameful” 84-page white paper on the future of the planning system without including a single mention of disabled people, disability or accessible housing.

And in January this year, DNS revealed how ministers had delayed publishing a report that called for more research into the benefits of accessible housing for up to four years.

Despite its latest failure to address the accessible housing crisis, the government announced that the new funding was part of its so-called “levelling up agenda”.

Some of the funding will help to create feasibility studies and design work for potential development sites, while the LRF funding will support councils to regenerate mainly brownfield sites for housing by providing capital funding for infrastructure work.

10 June 2021

 

 

DWP admits carrying out more than 175 secret reviews into benefit deaths in nine years

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has carried out secret reviews into more than 175 deaths of benefit claimants since February 2012, including 80 in the last three full calendar years, new figures have revealed.

The figures also suggest that DWP has now carried out more than 200 secret reviews into the deaths of claimants over the last decade.

Information released to Disability News Service (DNS) through a freedom of information request shows that DWP carried out 40 internal process reviews into deaths in 2019, the last full year before the pandemic.

There were another 22 reviews into deaths last year, and in total there were 126 reviews in the five years between January 2016 and the end of December 2020.

Figures previously released to DNS showed there were 49 secret reviews into deaths between February 2012 and the autumn of 2014.

But because DWP has now destroyed records of reviews carried out before 2016, it claims it is not able to say how many were carried out in the 2014 or 2015 calendar years, although previous freedom of information responses show there were nine reviews between August 2014 and April 2016.

DWP did not keep a central record of reviews carried out following the deaths of claimants before February 2012.

It is the first time that accurate numbers have been secured to show how many reviews DWP has carried out each year since 2015, and the freedom of information response shows there were 17 in 2016, 29 in 2017, 18 in 2018, 40 in 2019 and 22 last year.

The figures should add weight to calls for an independent inquiry into DWP failings that have led to the deaths of claimants, and whether there has been misconduct by senior civil servants and ministers.

There is added urgency to those calls as DWP says it has already destroyed its own reports into deaths that took place pre-2016.

Only last month, DNS revealed that new evidence suggested that DWP had lied when it claimed that it had no “duty of care” to protect disabled benefit claimants.

This follows a decade of cases linking DWP’s policies and practices to the deaths of disabled people, particularly those who were being assessed for employment and support allowance and personal independence payment and had experience of mental distress.

10 June 2021

 

 

Government Grenfell proposals suggest disabled residents might need to pay to keep safe

New government plans that would protect some disabled people from the risk of fire in residential buildings do not go far enough, and even suggest that disabled residents might have to pay for measures to keep them safe, say campaigners.

The Home Office this week launched a consultation on how to implement recommendations made at the end of the first phase of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry in October 2019.

The inquiry concluded that there were no plans in place for evacuating Grenfell Tower, which contributed to the loss of 72 lives in the fire, on 14 June 2017, including many disabled residents.

Among its recommendations, the inquiry said that owners and managers of high-rise residential buildings should be legally required to prepare personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) for all residents who may find it difficult to “self-evacuate”, and to keep up-to-date information about these residents and their PEEPs in an on-site information box.

The new consultation, which closes on 19 July, asks for views on the government’s draft proposals to implement these two recommendations.

It comes only days after disabled campaigners and allies shared an open statement with the home secretary, Priti Patel, and the housing, communities and local government secretary, Robert Jenrick, calling for long-overdue action on the recommendations.

The Grenfell inquiry did not define a high-rise residential building, but the government has said that its proposed new safety rules should apply only to those buildings at least 18 metres in height or having at least seven storeys.

Disabled campaigners and their allies say this will leave many disabled people living in multi-storey residential buildings below this height unable to benefit from the PEEPs proposals and therefore left at risk.

Sarah Rennie, co-founder of Claddag, a leaseholder disability action group, said: “Everyone should be able to evacuate a building in an emergency.

“We do not accept the proposal that only disabled people in buildings above 18 metres should be allowed a plan.

“No disability-specific research is offered to support the distinction.”

Rennie said the government’s consultation document also holds open the possibility that disabled residents will be charged for any measures that need to be introduced to allow them to evacuate in an emergency, according to their PEEP.

She points to a section in the document which states: “Putting a PEEP in place for an individual should not of itself give rise to a requirement that any person has to incur a cost or bill (but it cannot be excluded that this is a possibility).”

Rennie also warns that the government does not explicitly state that disabled residents cannot be charged to have a PEEP drawn up.

She said: “This wholly contradicts the principle that disabled people must not be charged for reasonable adjustments.

“What’s more, the consultation does not propose a central fund for the costs of evacuation aids, either.

“Many of us opted to live in buildings we were told were safe, but the building safety crisis is revealing that we are living in very dangerous buildings.

“It should not fall on us or our neighbours via a service charge to foot the bill for our evacuation costs and that must be made clear. It’s a recipe for disability hate crime.”

There are also concerns over the government’s proposals to require disabled residents to “self-identify” as unable to self-evacuate, with the fear that some landlords might not do anything to encourage residents to apply for a PEEP.

The government document says there will have to be “meaningful and sustained engagement with all residents whereby the [owner or manager] proactively encourages residents to come forward if they consider they may need a PEEP”.

But Rennie said: “How are these processes going to be transparent and accessible?

“Without a clear duty to reach out to residents, this encourages landlords to stay quiet so as not to invite requests for evacuation plans.”

A spokesperson for the Grenfell Next of Kin support group, which represents the next of kin of 31 of the 72 people who died, said in a statement: “Nearly half the disabled residents in the Tower were killed. Some of them our mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters and children.

“Alongside them other members of the family also perished as they stayed together in those horrific terrifying conditions.

“This is the reality of not having PEEPs or any attention paid to disabled residents and in high-rise buildings and especially so with social housing tenants who are often the most marginalised.

“We are determined this does not happen again and necessary changes are made to avoid the consequences of such discrimination.”

10 June 2021

 

 

DRILL’s five years ‘leave independent living legacy that can be used to push for change’

A pioneering five-year programme, led and controlled by disabled people, has left a legacy of independent living research that can now be used to lobby for change in policies and services across the UK, according to a new report.

But it has also shown that research can be done in a “truly co-produced way” and has increased the ability of disabled people’s organisations (DPOs) to influence change.

The independent report, which analyses the impact of the Disability Research on Independent Living and Learning (DRILL) programme and is published today (Thursday), says it has “demonstrated that co-production works and that disabled people are the experts on their own impairments”.

The five-year, £5 million programme has researched subjects such as the barriers disabled people face in renting accommodation; violence and abuse against disabled women and girls; participation in civic and public life; and barriers to employment in the legal profession.

The programme was funded by the National Lottery Community Fund, and has been managed by the national disabled people’s organisations (DPOs) Disability Rights UKDisability Action (in Northern Ireland), Inclusion Scotland and Disability Wales.

The aim was to “build better evidence” on different approaches to enabling disabled people to live independently”, to use that evidence to influence changes in policy and service provision, and to “give a greater voice to disabled people in decisions which affect them”.

When the funding was first announced nearly six years ago, DRILL was described as the world’s first major research programme led by disabled people, with disabled people involved in the design, management and delivery of research projects.

In all, the programme handed out funding to 36 projects, with 85 organisations involved as partners.

Nearly 5,000 (4,856) disabled people took part, and 313 of them fulfilled leadership roles.

The report found that three-quarters (76 per cent) of project representatives said DRILL had increased their organisation’s ability to influence change, and nearly two-fifths (38 per cent) said it had helped them secure new funding.

One of the members of the steering group from People First Scotland’s project on decision-making by people with learning difficulties said: “This kind of research makes people think differently about us.

“People can see that we have a voice.”

Another project representative described how, of 15 peer researchers who took part, five of them found jobs as a direct result of their work.

The representative of another project said their work had demonstrated that research can be done “in a truly co-produced way” and had “demonstrated the value of working together from the very start”.

But the evaluation report also says there is still “a lot more work to do to realise the impact of DRILL, to change attitudes, influence policy and change practice”.

And it says that the extent of its success in delivering change to services, policy and practice will probably only become clear over the next two to three years.

DRILL’s major success, the report concludes, has been in “achieving the participation levels it did, in securing leadership roles for disabled people and involving disabled people in co-producing projects and research”, which has “created the conditions and the impetus for significant policy change”.

It is now hoped that the findings from the 36 projects will provide a platform for “a period of extensive lobbying and engagement”.

Andrea Brown, from Disability Action, which managed DRILL on behalf of the four national DPOs, said: “It’s hard to understate how important DRILL has been.

“The positive effects on our organisations, partners and disabled people as a whole over the last five years has been huge.

“It’s shown how and why disabled people can and should be at the centre of projects affecting them.”

10 June 2021

 

 

Campaigners prepare for last-ditch rally to prevent Osime Brown deportation

By Chloe Johnson

Campaigners are set to protest outside the Home Office this weekend to call on the government to abandon plans to deport a young, black autistic man to Jamaica, a country he has not visited since he was four.

They say the way Osime Brown has been treated is a “miscarriage of justice” and that his life will be at risk if he is deported to a country where he has no family or friends to support him.

The Home Office is set to review his case on Tuesday (15 June).

Brown – who also has PTSD and a heart condition – faces deportation after serving half of a five-year prison sentence following a conviction for robbery, attempted robbery and perverting the course of justice, in connection with the robbery of a mobile phone.

He has always insisted he is innocent of the charges and one witness said he attempted to stop the crime.

His two co-defendants pleaded guilty and did not receive custodial sentences, and his lawyers (PDF) have said that grounds for concern about the safety of his convictions “include the role played by the discredited and discriminatory legal principle of joint enterprise”.

His mother, Joan Martin, says that her 22-year-old son – who spent time in care as a teenager – is a victim of institutional discrimination.

She says he is traumatised from his time in prison, where he frequently self-harmed, and believes he will die if deported to Jamaica.

She told Disability News Service: “We live in perpetual grief.”

She and fellow campaigners believe the deportation is the culmination of a series of institutional failings across the care, education and justice systems as a result of the failure to provide adequate support for him as a disabled person, intersecting heavily with racial discrimination.

She said: “I am saddened, as I have come to realise that what happened to Osime happens to so many children who are autistic and have other learning disabilities – and to black children, boys in particular.”

She said her son now lives in fear of being separated from his mother.

She said: “When he hears the doorbell ring, he asks: ‘Are they coming for me?’”

Emma Dalmayne, chief executive of Autistic Inclusive Meets, who has worked closely with Martin and her son, and is herself autistic with autistic children, began a petition against the deportation, which has reached more than 400,000 signatures.

Dalmayne is appalled at how Brown has been treated.

She said: “It’s a miscarriage of justice, it shouldn’t be happening.

“It is a common misconception with deportation that there will be somebody waiting for you at the airport.

“He would arrive with a suitcase and have no one. He will step out to no-one, and he is vulnerable.”

More than 75 MPs have voiced concerns about the deportation in an early day motion, which calls on the Home Office to “remove the call for Osime’s deportation, and see that Osime finally receives the support he needs”.

On Saturday (12 June), campaigners will be outside the Home Office in Westminster, before moving to Parliament Square, for a rally to protest at his treatment and call on the government to cancel his deportation.

Martin plans to attend the rally, and speakers will include Labour’s former shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, and a representative of Neurodivergent Labour.

The aim of those organising the rally is “to ensure that those in power are fighting with their conscience as they settle the fate of a young, autistic black man deemed to be a criminal by a racist and ableist justice system”.

Martin spoke at another protest in Birmingham last Saturday (5 June), while a parallel online protest had campaigners tweeting #TimeIsRunningOut.

A Home Office Spokesperson said: “We only ever return those who we and, where applicable, the courts are satisfied do not need our protection and have no legal basis to remain in the UK.

“It would be inappropriate to comment further while legal proceedings are ongoing.”

10 June 2021

 

 

Employers often failed to protect disabled workers during pandemic, says TUC

Employers have frequently failed to take action to protect disabled workers who were at particular risk from coronavirus during the pandemic, according to the “frightening” results of a new survey carried out on behalf of the TUC.

Of those disabled workers who discussed the extra risks they faced with their employer – including many who were supposed to be shielding from COVID-19 – one in four said their boss had taken only some of the action possible.

And seven per cent of those disabled workers who discussed their health and safety concerns said their employers had taken no action at all.

The survey of more than 2,000 disabled workers – carried out by YouGov for the TUC – also found that more than one in five of those who had been advised to shield continued to work outside their home during the pandemic at least some of the time.

All workers who were advised to shield and could not work from home should have been furloughed to protect their health, says a report based on the survey (PDF).

It adds: “They should not have had to choose between their livelihoods or their health.”

The TUC report describes how disabled workers raised concerns with their unions about the actions of their employers during the pandemic.

Some employers pressured workers who had been advised to shield to return to work outside of their homes.

Others placed disabled workers on furlough instead of making the reasonable adjustments that would have enabled them to work from home.

The survey also found that nearly one in three disabled workers (30 per cent) said they had been subjected to unfair treatment since the start of the pandemic.

One in eight said they had been bullied or harassed at work; seven per cent were questioned about their commitment to their job; and four per cent said they were given harder or less popular tasks compared to colleagues in similar positions.

The survey also showed that many disabled workers continued to struggle to secure the reasonable adjustments they needed during the pandemic.

Of those who had a need for reasonable adjustments, only 56 per cent of those who asked for reasonable adjustments said they were implemented in full by their employer before the pandemic.

About the same proportion – 55 per cent – said they had asked for additional or different reasonable adjustments during the pandemic which had been fully implemented.

Ann Galpin, co-chair of the TUC’s disabled workers’ committee, and chair of the National Union of Journalists’ disabled members’ council, said the polling “exposes what is already well known to disabled workers: many employers de-prioritise us and see our requests for reasonable adjustments as an inconvenience”.

She said that reasonable adjustments were a “vital tool to ensure disabled workers’ full and safe participation at work.

“That some employers managed to treat their disabled workers pretty well during the pandemic shows that it is possible – and that it makes economic sense too.”

She added: “The findings mirror what we are hearing in our trade union health and safety briefings too.

“Employers’ failures to review or implement reasonable adjustments, together with lack of insight into how to support disabled workers or address the impact of Long Covid, are recurring issues.”

Other issues have included rising workloads and the failure of employers to recognise their duty of care to their staff, she said.

Galpin said the TUC was calling on the Equality and Human Rights Commission to update its employment code of practice and carry out targeted enforcement action around reasonable adjustments.

Dave Allan, the disabled members’ representative on the TUC’s general council, and Galpin’s co-chair on the disabled workers’ committee, said the report’s findings were “frightening”.

He said: “The pandemic has brought to the foreground many of the issues facing disabled workers and disabled people.

“We have seen disabled workers step up and support our employers in less then ideal circumstances.

“We have continued to work from home, something we had been told for years was not possible, without the reasonable adjustments we needed.

“However, it is now more than a year on since the first lockdown and many disabled workers are still working from home without the adjustments we need.

“We have heard that a year on some disabled workers are still working off of ironing boards, or without specialist software they require.

“This is not acceptable.”

He added: “Workplace protections under the Equality Act have not changed under the pandemic, employers need to meet their legal duties and put in place the adjustments workers need to do their job.

“Our members should not dread going into work because they believe they are being set up to fail.”

10 June 2021

 

 

Campaigners call for local authorities to become ‘No Bedtimes Councils’

A group of self-advocates are calling on local councils across England to change their contracts with support providers so that service-users with learning difficulties have the freedom to stay out as late as they want.

They have written to every director of adult social care in the country to ask them to ensure their council’s contracts with support providers make it clear that they must operate flexible rotas.

This will allow service-users the chance to enjoy the same kind of social life as people who do not rely on council-funded care and support.

The Stay Up Late campaign delayed writing the letter for a year because of the extra pressure councils have been facing during the pandemic.

The charity says that institutionalised practices and inflexible support leave far too many adults with learning difficulties unable to enjoy the things they want to do, such as enjoying clubs, pubs and music gigs.

Jason O’Neill, one of the self-advocates who has sent the letters, said: “I think we need to help people with a disability or a learning disability to stay up late and go to gigs.

“For example, going to a pub or a music concert to have fun, just like other people do.”

Shannara Woodward, another self-advocate, added: “I want councils around the UK to listen to us and get involved.

“Once a council finds out about it and they start work then it’s like a domino effect.”

They say in the letters: “We know of some great support providers who have flexible rotas meaning that people with learning disabilities can be supported to live the lives they choose – which of course includes the right to Stay Up Late and have a good social life too.

“We know how important this is ourselves and makes us happy in our lives.

“Sadly though we see and hear of lots of examples of where support is inflexible.

“Before lockdown you could go to any club night for people with learning disabilities and watch the dance floor empty at 9pm.”

They and their fellow campaigners want every local authority that commissions social care to become a “No Bedtimes Council”.

The charity previously carried out a survey which found that, at 8.30pm on a typical Friday evening, 69 per cent of people with learning difficulties were either in bed or ready for bed, and only seven per cent were out socialising.

The letters were sent out by self-advocates from across England who act as ambassadors for the charity and campaign for “no bedtimes” and for adults with learning difficulties to live the lifestyle they choose.

They also want members of the public to contact their own local councillors to support the campaign.

10 June 2021

 

News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com

 

 Posted by at 20:31
May 262021
 

DPAC are supporting Signalise Co-op

British Sign Language provision has been an issue for many years now due to the current government procurement system which has excluded Deaf people and BSL interpreters from any consultations, instead only speaking to suppliers. DPAC worked with BSL interpreters in 2014 to establish the National Union of British Sign Language Interpreters (NUBSLI) and now this same small group of interpreters along with Deaf activists are establishing the co-operative.
Signalise is a multi-stakeholder co-operative and Deaf people have an equal say in the design and running of the service. It has been set up to ensure that it cannot be taken over or sold off and that every one involved has a vote and a say. This is a model that has the potential to alter the way services are provided in many different sectors. Using a digital platform, it is easy to use and it is being ethically run, following the unions high standards.
Collaborative working provides a real opportunity for improvements to be made, led by the experts; Deaf BSL users.
You can invest in Signalise here.(Please copy and paste into your browser:)   https://www.ethex.org.uk/invest/signalise
 Posted by at 21:34
May 262021
 

HE AUTONOMOUS CENTRE OF EDINBURGH

URGENT APPEAL PLUS NEWS OF EVENTS AND ACTIVITIES

 

URGENT APPEAL TO SAVE THE AUTONOMOUS CENTRE OF EDINBURGH

 

Dear Friends

 

This is an urgent appeal. ACE needs to find a new building as the owners are very likely to soon sell our premises at 17 West Montgomery Place, where we have been based since 1997. This comes at a time when, with the pandemic curtailing fund-raising, our funds have run low.

 

ACE is the base for many groups and struggles against capitalism, racism, patriarchy and all oppression. For our activity to continue we are in urgent need of donations to cover our running costs, and to enable us to afford the rent in new premises – we know from our research that the rent in new premises will be much higher.

 

We need your solidarity to save the Autonomous Centre of Edinburgh (ACE)

 

To survive we need more regular donations and more involvement from our activist community and beyond.

 

If you are a subscriber please share this appeal with your friends and organisations. If not, please consider subscribing. Subscriptions/donations can be of any amount, paid regularly or one-off amounts and set up at http://autonomous.org.uk via the PayPal Donate button or get in touch via acemail@gmx.co.uk for information about setting up a standing order, BACS transfers etc.

 

The importance of a genuinely autonomous centre has been shown during the pandemic. Working through ACE, groups like Mutual Aid Edinburgh, Oficina Precaria and Edinburgh Coalition Against Poverty have distributed thousands of pounds worth of direct food solidarity, fostered mutual aid and informed and supported people to claim their rights. See below for the latest initiative at ACE, the weekly One Stop Emergency Shop run every thursday at West Montgomery Place.

 

Please also contact us at acemail@gmx.co.uk if you would like to get involved with our long-term plan! We want to raise funds, buy a suitable property and set up a large social centre with space for everyone, perhaps even run a cooperative café !! To achieve this, we need support from individuals, and involvement of other radical groups in Edinburgh interested in working with us!

 

Please help us save the Autonomous Centre of Edinburgh (ACE)

Please support ACE by clicking DONATE at http://autonomous.org.uk/

Donate button is at the bottom on the right hand side.

CURRENT ACTIVITIES + SOME UPCOMING EVENTS

ONE STOP EMERGENCY SHOP : EVERY THURSDAY AT ACE

Every Thursday Oficina Precaria run the One Stop Emergency Shop at ACE. The foodbank is open from 10.30am to 5pm continuously.

Delicious free hot soup is available from 11.30am – 1pm and from 3.30pm – 4.30pm.

This is open to all in need, no referral or documents needed, just turn up. Please observe the Covid precautions in place.

Oficina Precaria are also running free women’s self-defence and English classes, registration closes this Friday 28 May, please see https://www.facebook.com/piescotland/posts/4417430708276329

Oficina Precaria – The Scottish Precariat Office – “is an organisation which provides free care, support and advice (legal aid) to all working people, Spanish-speaking migrants and residents throughout Scotland.”

More info on all activities at https://www.facebook.com/piescotland/ https://piescotland.org/en/

Contact for support contacto@piescotland.org

 

 Posted by at 21:27
May 232021
 

My name is Catalina and I am a student at Istituto Marangoni, the London school of fashion and design. I’m currently writing my final dissertation project where I’m investigating Disability in the Fashion Industry with special attention on Wheelchair users (Not limited to) and I would love to conduct a Focus Group via Zoom with some female volunteers that would like to share with me their experience.

Specifically, I\’m hoping we could discuss on : – Ready to Wear – Identify Clothing problems -Adaptive Fashion.

The names of the participants will not appear in any section of my final dissertation and full confidentiality is guaranteed. To ensure accuracy when interpreting the information, I kindly ask for your permission to audio-record the session. The only data collection that I will ask from the ones that would like to participate will be limited to: Name (You can use a Nickname if you want) AgeCity

The only person who will gain access to the credentials is my tutor and dissertation supervisor, Leonardo Blonda. If you wish to know more details about my project, feel free to email me my supervisor at l.blonda.tutor@istitutomarangoni.org Thank you very much for considering my request.

You can contact me by email 040019@istitutomarangoni.org

If you would be willing to help.

 Posted by at 20:47
May 142021
 

BBC Radio 4 are looking for case studies with the following experience for a programme on June 6th:

  1. Someone who has had some of their direct payment clawed back or refused by the council because they are not using services, while also paying for those services despite not being able to use/attend them.
  2. Someone who has seen increased care payments to the council.
  3. Someone who has been retrospectively charged for a care service. E.g. their payments were calculated on them attending a day centre one day a week at a cost of £10, only to then be told the price had increased, but their payments will not.
  4. Someone who has seen their direct payments reduced.

I appreciate this is all very specific and there will be variations on these, this is just a basic outline of what we are looking for.

We’re also interested in any data that is illustrative of what has happened to those in receipt in non-residential social care services throughout the pandemic.

Anything that anyone tells us at this stage will be treated with strict confidentiality and we would only move on to inclusion in the programme after we’d had proper discussions. This way people can ask whatever they wanted of us before agreeing to participate.

If you can help  please email : Michael.cowan@bbc.co.uk

 

 

 

 Posted by at 18:39
May 142021
 

 

Call for urgent action as investigation finds home care deaths rose by half in pandemic

Disabled activists have called for an urgent investigation after new figures showed that deaths of disabled and older people receiving support at home from care agencies rose by nearly 50 per cent during the first 12 months of the pandemic.

In nearly 40 council areas across England, the number of deaths more than doubled between April 2020 and March 2021, compared to the 2019 calendar year, although there were significant variations across England.

In Liverpool, deaths rose from 100 in 2019 to 358 during the pandemic year, in Haringey in north London they increased from 32 to 170, and in Stockport from 53 to 194, although in a small number of areas they did fall, including Bradford and Derby.

Although the increase is likely to be linked to the pandemic, only about nine per cent of the deaths in England were reported as COVID-related.

In Scotland, the rise in deaths reported by home care agencies was even higher, at nearly 70 per cent, although there was no detailed breakdown across local authorities because of the way the figures are collected.

The increase in deaths of 49 per cent in England and 69 per cent in Scotland compares with an increase of 22 per cent in the wider population in England during the pandemic.

In total, between April 2020 and March 2021, more than 25,000 people died in England while receiving home care (compared with about 17,000 in 2019), and almost 3,000 in Scotland.

The figures come from an investigation by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), which obtained data from the Care Quality Commission and Scotland’s Care Inspectorate through freedom of information requests. Disability News Service collaborated with TBIJ on its investigation.

There are no figures for Wales, because care providers are not required to notify Care Inspectorate Wales of deaths.

The figures obtained by TBIJ show high levels of excess deaths continuing through the summer of 2020 and the second wave of COVID-19 and through to March 2021.

Although previous official figures have shown a steep rise in the number of deaths in care homes during the pandemic, these are the first to show how the domiciliary care sector has been affected, although they do not include deaths of disabled people who employed their own personal assistants to provide support, for example through direct payments.

Responding to the new figures, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) said it was aware of the rise in home care deaths during the pandemic and was working with local authorities to better understand the data.

It also said it was considering how to improve the inconsistent data on the causes of deaths in home care.

Anne Novis, a disabled campaigner, user of social care and a trustee and former chair of Inclusion London – although not speaking on its behalf – said: “During last year, and still continuing, social and health care has been reduced, decreasing our ability to exist, on top of the impact of prolonged austerity cuts.

“I personally know how this has impacted me with prolonged and ongoing delays in health treatments, reduction in my care package and lack of accessible mental health support.

“The impact of COVID on us is extreme. Just as with care homes, we are not thought about till its too late.

“The huge increase in unexplained deaths, for those of us receiving social care from agencies, is extremely worrying.

“It needs a proportionate response by government urgently.

“An inquiry is needed but our health and social care needs prioritising now, not while we wait for the years an inquiry can take.

“The CQC needs to be urgently reviewing all the deaths of agency clients, identifying which agencies seem to be involved the most and identifying why.”

Novis said she has previously used care agencies, as did her mother, but the standard of care was so poor that she switched years ago to using direct payments, which allow her to employ her own care workers.

She said: “These statistics reinforced my belief that standards are still poor, even if the individual carers are good.

“The system they work within, a profit-making system, makes them have to rush their care work, sadly.”

Ellen Clifford, a member of the national steering group of Disabled People Against Cuts, said too few questions had been asked about the impact of the pandemic on non-residential social care users during the pandemic.

She said: “Experiences from within disabled people’s communities during the pandemic have indicated all along that disproportionate COVID-related fatalities are only half of the story.

“There are many other ways that disabled people have been seriously adversely impacted on a disproportionate scale, with potentially fatal consequences.

ONS figures from September 2020 show that 51 per cent of disabled people had had treatment for non-COVID conditions reduced, cancelled or postponed compared to 27 per cent of non-disabled people.”

She said disabled people had also been “de-prioritised for access to critical care” under NHS treatment rationing guidelines that discriminated against people with underlying health conditions and impairments.

She pointed to a study by critical care specialists that found that, during the first wave of the pandemic, people who scored highly on a so-called “clinical frailty score” were denied access to critical care even if intensive care beds were available.

Clifford added: “In order to understand exactly what these figures are telling us and where there are lessons to be learned, we need answers.

“At the moment, it is being left to journalists and campaigners to search for truths the government would rather conceal.

“A full independent public inquiry into the government’s handling of the pandemic is well over-due.

“If and when we get one*, we will have to ensure that the full range of impacts in all areas of disabled people’s lives – and deaths – are given the attention they deserve.”

Professor Peter Beresford, co-chair of the disabled people’s and service-user network Shaping Our Lives, said the UK government had “often failed to look at the broader consequences of their actions in response to the pandemic”.

This meant that “initial delays resulted in far greater levels of infection and death tolls than should have been the case in an advanced western society”, while “arbitrarily exporting older people from NHS beds to the care system pushed the death rate in care homes sky high”.

Of the new figures, he said: “While we need to explore these trends with further care, we have to ask if the policy and practice of this government, which has been said to give it a COVID ‘bounce’ in May’s elections, wouldn’t have actually served as more like a death blow to it, if more accurately reported and highlighted.”

Whatever the “final judgement”, he said, it would be too late for the thousands of additional older and disabled people receiving home care who appear to have died as a result.

Svetlana Kotova, director of campaigns and justice at Inclusion London, said she feared that reductions in health and social care provision during the pandemic could be an explanation for some of the increase in deaths among those receiving home care.

She supported the calls for urgent action to investigate the causes of the excess deaths, and to prioritise disabled people’s health and social care needs.

She said access to health services was often almost “non-existent” during the lockdowns for people receiving care at home, and worse than for those in care homes.

She said: “From what our surveys show, people in the community were left with nothing.

“Appointments were cancelled, there was remote meddling with doses of medication, and there were difficulties getting through to GPs.

“So many people told us about this and this must have had its consequences.”

Fazilet Hadi, head of policy for Disability Rights UK, said: “The dramatic increase in deaths of people receiving domiciliary care during the pandemic appears to be truly shocking.

“It is very important that the figures are further analysed.”

She said the figures appeared to show that most deaths were not due to COVID and so it was “important that we clarify whether causes of death were wrongly recorded or whether other factors were at play.

“We know that many people receiving social care experienced cuts to their care and the link between these reductions and the higher rate of deaths also needs exploring.”

By law, home care agencies only have to report deaths to CQC if a service-user died as a result of their care, or how it was provided, or if a care worker was in their home at the time they died.

The United Kingdom Homecare Association (UKHA), which represents home care providers, suggested one of the reasons for the steep rise in reported deaths could be that providers were reporting more deaths to the CQC “on a precautionary basis” during the pandemic, even when they were not strictly required to do so.

It said it was also possible that the government’s “Protect the NHS” message may have caused people to avoid hospital treatment, and to stay at home instead.

A UKHA spokesperson said: “The work undertaken by TBIJ highlights the lack of publicly available, complete and consistent data sets related to homecare, as in so many other areas of social care, which would help illustrate trends.

“We believe that it would be extremely helpful for the government to consider the data it collects in relation to social care.”

A CQC spokesperson said: “Providers of domiciliary care services are not required to notify CQC of all deaths of people who use their services and the data should therefore not be taken to represent a full and accurate representation of the number of people who use domiciliary care services who have died.”

A DHSC spokesperson said: “Every death from COVID-19 is a tragedy and we have ensured good quality home care remained a priority throughout the pandemic with an approach informed by the latest scientific advice.

“The adult care sector has received priority for vaccines preventing more than 10,000 deaths in older adults and we have provided billions of pounds in funding including for [personal protective equipment] and testing.

“Vaccines are the best way to keep people safe and over 35 million people in the UK have now been vaccinated with at least one dose and a third of adults have received a second dose meaning they have maximum protection from the virus.”

TBIJ is keen to hear from those with experience of the home care system, including disabled and older people receiving assistance, those who work in home care, and those caring for relatives and/or involved in advocacy. Use this link to leave a voice note or send a message

*The prime minister announced yesterday (Wednesday) that an independent public inquiry into the response to the pandemic would begin next spring

13 May 2021

 

 

Families of DWP victims want chance to confront ministers over benefit deaths

The families of two disabled people whose deaths were caused by Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) failings say they want the chance to confront ministers in parliament, so they can describe to them the damage their actions have caused.

The families of Philippa Day and Errol Graham spoke out this week after confirming that they would each be taking legal action against DWP.

Both families hope their legal actions will force improvements that will save the lives of other claimants of disability benefits.

The family of Philippa Day, whose death was blamed by a coroner on flaws in the disability benefits system, have begun a legal claim against DWP – and its private sector contractor Capita – for breaches of human rights and negligence.

It is likely to be a difficult case for both DWP and Capita to defend as coroner Gordon Clow highlighted 28 separate “problems” with the administration of the personal independence payment system that helped cause her death, at the end of a nine-day inquest in January.

Meanwhile, the family of Errol Graham are seeking permission to take their case to the court of appeal, after the high court ruled in March that DWP had not acted unlawfully in October 2017 by wrongly cutting off his employment and support allowance, a decision that led to him starving to death months later.

Both families are represented by solicitors Leigh Day.

They each spoke this week of their wish to give evidence in person to the House of Commons work and pensions committee.

Alison Turner, the fiancée of Errol Graham’s son, told Disability News Service (DNS) that she would like to see the committee invite relatives of those who have died to give evidence, and for that to happen in front of work and pensions secretary Therese Coffey and Justin Tomlinson, the minister for disabled people.

She said she would like to see the families confront Coffey “face to face” and “put that pain across to her”.

She said: “When she’s confronted with the families that she’s sat there and let suffer then it will be harder to ignore.

“They need to see the damage that it has caused.

“They need to feel how we feel, because they are almost emotionless, they are detached, and they need to attach themselves, because they need to understand the severity of this for these families.

“And until they start to understand that, they will never get it right.”

Turner said the deaths of Errol Graham, Jodey Whiting, Philippa Day and Roy Curtis were all linked to DWP’s failures around claimants with mental distress.

She said: “There’s something seriously wrong. There’s a pattern here and that’s what drives me.

“The DWP aren’t making the system work for people like them, and it’s not good enough.

“How many more people with mental health are going to die because they have been disadvantaged, because that reasonable adjustment is not being recognised?”

She added: “DWP see all these deaths and they can’t say they don’t see the link to mental health, they just don’t want to admit that there is a serious problem in the department when it comes to making reasonable adjustments for mental health.

“The more families that stand up to them, the harder it is for the government to ignore.

“The problem with DWP is that it separates itself from the damage it does. It’s almost inhuman. It doesn’t feel the pain, and I think it needs to.

“It needs to stop. It’s just not good enough for the DWP to sit there and say, ‘We didn’t do anything wrong.’ They did.”

Imogen Day, Philippa’s sister, said she would also like to see families of those who have died give evidence to the work and pensions committee, and supported the idea of this happening in front of Coffey and Tomlinson.

She said: “I want to meet them, I want to see them and I want them to explain to me exactly how they allowed this to happen.

“I want to be sat down and given word for word exactly the reasons why my sister had to die.

“That’s the bit I am struggling with. I want to know why it benefited somebody in a political way for the system to have continued for so long.

“I want to know why the benefits outweighed the costs, and those costs being lives.”

She said she believed that if the cases being brought by families against DWP “takes enough of a financial toll” it will eventually be forced to act to make the system safe.

She stressed that any compensation the family secures will be put aside to ensure that Philippa’s young son is well cared for as he grows up.

Day said that it felt as if there was now momentum in the battle to secure justice and change within DWP, with their cases and a high court case being brought by the family of Jodey Whiting, who are trying to secure a second inquest into her death.

She said: “I want them to be scared. I hope [Iain Duncan Smith] goes to bed at night thinking about all these families.

“I want him to be afraid, because we were scared, we spent months before Pip died knowing this was coming and that we couldn’t do anything about it, and feeling that fear.”

She said: “DWP needs to be over-hauled and an independent inquiry is needed to evaluate why all of this happened and why it was allowed to happen, what failsafe failed for so many people to die.

“It is just so stressful that we as families are having to do this.

“I can’t just move on with my grief. I am having to politically argue for her, which is fine, I will do it to the end of my days, but it’s not my job.”

Both Imogen Day and Alison Turner backed the idea of an independent inquiry into the years of deaths linked to DWP, after Labour’s Debbie Abrahams repeated her call for an inquiry this week.

In 2019, more than 55,000 people signed the Justice for Jodey Whiting parliamentary petition, which included a call for an inquiry.

Imogen Day told DNS: “I will not rest until there is one, a full independent inquiry.”

Abrahams has led parliamentary efforts to hold DWP to account for the deaths, including pushing the Equality and Human Rights Commission to hold its own inquiry.

Last month, DNS reported how the watchdog appears to have backed away from holding a wide-ranging statutory inquiry into links between DWP and the deaths of claimants.

Leigh Day’s Merry Varney, who represents Philippa Day’s family, said that, although the coroner “reached a damning conclusion about the role of DWP and Capita in causing Philippa’s death, if the matter is unresolved, the high court will look itself at the circumstances of Philippa’s death and the lawfulness of the acts and omissions by the DWP and Capita”.

Her colleague Tessa Gregory, who represents the family of Errol Graham, said: “Our client is appealing the high court’s judgment because she considers that the judge was wrong to hold that DWP safeguarding policies are lawful.”

She said that Turner “wants to ensure that the system is fit for purpose” and takes proper account of the difficulties faced by people in mental distress in engaging with DWP.

A DWP spokesperson said: “Our sincere condolences remain with both Miss Day’s and Mr Graham’s family. It would be inappropriate for us to comment further at this time.”

A spokesperson for Capita said: “We are very sorry for the mistakes we made in processing Philippa’s personal independence payment claim and the additional stress this caused her.

“In partnership with the DWP, we have considered and reviewed the coroner’s report and we are implementing all the recommendations that are relevant to us.

“Following this incident, we have strengthened our processes and we are working to continuously improve and deliver a professional, efficient and kind service for every PIP applicant we assess.

“As legal action is ongoing, we will not be commenting further.”

Meanwhile, DWP continues to refuse to release recommendations made by its own secret reviews into the deaths of benefit claimants over the course of nearly two years.

DNS first reported last December that DWP had admitted to carrying out 82 separate investigations into deaths and other serious incidents linked to its actions between January 2016 and March 2019, in addition to 60 earlier reviews carried out between 2012 and 2015.

Despite an information rights tribunal ruling in 2016 that the recommendations made by such reviews should be released, DWP argued last year that releasing recommendations from reviews carried out after March 2019 could interfere with the development of government policy.

There are now likely to have been about 200 secret DWP reviews into deaths and other serious incidents since 2012.

A DWP spokesperson refused to explain why the latest IPRs continued to be withheld, but he did not dispute the estimated number of IPRs carried out since 2012.

He said in a statement: “We support millions of people a year and our priority is they get the benefits to which they are entitled promptly and receive a supportive and compassionate service.

“In the vast majority of cases this happens but when, sadly, there is a tragic case we take it very seriously.

“In those circumstances it’s absolutely right we carry out an internal review to check if the correct processes were followed and identify any lessons learned to inform future policy and service.”

13 May 2021

 

 

Watchdog warns social care is at ‘crisis point’ and calls for legal right to independent living

The equality and human rights watchdog has warned that social care is at “crisis point” and has called on the government to introduce a legal right to independent living, just 24 hours after Boris Johnson failed again to honour his promise to fix the system.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) said yesterday (Wednesday) in a new briefing paper that many disabled people were being left “without the vital support they need to live independently” as part of their community.

It warned that, since the first of a succession of Tory-led governments came to power in 2010, “rising demand and substantial reductions in government funding have led to increased levels of unmet need”, with real-terms council spending on social care in England about £400 million lower in 2018-19 than in 2010-11.

And it said the pandemic had “pushed the already struggling adult social care sector to crisis point, posing a significant threat to the right to independent living”.

As Disability News Service revealed last month, the commission is set to use its powers to examine how the social care system can “better uphold human rights and equality” through the system of assessing needs and making decisions on social care packages.

The EHRC paper was published just a day after the prime minister was heavily criticised for failing to include clear proposals to reform social care in the Queen’s speech.

Successive Tory governments have been promising to bring forward proposals to reform social care for at least four years.

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said it was “unforgivable that there is no clear plan to fix social care”, adding: “Failure to act for a decade was bad enough, but failure to act after the pandemic is nothing short of an insult to the whole nation.”

Rather than promising legislation, this week’s Queen’s speech said only: “Proposals on social care reform will be brought forward.”

Background notes later published by Number 10 said the proposals would be brought forward this year.

But just a day later, the EHRC briefing paper criticised the government across a range of areas linked to independent living in England.

Among the areas in which it calls for action are the unfair detention and treatment of people with learning difficulties and autistic people, inclusive education, social security, accessible housing and accessible transport.

But its key proposals for change focus on the need for “effective legal protection” for disabled people’s right to independent living under article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The EHRC paper includes a new legal model for how it believes a right to independent living could be incorporated into UK law.

A key element of the model would be a new duty on public bodies such as local councils to assess the level of unmet need for housing in the community, and for care and support that would enable community or home living, and to “report on what they will do to meet that need”.

The government would have to report on the level of unmet need and what it would do to ensure those needs were met.

There would also be a new duty on councils and other public bodies to provide housing and care and support in the community, unless the disabled person wanted to live in residential care.

There would also be effective enforcement mechanisms to “help ensure the right to independent living is upheld in practice”; a ban on building new institutional accommodation; and a new duty on public bodies to “act with the objective of meeting the requirements” of article 19.

The Department of Health and Social Care had not responded by noon today (Thursday) to a request to comment on the briefing paper.

13 May 2021

 

 

Campaigner horrified as G4S puts ‘do not resuscitate’ on her file before ambulance trip

A controversial outsourcing company is refusing to act after one of its ambulance crews was mistakenly told that a disabled campaigner had agreed to have a “do not attempt resuscitation” (DNAR) order placed on her records.

Anna Morell was about to use a non-emergency G4S ambulance to take her to a routine appointment when one of the paramedics asked for written proof that she did not want them to attempt to resuscitate her if her heart or breathing stopped on the journey.

She was horrified when the paramedic showed her his mobile phone screen, which showed he had been given the instruction: “Pick up DNR.”

Although he immediately called a G4S colleague and ensured the note was taken off her records, Morell said the incident was “deeply disturbing” as she is always extremely clear with G4S that she does not have a DNAR in place.

Morell, media and communications manager for Disability Rights UK, was later told there had been an administrative error, but she said the mistake was “inexcusable”.

There have been repeated, serious concerns raised about the wrongful placing of DNAR notes on disabled people’s medical records throughout the pandemic.

In March, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) found more than 500 DNAR decisions put in place since 17 March 2020 “had not been agreed in discussion with the person, their relative or carer”.

The true figure will have been even higher because the number was based on responses from only about 2,000 of the 25,000 adult social care providers CQC approached for information.

G4S said this week that its crews always ask for confirmation that a DNAR is in place before starting a journey, and that a verbal apology was made to Morell when the crew member realised the error had been made.

Morell said she had been “incredulous” when she realised the crew had been told that she had a DNAR in place.

She said: “The crew took swift action to have it removed, and reassured me that the protocol is to visually see the document, without which they have to resuscitate regardless of whether a patient verbally insists they have [a DNAR].”

But she said that people are “fallible”.

She said: “If the process goes wrong at the admin end of the process, it can also go wrong at the sharp end of the process.

“Disabled people, myself included, are extremely nervous about the ability of third parties to place erroneous information about DNAR notices on our records.

“This has happened in care homes at the start of COVID, it has happened at care homes outside of COVID, and I know other disabled people who have also found out from patient transport crews in other parts of the country that they have had DNAR notices placed on their records in error.

“A simple slip of a key without due care and attention can be the first step in a domino effect which leads to loss of life.”

She said G4S needed to implement a “failsafe process from start to finish” to ensure that such an error “unequivocally cannot happen”.

She has suggested to G4S that it uses clearer wording when its call centre staff question service-users about whether a DNAR is in place, one that requires a yes or no response, and that a copy of the booking details is sent to those passengers who can use email as a “failsafe”.

Kamran Mallick, chief executive of Disability Rights UK, said: “Disabled people’s confidence and trust in systems were shaken last year when we heard about DNRs being applied to them without consent during the pandemic.

“I have also been consistently asked if I have a DNR in place when booking hospital transport.

“It is chilling to be asked this again and again and Anna’s experience demonstrates that an administrative error could lead to a devastating outcome.

“Bland reassurances that the ‘error has been corrected’ are far from reassuring.

“How many similar errors have not been identified?

“The NHS and its contractors must stop working from the assumption that disabled people’s lives are of less value.”

Morell regularly uses the G4S non-emergency patient transport service (NEPTS), which is provided through a contract with NHS Kent and Medway Clinical Commissioning Group.

Last month, G4S admitted forcing disabled patients to share non-emergency ambulances throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, although it insisted that it was following NHS guidance.

This week, G4S refused to say how the mistake was allowed to happen; how seriously it took Morell’s complaint; and what action it would take to ensure that it never happened again.

Instead, a G4S spokesperson said in a statement: “The safety of those using our service is of paramount importance, which is why we have processes in place to identify any recording errors at the first opportunity.

“Our crew will always ask the patient for confirmation of a ‘do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ (DNACPR) form before a trip, and without this confirmation, the crew would start resuscitation in the event of cardiac arrest.”

13 May 2021

 

 

NHS England ‘must do more’, despite ordering reviews of ‘unsafe’ mental distress scheme

Disabled activists have demanded stronger action from NHS England over the use of a mental health scheme they have branded unethical, unlawful and unsafe, despite a senior NHS figure telling individual trusts to review their use of the programme.

There has been mounting concern about the use of the Serenity Integrated Mentoring (SIM) system, and its rapid rollout across the NHS in England, despite the lack of quality research into its impact on mental heath service-users.

But concerted campaign pressure by the StopSIM coalition has now led to NHS England’s national clinical director for mental health, Tim Kendall, writing to mental health trusts, calling on them to review their use of the scheme.

The coalition said yesterday (Wednesday) that, although it was “reassured” that some action was being taken, NHS England needed to co-ordinate an immediate independent investigation into the use of SIM-type schemes.

In his letter, Kendall admits that the SIM model was chosen as part of an NHS Innovation Accelerator programme in 2018, but he insists that NHS England “is not formally endorsing or promoting” the spread of the SIM scheme.

But the coalition said yesterday that the SIM model had been endorsed by several key NHS figures and pointed to evidence that NHS England had encouraged its widespread rollout.

In a lengthy, detailed and evidenced statement, it said it believed that NHS England had a “statutory duty” to carry out a “more robust and centrally coordinated investigation in view of the severity of concerns regarding SIM”.

It said: “We are reassured that NHS England have acknowledged our concerns and are planning to take actions in response.

“We agree, a review is essential in order to address concerns and in order to take robust actions as appropriate.

“However, we remain concerned that this response does not appropriately reflect the urgency and magnitude of the issues we have highlighted.”

It added: “Due to the severity of risk posed to service users under SIM, we consider a centrally coordinated investigation of urgent importance.”

It also repeated its call for NHS England to “halt the rollout and delivery of SIM with immediate effect”.

The National Survivor User Network (NSUN), which has backed the coalition’s campaign, welcomed the statements by NHS England and other bodies in response to the campaigning by the coalition.

But NSUN said there were questions over how the SIM schemes had been commissioned, and allowed to spread across the NHS in England, and who was responsible for these decisions.

Akiko Hart, NSUN’s chief executive, said: “SIM did not appear in a vacuum.

“Its adoption and scaling point to lazy and opaque commissioning processes, a focus on what is useful for services instead of what might be helpful for service-users and patients, and a normalisation of toxic cultures which harm and neglect people in distress seeking support.”

In his letter, Kendall points to concerns raised by the coalition about how SIM schemes involve police officers in the case management of people with complex mental health needs, the lack of research data on the impact of the scheme on patients, and whether SIM breaches treatment guidelines for personality disorder and self-harm care.

He also tells mental health trusts that concerns have been raised about the legal basis for sharing patient records under the scheme, and “the human rights and equalities implications” of the SIM approach.

He says in the letter that he is asking trusts to review their use of SIM “in light of the lack of evidence base for the interventions provided by this model and the concerns raised by patient groups about how it is being implemented”.

In a letter sent this week to the StopSIM coalition, Claire Murdoch, NHS England’s national mental health director, says trusts are being asked to examine whether the scheme breaches guidelines for personality disorder and self-harm care, and if it compromises “patient safety or human rights”.

She says in the letter that NHS England guidance states that such services “must have a compassionate, trauma-informed ethos and reject punitive approaches to care” and should be co-produced with people with a diagnosis of personality disorder.

Last month, Disability News Service (DNS) reported how the organisation that supports SIM schemes – the High Intensity Network (HIN) – said it was already working with 23 of 57 mental health trusts in England.

Paul Jennings, HIN’s director and the founder of SIM and himself a former police officer with experience of using mental health services, admitted to DNS last month that there was a need for an independent review of the programme.

13 May 2021

 

 

New BSL co-operative ‘could transform the future of interpreting’

A partnership between Deaf people and British Sign Language (BSL) interpreters could be set to transform the future of interpreting across the UK.

Leading Deaf figures are supporting a new co-operative that is developing an online platform that they hope will “revolutionise” the booking of interpreters, “take control” from profit-making agencies and deliver “real and long-lasting social change”.

They have already raised more than £240,000 for Signalise through a community share offer which closes on 14 June, with the hope of raising at least £300,000.

They hope eventually to compete for public sector contracts with the larger interpreter agencies, with locally-run services delivered through a national structure, and a central role for Deaf people and interpreters in running local services.

They believe this will ensure that qualified BSL interpreters are paid a fair rate for their work, while Deaf service-users will be able to access a high-quality service.

One of the co-operative’s highest-profile supporters is Jenny Sealey, chief executive and artistic director of Graeae Theatre Company, who was co-director of the London 2012 Paralympics opening ceremony.

She said: “My work as the artistic director of Graeae Theatre Company is all about inclusion and bringing people together.

“The ethos of a co-operative where Deaf people and BSL interpreters work together to innovate and develop a service that meets everyone’s needs, fits perfectly with this.

“I fully endorse this initiative and hope that we see it replicated in many other areas of need.

“I urge everyone to support Signalise and this model of collective working.

“It does much more than merely provide a service when people come together – it is a powerful source of societal change for the common good.”

Kerena Marchant, who stood for Labour at the last general election, said that Deaf people and interpreters had lost out in recent years through the emergence of profit-making BSL agencies which have taken over services previously provided by local councils.

She said: “There has been a decline in working practices and standard of provision.

“With most video relay interpreting companies becoming part of American companies, the Deaf community face a potential further deterioration in interpreting services and interpreters in working practices.

“Signalise is the future of interpreting – both the Deaf community and the interpreters can benefit, with dividends being put back into the Deaf community and ‘continuing professional development’ for interpreters.

“Deaf users can also have more say in how their service is provided and how their needs are met.”

Deaf campaigner Geraldine O’Halloran, one of Signalise’s directors, said: “I have used BSL interpreters for over 30 years now, and there has never been an opportunity like this one: to become a member of a co-operative and make a mark on the BSL interpreting service.”

She said it was important that Signalise was a partnership between Deaf people and BSL interpreters, which would ensure that Deaf people’s ideas, opinions and suggestions were treated equally to those of interpreters.

She said that Deaf people who were members of the co-operative would be able to “feel a sense of ownership and empowerment”.

O’Halloran added: “Signalise is not a group of passive receivers of BSL communication services, but active members who can support and influence the work of Signalise.

“To me, that has to be worth having.”

Another Signalise director, BSL interpreter Nicky Evans, said: “Over the past decade we have seen the larger spoken language agencies taking over who have no knowledge or experience in working with Deaf people and don’t understand the community’s needs.”

She said the tender process for these contracts had excluded Deaf people and interpreters.

Evans said: “In a co-operative model, it is very clear who owns and runs the company and it is run for the benefit of the community.

“We have been talking about the possibility of a co-operative for some time but felt that the traditional model wouldn’t work.”

Evans said that Signalise’s online model would allow the service “to be accessible and ensure it reaches everyone”.

She added: “There are so many possibilities for creating real and long-lasting social change.

“We are all very excited by this.”

13 May 2021

 

 

Brown Envelope Book ‘illustrates cold-hearted barbarism’ of DWP

Scores of disabled people who have been brutalised by the bureaucracy of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) have contributed to a new anthology of poetry and prose that describes their ordeals in “graphic and heart-rending detail”.

The Brown Envelope Book* is co-edited by two disabled writer-activists, Alan Morrison and Kate Jay-R, and contains more than 200 poems, pieces of prose and short plays, the majority of them written by disabled claimants of benefits.

The overall theme of the book is the “brown envelopes” in which DWP sends its letters to claimants, but many of the contributors describe the work capability assessment process, the experience of visiting jobcentres or, in Kate Jay-R’s own How The DWP Ruined Vivaldi For Me, waiting on hold for a DWP adviser to answer the phone.

In his introduction, Morrison calls DWP’s brown envelopes the “paper symbols of state malice towards its claimants” and “agents of malignant governmental origami”.

Among the many highlights of the anthology are Steph Pike’s £53 A Week, which imagines how former work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith would have fared if he had tried to fulfil his 2013 boast that he could live on £53 a week in benefits.

Another, Posting Icicles, by Scottish poet Lynn Valentine, describes how her letterbox “chokes on brown envelopes”, while Work Capability Assessment, by Louisa Campbell, compares the fitness for work test to a brutal, physically violent interrogation.

A foreword to the book has been written by its patron, disabled activist John McArdle, co-founder of the grassroots group Black Triangle.

He says in the foreword that the book “illustrates the trials of claimants with stories of individuals who have been subjected to this cold-hearted barbarism in graphic and heart-rending detail” and will “enlighten all who read it as to the ongoing injustices being perpetrated upon ordinary people by other ordinary people working as bureaucrats in our country”.

Morrison has previously published two influential anti-austerity anthologies, Emergency Verse – Poets in Defence of the Welfare State, published in 2010, and The Robin Hood Book – Verse Versus Austerity, the following year.

Jay-R is the author of the anti-austerity blog Diary of an Armchair Campaigner, which she began writing following the death in 2012 of Karen Sherlock, who died after fighting for two years against the unfairness of the work capability assessment.

She is also founder of the Don’t Go Breaking Our Arts disability arts Facebook group.

*An ebook version has been published by Caparison, an imprint of The Recusant, in collaboration with the Don’t Go Breaking Our Arts Facebook group and the Culture Matters co-operative of writers and activists. A print version will be published this summer. The ebook can be ordered, for £4, at: https://www.therecusant.org.uk/the-brown-envelope-book/4595276669

13 May 2021

 

News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com

 Posted by at 18:25
May 022021
 

 

Anger after watchdog appears to back away from inquiry into DWP deaths

The equality and human rights watchdog appears to have backed away from holding a wide-ranging statutory inquiry into links between the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the deaths of disabled benefit claimants.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) confirmed this week that it will use its powers this year to address the “systemic barriers” facing disabled claimants in the benefits system.

But it refused to confirm the suggestion in papers considered by the EHRC board in January – secured by Disability News Service (DNS) through a freedom of information request – that there would be a formal statutory inquiry into these barriers.

Even if it did carry out such an inquiry, the commission appears to be edging away from demands for it to hold a full inquiry into the links between DWP and the deaths of countless benefit claimants over the last decade.

This week, the commission refused to provide any details about the work it will be doing on the barriers in the benefit system.

Instead, an EHRC spokesperson said: “As outlined in our business plan for the year, we will be using our powers, including strategic enforcement action, to address systemic barriers to benefits systems for disabled claimants as well as conduct an inquiry on social care [see separate story] and will publish the terms of reference for this in due course.”

It has since refused to provide any further clarity.

Linda Burnip, co-founder of Disabled People Against Cuts, said: “This is typical of EHRC unfortunately and they seem to ignore even policies and behaviours of government departments that lead to the unnecessary deaths of disabled people.

“It really is time for EHRC to start doing their jobs effectively.”

Labour’s Debbie Abrahams has been trying to persuade the EHRC to hold an inquiry into deaths linked to DWP for the last two years, following years of campaigning on the issue in parliament.

Abrahams, the MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth and a former shadow work and pensions secretary, said it was “unclear” what DWP’s work in 2021-22 would involve.

She said: “Whilst I support the EHRC’s broad objective – who wouldn’t? – it doesn’t address the issues I have raised with them about the deaths of disabled social security claimants.

“It doesn’t say if there will be any inquiry and whether this will assess the full scale of the deaths of disabled claimants and the factors that have contributed to these deaths.

“As the National Audit Office said in 2020, the DWP does not have this information.

“As such, we need a full independent inquiry to explore this in detail.”

Ian Jones, from WOWcampaign, said: “The EHRC continues to act as though it is an arm of government whose job is to cover up that thousands of disabled people have died as a direct result of government policy.

“The WOWcampaign have discussed this at length with Debbie Abrahams, are confident she will force the issue, and are ready to help her in any way she asks.”

John McArdle, co-founder of Black Triangle, said the EHRC’s apparent decision to back away from an inquiry into the links between DWP and the deaths of claimants was a “disgrace”.

He said disabled activists had spent 11 years “campaigning for justice for the victims, families, friends and communities of those who have passed tragically – and completely avoidably – as a direct result of this government’s barbaric work capability assessment and personal independence payment disability assessment regimes.

“What we demand is a truly independent, judge-led public inquiry.”

DWP declined to comment on the EHRC’s actions, but a spokesperson said it would “continue to work with the EHRC in a constructive and collaborative way”.

Meanwhile, there appears to be no sign of an end to the series of tragedies that have been linked to DWP’s failings over the last decade.

One of the latest deaths was that of 27-year-old Philippa Day, from Nottingham. In January, a coroner highlighted 28 separate “problems” with the administration of the personal independence payment system that helped cause her death, after a nine-day inquest uncovered multiple failings by both DWP and its private sector contractor Capita in the 11 months that led up to her death in October 2019.

In June, the high court in London will be asked to order a second inquest into the death of Jodey Whiting, a mother-of-nine and grandmother from Stockton-on-Tees, who took her own life in February 2017, 15 days after she had her employment and support allowance mistakenly stopped for missing a work capability assessment (WCA).

The family of Errol Graham are still seeking justice for the DWP failings that led to him starving to death in 2018 after his benefits were wrongly removed, leaving him without any income.

And late last year, an inquest heard how 27-year-old Roy Curtis (previously known as Ayman Habayeb) had taken his own life in November 2018, six days after being told to attend a WCA, despite DWP being repeatedly warned that its actions had made him suicidal.

29 April 2021

 

 

Coalition calls for halt to use of ‘unethical and unsafe’ mental distress emergency scheme

Disabled activists are calling for an immediate halt to the use of a multi-agency scheme that they believe is unethical, unlawful and unsafe, and which they say puts people in severe mental distress at risk of being denied vital support.

Under the leadership of a police officer and a mental health professional, Serenity Integrated Mentoring (SIM) puts pressure on users of mental health services – often those at high risk of suicide and self-harm – who have not committed a crime but are seen as “high intensity users” of emergency services.

There are concerns that this can involve withholding assessment and treatment, and gives police officers a key role in making clinical decisions when service-users are in crisis.

The new StopSIM Coalition has warned that the system is being rolled out across NHS England, despite the lack of high-quality research into its impact on service-users.

The coalition of service-users and allies says it has “grave concerns” about SIM and wants to see the use of the scheme halted while an independent review is carried out into its “evidence base, safety, legality, ethics, governance and acceptability to service users”.

SIM is supported by the High Intensity Network, which is led by director Paul Jennings, the founder of SIM and himself a former police officer with experience of mental distress and using mental health services.

He says his network is already working with 23 of 57 mental health trusts in England.

This week, he told Disability News Service (DNS) that some of the criticism of SIM was unfair, but he admitted there was a need for an independent review of the programme.

He claims that there are good reasons for putting pressure on service-users through “positive risk management”, which he said was a well-known principle in mental health care.

He added: “All we have done is expand the knowledge and confident use of positive risk management through a centralised crisis plan.”

He said it was “not oppressive pressure” or “heartless”, but a “well thought-through, well-intentioned, good balance of risk management”, while he claimed the crisis plans were always co-produced and signed off by the service-user.

Jennings said: “All we are doing is providing high-quality information to police officers and paramedics so they can… make a higher-quality decision in the moment of distress.”

But the coalition’s concerns and its calls for a halt to the use of SIM-type programmes and an independent review have already been backed by the National Survivor User Network (NSUN).

NSUN warned this week that there did not seem to be a sound evidence base for the intervention or much oversight of service-user outcomes not relating to cost, demand and staff time.

And it said there had been “little to no involvement of service-users or ‘experts by experience’ in the development of the model or feedback on experiences of being under it”.

Jennings said the criticisms of a lack of high-quality research were “absolutely true and fair because of the difficulty of securing high-quality data from multiple teams across the NHS and police and because the number of service-users nationally was naturally very small”.

He added: “We are continuously in the process of improving our research methodology but our teams are telling us they are confident that the data they already have, clearly shows really strong qualitative and quantitative outcomes.”

His work has been backed and funded by the NHS through its “Innovation Accelerator Fellowship”.

But one of the pieces of evidence the coalition points to that highlight its concerns is an NHS England report (PDF) on innovation within the NHS.

The report says that SIM schemes can prevent the “revolving door” of service-users repeatedly “moving in and out of police custody and mental health wards”.

It also describes how professionals engaged with a service-user who was being dealt with through a version of the SIM scheme being run in Surrey.

Police officers in Surrey had been briefed about the scheme and, the NHS report said, “had started to understand that over-reactive decisions, made in fear, did not help the patient but actually gave the message that high-risk behaviours would be ‘positively reinforced’ by 999 teams (meaning that it would encourage the patient to repeat the high-risk behaviour)”.

As a result, she was not detained under the Mental Health Act and the police took her home and left her there.

Soon afterwards, she intentionally overdosed and had to be admitted to an accident and emergency department for treatment.

According to the NHS report, the Independent Office for Police Conduct concluded that the officers had no case to answer for misconduct “because they followed due procedure according to the clinically endorsed care plan”.

Jennings defended the police action, and said it “was not an autocratic decision, in this case, it was police and clinicians and the service-user working through an opportunity to build emotional resilience”.

He said the police officers had followed a “co-produced plan” and that the service-user subsequently “found safer ways of going into crisis”.

The StopSIM Coalition says it has concerns about the evidence NHS trusts and police forces are relying on to justify adopting the scheme, the risks to service-users who have SIM imposed upon them, and potential breaches of human rights.

In a statement, the coalition said: “To our knowledge, no robust, high-quality research has been conducted, which would justify such a rapid implementation of this novel, complex and high-risk intervention.

“There is also a wider absence of evidence that attests to the safety, efficacy and acceptability of interventions that involve withholding potentially lifesaving assessment and treatment across multiple agencies, which also utilises police officers as interventionists.”

Jennings told DNS that police officers do not take control of the crisis situation, but play a joint role with the mental health professional and the service-user “to see if we can help the service-user much more effectively when they are in crisis”.

The StopSIM Coalition also says that the little research that has been carried out has failed to measure the experience of the service-users themselves, focusing instead on how heavily services are being used and how much they cost.

It also believes there is a risk that suicides could increase if service-users are forced to hide their self-harm and suicide attempts from services.

They say SIM treats service-users’ behaviour as attention-seeking and manipulative when research on self-harm and suicide attempts shows they are usually driven by an attempt to manage acute distress.

Jennings said this was “deeply unfair” and that SIM was “exactly the opposite” and was “trying to challenge the labels, challenge the stereotypes”.

The coalition has now launched a petition that calls for SIM’s rollout and delivery to be halted and for an independent review.

In a statement supporting the coalition’s campaign, NSUN said: “We know that forced police contact can already be part of the response you receive if you ‘repeatedly’ reach out for help when deeply distressed.

“This risks exacerbating this, particularly for those from minoritised or racialised communities for whom the possibility of police brutality and discrimination is a very real fear.

NSUN supports the #StopSIM Coalition and together we call for the delivery of this intervention to be halted and independently reviewed with regards to its evidence base, legality, ethics, governance, and acceptability to service-users.”

Jennings said he would “totally and utterly welcome” an independent review of SIM.

He said: “We know we are not a gold standard model yet. We know this whole health and justice movement is in its first decade of something probably like 70 or 80 years of evolution before you get close to it, so we totally welcome any review.”

He added: “It is my wife [a former police member of staff] and I running this network, with the sporadic support of some NHS teams, and it is a major weakness of the programme that we are not supported more by NHS England.

“Why is a care programme for the most traumatised patients in the NHS being run by two ex-cops from their spare room on the Isle of Wight?”

By noon today (Thursday), Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Surrey Police and NHS England had all failed to respond to the concerns about the SIM programme, despite being approached by DNS last Friday (23 April).

29 April 2021

 

 

Watchdog’s ‘invaluable’ inquiry set to expose ‘fragility’ of social care system

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is to launch an “invaluable” and “long-overdue” inquiry into whether the social care system breaches equality and human rights laws.

The formal statutory inquiry will examine the system of assessing needs and making decisions on social care packages, and how they uphold equality and human rights laws for those who need social care.

Brief details of the inquiry were published quietly by EHRC earlier this month, but apparently without alerting the media.

But documents obtained by Disability News Service through a freedom of information request suggest that the commission hopes the inquiry will help to embed equality and human rights, including the right to independent living, in social care policy and reform.

February’s health and social care white paper said the government would bring forward “proposals” for social care reform later this year, although it has been making such pledges since 2017.

Disabled people’s organisations this week welcomed the EHRC inquiry.

Professor Peter Beresford, co-chair of the disabled people’s and service-user network Shaping Our Lives, said the inquiry would be “invaluable” because “we know that we have few rights under existing Westminster social care policy”.

He contrasted the principles of needs- and means-testing in social care with the “essentially universalist” principles of the NHS.

He said: “Shaping Our Lives offers the warmest of welcomes to something so long overdue.

“The EHRC’s emphasis on embedding equality, human rights and independent living in social care policy reform is vital and sadly not to be found in most other social care policy discussions outside of those of disabled people themselves.”

He said he hoped the inquiry would lead to inspections of local authorities by the Care Quality Commission, which currently does not happen “despite the work of councils being the very nerve centre of the whole system”.

But he said such inspections would “only be a good thing if they inspect against the right standards”.

He added: “Councils have been getting away with practices at both the individual and strategic levels that fall way below human rights standards for years.

“Their part in the weakness and fragility of services as exposed by COVID has gone completely under the radar.

“This inquiry by the EHRC will be a good thing if it provides the basis for getting the right standards against which councils should be held to account.”

Kamran Mallick, chief executive of Disability Rights UK, said: “We welcome the inquiry into social care.

“We have grave concerns about recent reports that care plans are not covering disabled people’s needs, and that local authorities are increasing charges leaving disabled people with a pittance to live on.

“We hope the inquiry will focus on why local authorities are not fully implementing the Care Act.

“Disabled people need to be given the means to live full, productive, socially inclusive lives.

“Doing so is right for disabled people and good for our country.”

An EHRC spokesperson said the commission would publish terms of reference for the inquiry “in due course”.

A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson had declined by noon today (Thursday) to say whether the government believed the inquiry was necessary.

But she said in a statement: “The government continually ensure people who receive care get the support they need through the pandemic as set out in the Ethical Framework for Adult Social Care.

“With lessons learnt from the pandemic, the government’s health and social care bill will put in place targeted improvements for the delivery of health and social care to ensure it is fit for the future.

“Separate proposals on social care reform, due later this year, will set out further plans for a system.”

29 April 2021

 

 

Ministers agree to carer abuse review after refusing to include disability rights in new bill

The government has agreed to launch a year-long review into the protection and support available to disabled people who are abused by their carers.

The review will examine the protections and support currently available, and the barriers to access to justice, and will include the Department of Health and Social Care, the Home Office, the Disability Unit and the Ministry of Justice.

Ministers also say it will look at existing criminal laws, safeguarding legislation, regulation by the Care Quality Commission, the protections available for those using non-regulated care and the support available for survivors of abuse by carers.

The disabled crossbench peer Baroness [Jane] Campbell welcomed the announcement and said it was a “good concession” and a “small achievement”.

The government only agreed to carry out the review after refusing to extend protections included in their domestic abuse bill to disabled people abused in their homes by paid care workers and personal assistants, and friends and neighbours who carry out unpaid caring duties.

Attempts to extend those protections had been led in the Lords by Baroness Campbell and another disabled crossbench peer, Baroness [Tanni] Grey-Thompson.

But after securing cross-party support in the Lords, their amendments were overturned by MPs, with the junior Home Office minister Victoria Atkins promising instead “a review of the protections for people at risk of carer abuse”.

Another Home Office minister, Baroness Williams, then met with Baroness Campbell and Baroness Grey-Thompson, telling them that their work had led the government “to think long and hard about disabled people being at the mercy of their carers”.

Baroness Campbell told Disability News Service (DNS) afterwards: “I stressed the need for this to start without delay and for disabled people to be involved throughout the process.

“There had to be solutions, particularly in the light of the pandemic.

“It was agreed that the review would be evidence-based and, importantly, that legislation would be considered if the review demonstrated a need.

“The minister accepted it must also be mindful of disabled people’s difficulties in reporting abuse.”

Following the meeting, Baroness Campbell told fellow peers that she now accepted that the bill could not be extended to cover abuse by paid care workers and personal assistants, and friends and neighbours who carry out unpaid caring duties.

But she told them she was “currently confident” that the government had “taken on board the deep concerns… at the exclusion of disabled people from the bill.

“I believe that they are committed to finding alternative means to address carer abuse, as the current protections are clearly inadequate.”

She added: “Carer abuse – as evidenced throughout the pandemic and during earlier debates and pre-legislative scrutiny – must not continue unchecked.

“Disabled people deserve to have equivalent protection – no less.”

She told DNS that the review was a “good concession” as there had been little hope of extending the legislation to cover carer abuse.

She added: “I pushed for the amendment largely to shine a light on this very hidden menace, which blights the lives of disabled people.”

She also praised the support and advice through the course of the bill from the user-led organisation Stay Safe East, which works with disabled survivors of domestic and sexual abuse, hate crime and other forms of abuse, and its former chief executive Ruth Bashall.

29 April 2021

 

 

Chronic illness community faces culture of disbelief and rigid jobs policies, says report

Millions of people with energy-limiting chronic illness (ELCI) are being failed by both employers and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), according to a new user-led report.

The study found that the flaws within the disability benefits system create a “a deep-seated social insecurity” for people with ELCI, largely because of a “culture of disbelief” which undermines and hampers their efforts to engage with society.

But it also found that “inflexible, performance-based and rigid” employment policies created barriers for those who were able to do some work.

The report – I Already Have A Job… – is based on focus group discussions with people with ELCI, and has been published by the disabled people’s organisation Chronic Illness Inclusion and Leeds University Business School.

The report concludes that work can harm the health of people with ELCI, and that their primary limitations are the amount of work they are able to carry out, and their fluctuating capability to carry out work from day to day.

This means that the most critical adjustments that could allow them to work are changes such as cutting working hours, being allowed to work from home, and ensuring flexibility over their working week.

The report is particularly critical of the work capability assessment, which it says fails to take any account of how many hours a benefit claimant might be able to work and how that might fluctuate.

This leads to “incorrect decisions, disentitlement to support and a distressing appeals process”, with the system causing a “deterioration in health and a pervasive sense of insecurity”.

The culture of disbelief which people with ELCI face has left them in “constant fear of suspicion, judgement and hostility from the public, as well as from benefit assessors and even medical professionals”, says the report.

It found that the benefits system “undermined and hampered” efforts to engage with society, by viewing such activity with suspicion or as evidence that they could work and so could have their benefits cut or removed.

One of the focus group participants, George*, said DWP’s attitude was “largely to disregard the fact that for some people work is genuinely impossible” which “enables them to construct the benefits system to literally design us out of it”.

He added: “Our lives don’t fit their questions, and the system is deliberately constructed that way.”

Those members of the focus groups who were able to work all relied on either a partner or a social care package for cooking and managing the household, and sometimes for personal care, to allow them to free up energy for employment.

Another of those who took part in the research, Charlotte*, said: “The more I’ve recovered and tried to interact with society, the more walls I run into that are there because government and society don’t understand chronic illness.

“So many of those walls seem to be there just because no one ever thought about us.”

George said: “To sum it up I’d need the following: flexible working hours, a flexible workload, telecommuting facilities and most crucially, an understanding and sympathetic employer.”

The focus groups told the researchers that the government’s belief that work was fundamentally good for health and promoted recovery “shows how little policy makers understand of the reality of ELCI”.

Charlotte added: “Work can catastrophically damage health and worsen quality of life which is not helpful and branding all work as ‘good for health’ is reducing the issue to absurdity.”

She said the assessment process, both for employment and support allowance and personal independence payment, appeared to be “luck based”, with success dependent “on what assessor you get and whether they’re competent or honest or know anything about your condition”.

She said: “That makes reassessment terrifying. I’m going through PIP assessment now and looking back, I think just getting the form caused a medium sized relapse that’s lasted a couple of months so far.”

Among the report’s recommendations is for employers to understand ELCI as a form of impairment for which they have a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments.

It also calls on the government to redesign the WCA in partnership with disabled people, reduce the “unnecessary frequency of reassessments”, increase funding for advice and advocacy services, and simplify the appeals process.

And it says that the impact of “Long COVID” on those who have become ill during the pandemic could create a sizeable new group of people with ELCI who have particular employment and social security needs.

The report was written by disabled activist and researcher Catherine Hale, founder and director of Chronic Illness Inclusion; disabled author and researcher Stef Benstead; and academics Dr Kate Hardy, from Leeds University Business School, and Dr Jo Ingold, from Deakin Business School in Australia.

Hale, who this week gave evidence to the Commons work and pensions committee about some of the issues raised in the report, said: “The government has created a ‘hostile environment’ for people living with chronically low energy who are often desperate to enjoy the sense of fulfilment and social inclusion that comes with paid work.

“We face a culture of disbelief from the moment we seek support from the state.

“Work capability assessments for benefits are based on a flawed and discredited model that says our inability to work is down to personal failings.

“As a result, [people with ELCI] live in constant fear of suspicion, judgement and hostility from the public, as well as from benefit assessors and even medical professionals.”

Hardy added: “Although the COVID-19 pandemic has been a catastrophe for millions of individuals and the country it has shown us that rapid change in working practices and in support for disabled people is possible.

“Employers and the government now need to respond to the needs of people with ELCI in that spirit.”

The report is the latest piece of research to come out of the five-year, £5 million DRILL research programme, which is funded by the National Lottery Community Fund, and has been delivered by Disability Rights UKDisability Action (in Northern Ireland), Inclusion Scotland and Disability Wales.

Further funding for the report came from Leeds University Business School and Leeds Social Science Institute.

*Not their real name

29 April 2021

 

 

Disabled people ‘treated as afterthought throughout pandemic’, says academic

Disabled people have often been treated as “an afterthought” throughout the coronavirus pandemic, according to a leading disabled academic.

Professor Tom Shakespeare told a webinar on Tuesday that disabled people had been disproportionately affected in multiple ways, including the disruption to day-to-day NHS services, the impact of lockdown measures, and the isolation and anxiety that lockdown has caused.

Shakespeare told the webinar that many routine NHS appointments, for example for speech and language therapy or for assistive technology, such as repairs to wheelchairs or prosthetics, had been cancelled or postponed during the pandemic.

He said: “That’s been difficult for many, many disabled people who rely on these sorts of helps, particularly young disabled people.

“Lots of check-ups missed, lots of preventable medical problems missed for everybody, but particularly for people with disabilities.”

Shakespeare, a director of the International Centre for Evidence in Disability at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, has been working with other academics on a study examining the impact of the pandemic on disabled people in England and Scotland.

The research is based on interviews with almost 70 disabled people with a range of impairments, as well as voluntary and statutory organisations.

He said researchers had spoken to a disabled man in Scotland who had been “marooned” on the top floor of his house for 14 weeks because his stairlift had broken and the maintenance company could not send anyone to fix it, because of the pandemic.

Shakespeare pointed to delays in supporting children with special education needs, and in providing personal protective equipment (PPE) to disabled people who receive support in their own homes.

He said it had often been voluntary organisations – particularly disabled people’s organisations – that had filled this gap.

In social care, many services and contracts had been cancelled or put on hold.

He said: “The suspension of social care makes people dependent on their family, and it excludes them from participation in society.

“Many people are worried that they may never get their services back.”

He added: “There have been many cuts… It’s been extremely hard to get social work, to get social support, and [for] many people their social care packages have been either cut down, reduced to telephone [support] or stopped completely.”

Researchers on the study have spoken to people with dementia who had been participating in mainstream activities at the start of the pandemic but had now “lost confidence” and were not sure they would be able to re-engage once it was over.

Other disabled people they spoke to described how they were missing the physical contact with others that they relied on before the pandemic because of social distancing.

Blind people spoke of no longer being able to shop because they had previously relied on being able to handle items in the supermarket, which was no longer acceptable.

Many disabled people in the last year, he said, had been “excluded from public life, excluded from participation in society, reduced to television and being on their own, a great deal of isolation”.

Shakespeare said their research had shown that third sector organisations – because they can “move fast” and “fill gaps” and “change the way they work” – had “made a big difference to people’s mental health and wellbeing” during the crisis, for example by delivering food or PPE, or providing social or emergency support.

He also said that disabled interviewees believed Nicola Sturgeon, the first minister of Scotland, had performed “much better” at delivering clear public health messages during the pandemic than Boris Johnson, the UK prime minister.

He said: “It is an emerging, developing science… but we need clarity in a public health crisis and there has been a lack of clarity.

“The changes to rules have not been clear, and particularly for people with intellectual disabilities, families have had to explain what this means, what they are now allowed to do, or how they should behave.”

Shakespeare said the “messaging” from the government at the start of the pandemic had almost suggested that COVID-related deaths were “justified” because “these people had pre-existing conditions”.

He said: “The messaging was that this didn’t really matter and this was… very scary for disabled people.”

Shakespeare said the pandemic had “exposed and magnified the inequalities that disabled people face”.

He said: “Both because you’re more vulnerable, and because you’re more likely to die, and because of the social arrangements, the afterthought, the existing problems of the social care system have been exposed by the pandemic.”

Meanwhile, the Commons Treasury committee has launched an inquiry into the “different forms of inequality that have emerged or that may have been exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic”, and what the Treasury can do to address them.

The areas of inequality the inquiry will focus on include disability, gender and race.

The deadline for submitting written evidence is 5pm on 28 June.

*For sources of information and support during the coronavirus crisis, visit the DNS advice and information page

29 April 2021

 

 

FA joins list of organisations discriminating in government COVID test programme

The Football Association (FA) has become the latest organisation to discriminate against disabled people taking part in a government programme of events that is testing how post-lockdown crowds can safely return to sports and cultural venues.

At least two of the events – the world snooker championships and a live music event organised by Festival Republic – have already banned anyone who is clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) to COVID-19, in breach of government guidance.

But disabled campaigners now say the FA also discriminated against disabled people in advance of last weekend’s Carabao Cup final at Wembley Stadium.

The FA made it clear in advance of the event that all fans had to wear face coverings, and that those who were exempt were required to provide evidence from a “GP or suitable medical practitioner”.

This is a clear breach of government guidance, which states that those exempt from having to wear a face covering “do not need to seek advice or request a letter from a medical professional about your reason for not wearing a face covering”.

The disabled-led campaigning charity Level Playing Field (LPF), which represents disabled sports fans, said it was “disappointed that, yet again, disabled fans and clinically extremely vulnerable fans are not having a fair and equal experience during these event research programmes, despite clear guidance which has been in place throughout this pandemic”.

LPF pointed out that securing evidence letters from GPs often costs money, while it also takes time to obtain, and this “puts at risk the ability to attend if a fan doesn’t receive the evidence in time”.

It added: “The additional strain that this measure puts on medical surgeries and practices is entirely unnecessary, inconsiderate and reckless.”

The FA has been unable to explain this week why it went ahead with such discriminatory actions.

But it said in a statement: “Nobody was prevented from attending the fixture and our priority at all times is to protect the health and safety of all attendees visiting Wembley Stadium.”

It claims that there was a medical professional at the stadium on Sunday to help fans who were not wearing a face covering “to find a solution so they were able to enter the stadium”.

But it has refused to state what those solutions might have been, or to say if the government gave it permission to breach the guidelines on face coverings.

In an earlier statement, the FA said: “For events being hosted by Wembley Stadium as part of the government’s Events Research Programme, our priority remains the health and safety of all attendees.

“With this in mind, we are asking all attendees to wear a face covering, or to provide evidence from a relevant medical practitioner that they are exempt from wearing one.

“We appreciate that this may be an additional challenge for those attending, but our priority remains keeping visitors to Wembley Stadium as safe as possible during medical test events amidst the global pandemic.

“We continue to invite fans to engage with us so we can ensure their experiences at Wembley Stadium are wholly positive and safe.”

The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), which is overseeing the Events Research Programme, had not responded to a request to comment by noon today (Thursday).

Meanwhile, the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), which organises the BRIT music awards, another part of the Events Research Programme, has made a change to its website to make it clear that CEV people are not banned from its event.

The “what should I do if I require an accessible ticket” section of the website had originally stated: “Please be reminded that anyone that is Clinically Extremely Vulnerable is unable to attend the Event.”

But after being asked about the statement by Disability News Service, BPI apologised for the error, which has now been corrected, and made it clear that CEV people were advised not to attend – which follows government guidance – but were not banned.

A BPI spokesperson said it would be left to those attending to decide if it was appropriate to do so, based on their health status and susceptibility to infection, and that of members of their family, social bubble or support bubble, and their attitude to the potential risks.

*For sources of information and support during the coronavirus crisis, visit the DNS advice and information page

29 April 2021

 

News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com

 

 Posted by at 20:26
Apr 222021
 

Mostly Reblogged from Cascaidr with thanks.

Does the Norfolk charging case help you?

The full advice from barristers employed by Cascaidr to advise is here https://www.cascaidr.org.uk/uploads/CounselsAdviceforCASCAIDrontheimplicationsoftheNorfolkDecisiononCareCharges.pdf

It is lengthy but see page 20 if your council is refusing to allow items classed as healthcare or travel as a DRE.

Summary of Counsel’s advice about the Norfolk Case

By publishing key points from the Advice received from Zoe Leventhal and Emma Foubister, counsel who acted for SH in the Norfolk case, CASCAIDr hopes to help many others who may be in a similar situation and experiencing discrimination that may be unlawful, regarding their care charges.

Other local councils must consider the ruling and examine whether their policies could be discriminatory to ensure they are fulfilling their Public Sector Equality Duty and that they are not breaching the Human Rights Act. While other councils’ policies are not automatically unlawful merely as a result of the decision in SH’s case, if the policies are considered to be discriminatory, they must take steps to correct this.

The judgment in the Norfolk case found that there was an unjustified difference in treatment between, on the one hand, the severely disabled (with needs which result in higher assessable benefits and no realistic access to earnings from employment or self-employment, which are disregarded) and, on the other hand, everyone else receiving council services covered by the Charging Policy. Their treatment was different because the Charging Policy meant that a higher proportion of SH’s income (and of other severely disabled people in the same position) was assessed as available to be charged than theirs, and the result was that she was charged disproportionately more than they are.

Belinda Schwehr, CASCAIDr’s CEO, welcomed the Advice. She said this: 

“I believe that this authoritative Advice will be useful for people in many different situations, if paying council charges for care, and for those who manage other people’s money in their best interests (through appointeeship, deputyship or power of attorney).

The Advice was commissioned so that it can be referred to when individuals are engaging with councils as to their own charges under local policies – in most cases, policies that are very similar to the one which was found to be unlawful in Norfolk

It will enable the wider public to take action from a well-informed perspective, whether as individuals or groups, and to ensure that local authorities remember that they are accountable to a legal framework, even when operating under discretion, and in difficult circumstances.

It will undoubtedly help bring about changes in many councils’ policies, whatever they think of the Norfolk case itself. It may dissuade some councils from enforcing a number of clients’ charging debts. It may even lead to some refunds – refunds to people whose situations mean that they need to keep every single penny of income that they possibly can.”

We would like to thank Leigh Day, solicitors who supported our work, and everyone who donated to our CrowdJustice page to fund the legal advice.

In summary, Counsel has now advised as follows:

“…policies which:

(a) reduce the MIG to the statutory minimum;

(b) choose not to disregard certain disability benefits;

(c) have poorly functioning DRE schemes; and

(d) do not consider alternative approaches,

are likely to be discriminating against severely disabled people.”

There may also be other categories of claimants who are in an even worse position than those in SH’s cohort.

All Councils have an ongoing duty to keep their charging policies under review because of the PSED, the Human Rights Act obligation not to act contrary to human rights, as well as their other legal obligations (e.g. under the Care Act) and general public law principles.

In that regard, the Norfolk case and its outcome is a relevant consideration, of which all councils must take note. It would not be appropriate simply to assert that it is believed to be “wrongly decided”. It identifies an approach which is discriminatory, and which would require to be justified, if a similar approach was not changed. It doesn’t make other policies automatically unlawful, however similar they are; but “if a council has a similar policy and has similarly failed to engage with the Guidance and/or consider the potentially discriminatory impact of the policy, then it is highly likely that it is also acting unlawfully in the same way as Norfolk was.”

Each council needs to make a decision about whether its policy needs to be changed, and if so, how to change it, and then come to a view about the consequences flowing from those changes. There’s no necessarily correct way to be sure of avoiding the discriminatory impact flowing from a policy with similar impact.

If councils’ policies are accepted to be discriminatory, or found by a Court to be so, then refunds based on recalculated charges should follow, because the charges will have been rendered under a policy that should then be regarded as void.

A local authority’s complete failure to respond to or engage with communications on this issue (whether from individuals, corporate appointees or interested groups) could be maladministrative, but it is not expected that councils will behave in that way. Any such referral to the Ombudsman “could be supported by evidence that there are vulnerable clients, such as those who are mentally impaired or need protection from abuse, who would be unable to investigate the matter themselves”. Counsel would expect that councils adopting good practice would proactively seek to address these issues and repay any charges found to have been unlawfully levied under a discriminatory policy, in line with the various legal obligations which require them to do so, and as Norfolk has done.

WHAT ALL THIS MEANS, in CASCAIDr’s view…

Not automatically discriminating – other councils are not bound by the case, in a direct sense, even if their policies are the same as Norfolk’s was. They are entitled to take advice about it and act in accordance with that advice, and they can then be challenged. The credibility or authority of such a view remains to be evaluated when it is disclosed in the course of correspondence about the policy. CASCAIDr called having a similar policy ‘presumptively unlawful’, when first writing to councils earlier on this year.

Putting councils on notice – we wrote to all councils on 22 January 2021 here: https://www.local.gov.uk/letter-centre-adults-social-care-advice-information-and-dispute-resolution and have heard back from about 100, so far, but mainly only to tell us they are ‘awaiting’ advice. From some, we have heard nothing at all. We have also researched most of the policies of councils in England, so we know which ones have policies that must be seen as in the danger zone.

Separate Advice taken for the council sector – we believe that the council sector has now received its own leading counsel’s separate Advice, and that councils are considering it regionally. THIS Advice, though, obtained by CASCAIDr, will no doubt also be considered – every council is in a different position and entitled to make its own mind up.

FOIs as the next step, after a reasonable period – we are happy to wait a while longer before following the suggestion made in this Advice: “Where this has not been effective, a next step may be to use the Freedom of Information Act to elicit further information about the steps taken since the decision in SH and/or whether an updated EIA has been undertaken since that decision (see further below).” When we move to that step, starting with the councils who have not responded to us at all, the FOIs will be made public.

Complaints and the LGSCO – if they think that the case was wrongly decided, councils might well make it clear that they will not be amending policy by virtue merely of individuals’ complaints, because complaints are not apt for matters of legality. That would not shut off the LGSCO (Ombudsman) route, because, in fact, it is not a prior complaint, that is the statutory pre-condition to the Ombudsman accepting jurisdiction, but the question whether the council has been afforded “a reasonable opportunity to investigate the matter, and respond“. Then again, the Ombudsman’s system is not able to make decisions as to what the law is, only ‘fault’ and ‘injustice’. However, the Ombudsman’s team IS experienced in upholding complaints as to when non-compliance with well-known decided case law itself amounts TO fault, and awarding compensation for that kind of injustice.

Implications for those in current debt from charges – individuals who do not pay their charges, or do not pay them in full, may ultimately force councils to test the validity of the charges in another way, if the council sues for recovery of the charges – because the debtor can raise the unlawfulness in the local civil court, as a defence. The County Court Judge is bound to follow the Norfolk case as binding legal precedent on the issues at stake. Any client without sufficient capacity to instruct a solicitor would need a willing litigation friend, to represent their interests, before they could even BE sued, and the Official Solicitor is unlikely to be willing to provide that service without the council undertaking to pay the person’s costs. So if your council’s policy appears to be ‘doing a Norfolk’, bear that in mind – but also that you won’t get legal aid if it comes to the crunch, in that sort of action.

Public law claims for refunds – where more than just change for the future is wanted, locally, individuals’ claims for reimbursement of sums representing unlawful charges, would need to be made in the Administrative Court, if councils refuse to accept that they are bound by the Norfolk decision and must make such refunds.

Limitation – the monetary claim can wait 6 years from the date of any instalment of the charge, such that if the charging policy may always have been unlawful for the whole of the last 6 years since the Care Act came into force in April 2015, and has not ever been revised, claims started sooner, rather than later, now, will serve to maximise the amount liable to be paid. That means that although there is time in most areas (where policies have only been in force for 2-3 years) to engage in correspondence on behalf of large groups of people, leaving it a long time before deciding when to draw a line under just corresponding, does not make sense.

Night time care needs’ disregards, and DREs as a concept – any council taking the view that the DRE element of its policy was or is the means by which it can mitigate against the discriminatory impact inherent in NOT applying a higher than minimum MIG, locally, faces a hard task in defending that stance. The judge did not think that a DRE disregard, as a concept in its own right, nor Norfolk’s own policy on DRE, nor the DRE disregard it awarded specifically to SH, were enough to justify the impact of the measure taken, although the judge was sympathetic to the financial difficulties in which councils operate. Not even a standard policy for disregarding a portion of PIP, as if for private funding of night time needs, where no services were being funded by Norfolk, was sufficient.

DRE policy – counsel’s Advice identifies some other challenges that could be made to DRE policy, regarding supposed lifestyle choices, activity entry fees, and arbitrary limits on transport. Councils are not entitled to refuse to consider DRE disregard requests, nor to re-consider those, however, simply because they believe that their charging policy is not discriminatory or that the Norfolk case is wrongly decided. DRE reviews are likely to be the way most councils allow for discretion in individual cases in order to avoid legal action.

SDP recipients – there is reason to expect that the charges being levied on people who are in receipt of Severe Disability Premium within their income-related benefits may be being even more severely discriminated against than those in the position of SH in the Norfolk case. That premium is paid to cover the assumed extra costs of just getting by, when severely disabled and living alone, or without informal help, yet councils do not routinely allow any part of that extra income to be kept, even though it is clearly disability related income.

Future challenges to charging policies – we think that these may be made in five ways, by individuals, or by more than one individual or groups (either unincorporated associations or groups with a legal personality):

  1. a) Through the Monitoring Officer route, as CASCAIDr used in January 2021, but describing the alleged likely contravention of the Equality Act, Care Act and Human Rights Act in terms relating specifically to the individual or group and to the contents of the local charging policy. That route is not the same as the ordinary complaint system, and is free to anyone who can set out the allegation in clear enough terms. The Monitoring Officer is usually the council’s Head of Law, and is under a statutory duty to consider the referral and come to a view on whether there is a likely contravention of an Act or rule of law. See Counsel’s advice for some further information about that duty.
  2. b) Through correspondence to the Financial Assessment department setting out the reason one thinks that the charging policy version under which one has been charged was unlawful in light of the Norfolk case, and suggesting that seeking legal advice would be prudent before replying, because the correspondent isn’t ‘appealing’ as such, or necessarily complaining, but raising the point that the financial assessment function hasn’t been carried out lawfully. One would always ask that discretion under regulation 15 be exercised, with written reasons why not, if not.

Some potential areas to focus on are

  • That might be because of the local approach to counting IN income in the first place
  • Or about how the Minimum Income Guarantee regulations and Guidance were interpreted by that council
  • Or because of a DRE policy that is able to be presented as discriminatory, fettered, unlawful or irrational
  • Or because of the way in which the DRE policy has been applied, in practice – oppressively or unfairly in all the circumstances.
  1. c) Through a formal letter before action to the legal department after all such prior correspondence has achieved no or no adequate reconsideration of the policy, or of one’s charges (or of one’s DRE if the DRE was the major bone of contention) – explaining one’s intention to bring Judicial Review proceedings in the Administrative Court. The council must reply, setting out its reasons for rejecting the alleged illegality – usually within 14 days. The letter before action must comply with the Pre Action Protocol for Judicial Review Proceedings to protect the proposed claimant against a costs order for putting the council to legal advisory effort. There is a fee to start such an application, although one can represent oneself and the application is able to be made without physically going to court or speaking. One can get legal aid to fund legal advice and representation but capacity in that sector is VERY limited at this point.
  2. d) Through letters to the press or to councillors, or scrutiny committees – the political route, effectively.
  3. e) Through waiting to be sued for an alleged debt in the local county court, and then raising the point as a defence.

 

 

 

 Posted by at 21:16
Apr 222021
 
 21/04/21
We are a coalition of mental health service users and allies who have grave concerns about the rapid, widespread rollout of the High Intensity Network’s ‘Serenity Integrated Mentoring’ (SIM) intervention across NHS England. The intervention is designed for people who have not committed a crime, but are in contact with mental health services, are frequently at high risk of suicide and self harm and are deemed “high intensity users” of emergency services.  Key intervention components include a co-ordinated withholding of potentially life saving treatment by multiple agencies (A&E, mental health, ambulance and police services) and, using SIM’s own words, the “coercive” approach of a police officer as an interventionist.
We call on NHS England to:
  • Halt the rollout and delivery of SIM with immediate effect, as well as interventions operating under a different name, which are associated with the High Intensity Network (HIN).
  • Conduct an independent review and evaluation of SIM in regards to its evidence base, safety, legality, ethics, governance and acceptability to service users.
  • Respond to this statement within 7 days to communicate the actions taken by NHS England. Communications should be directed to contact@stopsim.co.uk
Our concerns about SIM relate to its evidence, legality (including GDPR, Human Rights and Safeguarding), aims, governance and ethics. Interventions or service models operating using SIM principles may be known by alternative names, however, for brevity, this statement equally applies to those services, interventions and models.
This is a preliminary consensus statement. We have been researching SIM and the HIN for a number of weeks in preparation for the release of a detailed and referenced statement.  However, we are releasing this brief statement since becoming aware that, due to the hard and concerted effort of service users, survivors and allies over many weeks – and in some instances, years – that high level conversations have been prompted.  We felt it was critical to make our position public as soon as possible. A longer version of this statement, with citations, is shortly forthcoming.
We expect to be involved in any high level conversations concerning the High Intensity Network and SIM as a coalition of service users and allies.  We can be contacted by email at contact@stopsim.co.uk or via Twitter DM: @StopSIMMH. We will be publishing further updates on our Twitter account.
In solidarity with survivors, service users and allies who have worked tirelessly to shine a light on injustice,
The #StopSim Coalition
Copied to:
Sir Simon Stevens, CEO – NHS England Lord David Prior, Chair – NHS England, Claire Murdoch, National Mental Health Director – NHS England, Martin Hewitt, Chair – National Police Chiefs’ Council, Sir Tom Winsor, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Service.

 

 Posted by at 20:14
Apr 082021
 

We are collating information on bad experiences people have had employing PAs or live-in agency Care Workers to use for campaigning. Please tell us about a few of your worst experiences. email us at mail@dpac.uk.net with your details.

This doesn’t need to be very long. I thought I’d start with some examples I’ve experienced over the past 5 years however. The comments below are taken from formal complaints made to a Care Agency providing live-in social care when the usual staff were not avilable.

November 2020

A summary would be his brain just doesn’t seem to function and his behaviour/ the way he is so slow reminds me of the film Zombie Apocalypse. Overall he was abysmal and significantly worse than M who you sacked.

The main problem with J. is he can’t manage to do all of the job safely with both xxxx, myself and husband having confidence that xxxx would not be seriously injured by him making a mistake.

Although he was shown numerous times during an induction from me how to use xxxx’s Mermaid Ranger bath chair he just appears incapable of working out how to use it. It really isn’t difficult and we’ve never had this problem before with a carer but as a result xxxx has not felt safe enough to have a shower using his bath chair (which is the only available option) except when my husband and I have had to take turns to go to xxxx’s to supervise the use of the chair and make sure it was being used safely about once a week. So xxxx basically hasn’t been able to shower or wash his hair when he wanted or needed to. When I last went about 3 and a half weeks after J. came he still didn’t seem to have grasped how to use it and hadn’t when my husband had to be there from last Thursday.  

There are, as well as being shown by me and my husband, very detailed photographic and written instructions on how to use this in the carer’s room and he could have practiced over and over again without xxxx being on the bath chair but hasn’t bothered even though I suggested this to him as a sensible option when he first failed to grasp the basics. 

Further after almost 5 weeks he still is unable to roll xxxx safely on the bed and forgets what he needs to do so this can be done safely and without injuring xxxx. That is very worrying and most people have improved with time and practice. 

Sadly there seems to be some sort of major malfunction of his brain and a total lack of any initiative or common sense. Added to that even after 3 and a half weeks (now almost 5 weeks) he seemed to have failed to remember xxxx’s routines and simple things like putting deodorant on before putting a teeshirt on, mixing up which of 2 plugs to turn on to charge the wheelchair or hoist battery. All of this makes life much more difficult for xxxx as he has to constantly prompt and check even the simplest thing. He also was starting to try to hoist xxxx without putting the sling underneath first. (not particularly dangerous as xxxx wouldn’t have moved anywhere but indicative of the lack of brain functioning). 

Both times I have had to be there to support xxxx when J.  has come in from work with xxxx, unlike all other carers we’ve had, he hasn’t locked the flat door when entering or  taken off xxxx’s shoes, wallet, keys etc nor has he asked xxxx if he needs anything before going to bed. I have never had a carer just dumping xxxx in that way before and obviously I wasn’t impressed.  

Lack of cleanliness and care of property 

Twice he failed to screw the tops on properly resulting in Milk leaking a) all over the fridge and b) all over a bag with food in when xxxx was working outside the house. So there was a complete failure to check and do even simple things. 

When I went after 3 and a half weeks J. had removed the washing up bowl from the kitchen sink and was washing dishes just in the sink. Which in itself would be okay but the sink looked as if it hadn’t been cleaned for weeks and if it had he had been using glass and window cleaner to do it and not spray on bleach cleaner. The bottle very clearly said glass and window cleaner so why was he using that?? 

I had a message from my husband who was the last weekend saying “how can anyone spend so long washing a few dishes it seems to be all he does all day?” And I think that actually was all he did all day. 

In the bathrooms the hair and dirt had just been moved from the middle of the floors and pushed to the sides of the floor and left, although the bath tub looked clean the edges around the bath hadn’t been cleaned and were very hairy and dusty, the toilet rim under the seat was covered in hair and dust and the 2 washbasins were very greasy and really took some cleaning. xxxx has also said that there has been no hovering done in the last 5 weeks. He has spent most days at xxxx’s and not out at work so should have had plenty of time to clean these things if he’d bothered but all he seems to do apart from washing dishes very slowly is sit in his room making notes from what I think is the Book of Mormon.  ( NB. no religious bias here just a fact)

Also last (Monday) xxxx asked J. to clean the kitchen bench as it was covered with crumbs only to be told he only wipes it every other day. Surely the kitchen bench should be wiped when it needs to be wiped and not limited to every other day? 

His cooking skills were very limited too and he failed to respond when first asked when dirt he had left on the hob was burning and smoking badly. It was only when xxxx insisted that he removed the pan to discover why dirt left on the hob was burning that he reacted. 

Lack of any infection control 

I assume your carers are still supposed to wear a mask for the first week in a placement, clean door handles daily and use gloves to prevent cross infections yet J. has done none of these things. At this current time that is not the best behaviour. 

Inappropriate Behaviour

And finally I really don’t want to see your male carers half naked, yet something else that has never happened before, thankfully. But really if I knock on his door for attention because xxxx needs something if he only has a towel around his waist or a pair of trousers on I expect him to say “I’ll be with you in a minute” or open the door slightly not open the door fully half dressed. Again this illustrates I feel that his brain doesn’t work in a ‘normal’ way and I have to say I consider it totally inappropriate behaviour. 

xxxx did consider asking for J. to be replaced but as he had been described as a brilliant carer xxxx was concerned that any replacement might be even worse. Obviously we’re both disappointed and puzzled as to why you thought this man was a brilliant carer when in actual fact he should be considered a hazard to your clients and an embarrassment to Care Agency. It is worrying that you send him to a client who because of a xxxxxxxxxxx is now non-verbal and therefore less able to articulate any dissatisfaction.

Use of Language

Neither xxxx nor xxxx the xxxxxxx with Cerebral Palsy who had a catheter who J. worked with last year should be referred to, in my opinion, by your carers as “ people like that” it is offensive to say the least.

October 2017

I had arranged to go to watch a football match play in Birmingham and had booked tickets and assistance to board and leave the train for myself and R .N. who was the care assistant from x Care Agency. I have successfully done this with many care workers over the years and there has never been any problem before. I need a ramp on and off the train and book a companion seat for the carer. 

As is the case with anyone needing assistance to travel myself and R arrived early at the station to ensure there was no problem with the assistance being in place. We arrived on the platform at 12.05 pm and sat on the platform waiting for the Virgin train to arrive. The train which was due at 12.37 pm had been delayed and the largest delay displayed said the train would arrive at 12.50 pm but this time kept changing and the delay was reduced – as is often the case with delayed trains.

R.N.went to the toilet at about 12.30 pm (I am sure of the times as I was watching the arrivals board to see how long the train had been delayed, as I needed to arrange transport at the other end, and to ensure the delay would not cause me to miss the match) and was back in a couple of minutes as the men’s toilet is on the same platform as the train and only about 10 yards away from where we were sitting (It is the only toilet in the station). R. came back from the toilet and sat down for about 5 minutes again but then said that he had a bad back (as well as a bad knee and a hamstring problem) and needed to stand up to stretch it and walked to the right away from the toilets. R. knew the train was coming into platform 6 and that it was due – really at any minute. 

It is not possible to get from the direction he went off in and back to the toilet without passing where I was waiting for the train, and through my line of sight. As R. had also just been to the toilet it is very doubtful that he’d need to go again and people waiting for a train which is due at any time usually wait until they are on the train before going if they are in any way sensible. They do not just wander off completely out of sight of the platform when travelling as part of a group, or with someone to whom you are employed to ensure their safety and security. 

After R. had wandered off, I waited until about 5 minutes before the departure time and attempted to locate R. (within the immediate vicinity and could not do so). I considered calling his phone, but not only was his phone in his bag, which he was not carrying, but from the experience after this I would have only reached his voicemail anyway. Approximately two minutes before the train, the guard came to board me with the ramp. I boarded the train expecting R. to notice the train had arrived and also to get on board. He failed to do this of course. This was the only train due on platform 6 until the next, also delayed, train due approximately 1.15pm. Virgin trains are further quite distinct as not only are they red rather then green but their fronts are a different shape.  

Once on a train I am unable to get off without a ramp and having boarded I had no means of contacting the dispatcher who had gone elsewhere to work so was unable to do anything other than continue the journey without assistance. I was concerned, and also shocked that someone I pay to provide the support I need to live independently had failed so catastrophically. I was also amazed that someone selected by xxx to provide this service, was so utterly clueless as to how to best support someone, or even do something as basic, and normal as catch a train. 

After this, I sent a text to my mum, as I really had no other option – below is her input: 

I received a text from xxxx at 12.52 saying he had lost R. and was on the train alone. At that stage I tried several times to call R. but as usual with his phone there was no reply and it said not available. There should be a voice messages from me still on his phone unless he has deleted them. 

Some time after the train had left the station R.  phoned me to say he wasn’t on the train and that he’d seen it but didn’t get on as he thought it wasn’t the right train as it was earlier than he thought it should have been.  

When xxxx arrived in Birmingham the assistance he’d booked to get off the train failed to arrive which is one of the main reasons he needs support to travel by train.xxxx is unable to reach the alarm buttons and it is sheer luck that he was able to attract attention and be helped off the train –who knows where he could have ended up otherwise.

R.N. eventually called to say he was on a later train to Birmingham at which point I told him to contact Care Agency, return to xxxxxx and return xxxx’s flat key to me and pack to leave. R. then disappeared for several hours and turned up shortly after 6.30 pm. He did not apologise at any stage for what I consider to be gross negligence and took the view that missing the train he was supposed to be getting with xxxx was just a minor error.I dread to think what might have happened if anything similar to this ever happens to a person with dementia. 

Prior to this, and it pales almost into insignificance, even tough he was told 5 times by me not to totally move everything around in xxxx’s kitchen without speaking to xxxx first R. had gone ahead and moved everything around in xxxx’s kitchen which meant that xxxx no longer knew where things were and neither did I. He said he needed more space to cook a Thai curry which he did on Friday evening while xxxx and I were out. This left the whole flat stinking of boiled cabbage on our return. Moving things around like this was very annoying and showed a lack of respect for the client’s home. 

In addition to all of this R.  had told me the previous day that he had been suspended from working with Care Agency for seven months and that if he made any more mistakes then his DBS accreditation would be removed yet I understand this information was not available to the Care Co-ordinator.

August 2017

JR buys and drinks a bottle of wine every before hoisting xxxx into bed.

When JR first came to xxxx’s, when I was there to help with a handover, as soon as he could he went to the local Tesco and came back with 2 cans of Lager which he drank.(this was the afternoon) He did this every day I was there.  

I know that xxxx although not very happy with JR drinking a bottle of wine a night felt that he would just drink it secretly if he complained and due to an eye injury I have been unable to get to xxxx’s home for a couple of weeks which would have made a handover to someone else difficult. 

It seems that J.R. started off having a couple of Lagers mid afternoon then graduated to a glass of red wine every night which then became at some stage during those dates a full bottle of red wine every night. xxxx says he heard JR on the phone to a friend saying he’d started to drink again but had found a different type of wine which gave him less of a hangover. 

On the morning of August 1st when xxxx  woke up to go to work JR had to go out for a cigarette before starting to get him up and then went out twice more for cigarettes while xxxx was drinking his tea. xxxx says he built in an extra half hour to get up and go to work so there was time for JR to go and smoke.  

Although most things were okay when I arrived at xxxx’s I was surprised to find later on that there was food left in the fridge from when I was previously there 3 weeks ago. (Salami, Half Mozarella, Tomatoes and Mushrooms) as well as the remains of Pasta Bolognese from the previous week. I have no concerns that xxxx might have eaten any of these things but they should at some stage have been thrown out.

 

 

 Posted by at 21:09
Apr 032021
 

Many thanks to a long term activist whose name I won’t mention.

Don’t forget to take a bust card from your local event page. Also have the emergency details of a solicitor written on your arm.

If there isn’t one you can find a bust card on GreenBlack Cross website but this won’t have the numbers for local solicitors on it.

Some of these tips are for everyone others are more specific.

If arrested

In London Call Bindmans solicitor if you get arrested (in Manchester it’s Lizars solicitors) and then Green and Black London for station support

You don’t need to give the police your name or address until you are arrested or booked in at the station.

Make no other comment unless you need support, or a doctor – and don’t accept any charges unless told to by a solicitor. We often haven’t done what we were arrested for, even when we think we might have.

You and your clothes will be searched at the station so let them know if you have a preference for a particular gender of officer to do this.

If you were hurt

If you were hurt you can ask to see a doctor at the station. There may be a wait.

Interpreter

If you need a BSL or other interpreter, there can be a long wait. If you are lucky the police might ask you to attend on a different day. Otherwise wait until an interpreter is available.

Support

If you are taken to a station they might not let you outun til around midnight and they have been taking some protesters far from home. G&B may be able to meet you at station to support. Take more taxi money than you would expect to need, in case.

If you are a disabled person with mental health diagnosis, are learning disabled, or neurodivergent, or have communication support needs, you have a right to support IN your cell from a responsible adult because of your access needs. But you should mention this when booked in at the desk or they may not allow you to be supported. (Even if you are obviously distressed in your cell.) Best to have a friend or support worker ready to do this in case.

Medication.

Take enough medication to last until morning.

Take your next dose of meds if you are arrested -before you get to the station if you can.

All of your property will be taken at the station including your medicines. The medicines and creams are bagged for identification.

You won’t be allowed to take anything including your shoelaces or medicine to your cell, so tell them at the desk when it is due and ask to see the doctor.

Only the doctor will be allowed to give you your medicine back so you can take it. There can be a wait so the earlier they know the better.

If your friend is arrested

Find out where they are taken. If police won’t tell you ring the chosen lawyer on your bust card to find out their location.

Be there to help them at the station if they need it.

Be there when they come out if you can.

Stress

It is very stressful being arrested. Some of us find it harder than others being in a small space with nothing to do.

Some people try to keep their brain distracted by singing political songs. It’s easier if others are with you in nearby cells as you can sing together.

Mobile Phones and Protests

We recommend that you buy a disposable phone to take to any protest rather than taking your own. If you are arrested the police will go through your phone and record any information.

There are also  now what’s called IMSI catchers.

There’s one above the arch in Parliament on your way in the front. It reads everything on your phone. Everything –  Texts photos emails DMs location data etc.

Including signal and telegram encrypted chats. Cos they’re reading your phone not breaking in, it’s no problem.

They have mobile versions they use on protests now. Don’t bring your phone on a demo if you can help it.

Even if your phone is turned off   you will be monitored as the catcher acts like a mobile telephone tower. Your phone sends out a message every 2/3 seconds to nearest towers saying ‘hey if there’s anything for me this is where I am’ – even when it’s switched off.

The only option is to take battery out completely or to use one of the new lined metal phone pouches to keep your phone in. Not all of them keep your phone safe.

You can see the mobile catcher nowadays, they look literally like a big ray gun. If it’s within  a space of about size of Parliament Square it catches everything.

If you keep it in a metal pouch, or take out battery for all the time then you should be alright.

Taking time to get burner phone and put in other burner numbers the night before is best.

But – :

Don’t do it at your address or while you are near your regular phone as the phone will register straight away to the nearest masts and from there it’s very simple to locate and track back.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.computerweekly.com/news/252485535/Police-secrecy-over-IMSI-catcher-mass-surveillance-of-mobile-phones%3famp=1

 

 

 

 

Random tips

If you smoke you may want to put on a nicotine patch.

Take a new bag, wear clean clothes and only bring what you need as they’ll take and go through the lot.

And always take more snacks and water than you think you’ll need to a demo.

 

 Posted by at 21:20
Apr 012021
 

 

DWP staff admit inflicting ‘psychological harm’ on claimants during coalition years

Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) staff and managers deliberately inflicted psychological harm on benefit claimants, engaged in unofficial sanctioning targets, and pushed disabled people into work despite the risk to their health, shocking new testimony has revealed.

The evidence comes from new interviews with 10 civil servants who worked for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and its contractors under the coalition government between 2010 and 2015.

They spoke – on the condition of strict anonymity – to academics from Sheffield Hallam University, who have now shown how the introduction of a more punitive social security system, with harsher benefit sanctions and conditionality, inflicted years of “institutional violence” on claimants between 2010 and 2015.

The authors, Dr Jamie Redman and Professor Del Roy Fletcher, believe it is the first time that research has explained how DWP workers have been able to commit such harmful acts on benefit claimants in vulnerable and precarious situations.

The two academics built on the work of the Polish sociologist Zygmunt Bauman, who described how modern bureaucracies can produce psycho-social factors that enable ordinary people to carry out harmful practices.

They describe how a change in DWP policy through the new Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government elected in May 2010 pressured DWP staff to refer more claimants to have their benefits sanctioned.

The policy changes also saw the performance of jobcentre staff measured by “off-benefit flows” – the number of claimants who stopped receiving an out-of-work benefit – even if those people had not secured a job.

This helped lead to a huge increase in sanctioning rates between 2010 and 2013 – reaching more than one million sanctions in 2013 and rising about 345 per cent above their 2001-08 average level.

For their research, Redman and Fletcher interviewed a JobcentrePlus (JCP) manager; three JCP front-line staff members; one Work Programme front-line worker who had previously worked for JCP; one DWP decision-maker; and four Work Programme front-line staff.

They were told how “top-down” pressure on staff – through sanctioning tables and off-flow targets that were “legitimised” by the government – acted as a “moral anaesthetic” which “made invisible the needs and interests” of the claimants they were sanctioning.

This allowed workers to view their caseloads with what Bauman called “ethical indifference”.

One JCP worker described how staff would often treat claimants with “disrespect” and use psychological harm as a technique to reduce the number of people claiming benefits, “pushing them until they either just cleared off because they couldn’t take the pressure or they got sanctioned”.

An executive officer in another JobcentrePlus office also said that some staff tried to antagonise claimants in the hope that they would drop their claims.

While DWP denied at the time that there were any sanctioning targets, the former DWP staff interviewed for the research said there was increasing expectation “from above” to hand out sanctions, which led to the formation of “local target regimes”.

One JCP executive officer said staff would come into the canteen and say: “Well I’ve got my [sanctions] target for the week.”

Another worker described how non-English speaking claimants would be persuaded to sign “claimant commitments” that meant they had to provide evidence of their work search activities in English.

When they were unable to provide this evidence, because their English was not strong enough, they were sanctioned.

One manager tried to persuade staff to sanction more claimants by telling them: “It’s your money! It’s your taxes that they’re living off! You know, you should be sanctioning them!”

One of those interviewed said that this kind of “stigmatising” language became increasingly common in formal meetings.

But these tactics were not restricted to JCP offices.

Those who worked for outsourced Work Programme providers, who were under financial pressure to find job “outcomes” for claimants, described how managers pressured them to “push” disabled people into work.

One former Work Programme adviser told the research team: “[I had] a lovely guy who I really felt for who had mental health issues and the day after I had to reluctantly mandate him to something – he attempted suicide.

“I also had another lady who we pushed into work and it made her that ill she had a fit in her new job and was admitted to hospital.”

Another Work Programme adviser said that some colleagues seemed to thrive on their ability to inflict harm and “enjoyed the stick”.

In their paper, Violent Bureaucracy, published last week in Critical Social Policy, Redman and Fletcher describe how the government and media had created and promoted a “hostile” environment for claimants, with the help of frequent “scrounger rhetoric” designed to blame claimants for austerity.

This laid the groundwork for the introduction of a more punitive welfare-to-work system, with harsher sanctions and conditionality, and allowed the institutional violence of the DWP regime to thrive.

Their research, they write, “seeks to explain how ordinary people carrying out their daily duties in employment service offices were able to implement cruel and inhumane social security reforms”.

Redman told Disability News Service (DNS) that he believed the research could also help explain more recent, disturbing interactions between claimants and staff working for DWP and its contractors, including evidence that emerged in January at the inquest into the death of Philippa Day.

And he pointed to the huge number of claimants who have relied on DWP support during the COVID-19 crisis, mostly through universal credit.

He warned that historical evidence suggests that punitive reforms tend to thrive in the years after periods of economic crisis, as governments attempt to reduce the number of claimants and push them back into work.

After DNS asked DWP to respond to the article, a DWP spokesperson said: “This journal article does not reflect the compassionate support offered by our jobcentres day in, day out.

“Providing the best possible customer service and care is at the heart of what we do.

“We don’t want to sanction anyone and no one is sanctioned unless they fail to meet their agreed claimant commitment without good reason.”

1 April 2021

 

 

Government ‘treats disabled people with contempt’ by handing £2.4 million to charities

The government has been accused of showing “contempt” and “indifference” towards disabled people, after announcing large grants to 13 disability charities but failing to offer a penny to organisations run and controlled by disabled people.

The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) announced this week that it was awarding £2.4 million to charities such as Mencap, Leonard Cheshire, Scope, the National Autistic Society, RNIB and RNID.

The money will fund services that provide advice and support for people affected by the pandemic.

But none of the funding will go to disabled people’s organisations (DPOs), many of which have provided vital support to disabled people during the pandemic.

Joe Whittaker, a board member of The Alliance for Inclusive Education (ALLFIE), said the decision meant it was “business as usual” for the government, which was continuing to fund “the big business charities, rather than listening to the authentic voice of disabled people and their organisations”.

He said the government had yet again failed to engage with disabled people in recent months and continued to “treat disabled people with contempt” by funding “multi-million pound charities”.

He said these charities were managed by non-disabled people on six-figure salaries “telling disabled people what’s good for them”, which “perpetuates practices that lock disabled people into cultures of dependency”.

He added: “From day one of this pandemic, DPOs provided much-valued support and information to disabled people.

“Simultaneously, DPOs, during the pandemic, have gathered much-needed data about the way local and national governments have failed to provide essential services to large numbers of disabled people, resulting in large numbers of unnecessary deaths.

“DPOs are denied basic funding to continue their work.

“This failure to listen to DPOs, who have the experience and expertise gathered over many decades, will result in the same failed policies and systematic disability discrimination, preventing society from gaining from the huge contributions of disabled people from around the UK.”

Mark Harrison, a member of the Reclaiming Our Futures Alliance steering group, said: “Given that no DPOs who are members of ROFA have received a penny from the government during the pandemic, these grants just confirm their outdated attitudes to disability and disabled people.

“It also shows complete contempt for their duties under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and a human rights-based approach to disability.

“The charities ‘for’ disabled people receiving these grants are like dinosaurs and should be extinct and condemned to the dustbin of history where they belong.

“However, the government is trying to breathe life into institutions that are part of the causes of our oppression.

“They have learnt nothing from the #MeToo, LGBTQI and Black Lives Matter movements and the need to fund DPOs, not organisations or charities led and managed by non-disabled people.

“Our research shows that 25 per cent of DPOs have closed over the last five years and many are on the brink due to lack of financial support from local and national government, which makes these grants even more contemptible.”

Fazilet Hadi, head of policy for Disability Rights UK, said: “We always welcome funding that enables disabled people to live active, independent lives.

“However, it is very disappointing that DPOs were not invited to apply for funds and that the vital role they play is regularly overlooked.

“Most DPOs have provided extra support to disabled people during the crisis and would have benefited from additional resource.

“DPOs have so much value, but often so little resource.

“It is vital that the government’s national disability strategy takes action to strengthen DPOs and the voice of disabled people.”

Jumoke Abdullahi, communications and media officer at Inclusion London, said that DDPOs* “rarely have enough of anything” and are “always trying to make do with what is already not enough”.

She said: “Funding is the key that opens the door for greater capacity to do the important work that is needed by our communities and ourselves.

“To learn that the Department of Health and Social Care has announced new COVID grants to 13 disability charities, with none of the grants going to any of the already struggling and severely underfunded DDPOs is frustrating to say the least.

“However, this is indicative of the lack of care and attention that the government has paid to disabled people and our organisations for more than a decade.

“It does not come as a surprise that the organisations that rightly critique the constant and consistent failings made by this government are once again ignored.

“The government’s own minister for disabled people, Justin Tomlinson, failed to carry out meaningful engagement with disabled people’s organisations during the early months of the pandemic.

“Even though this is happening during a time when DDPOs need funding the most, we will press on.

“Rather than feel resigned, we will continue this necessary fight because we are used to disabled people being underestimated and counted out.”

Asked to comment on the concerns, a DHSC spokesperson said: “We are committed to support charities which have provided national support to people impacted by this global pandemic.

“This funding has helped to facilitate specialist national helplines, combat loneliness and provide practical support to improve the physical and mental wellbeing of thousands of disabled people nationally, impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The organisations funded are uniquely placed to provide targeted support at scale to disabled people across the country for needs arising as a direct result of the pandemic ensuring this grant funding will have maximum impact in terms of the numbers of disabled people supported nationally. “

*Deaf and disabled people’s organisations

1 April 2021

 

 

Legal threat to PM over lack of BSL interpreter in £2.6 million briefing room

The government is facing the threat of fresh legal action after it failed to provide a British Sign Language (BSL) interpreter at a televised pandemic briefing by the prime minister, despite spending £2.6 million on a new media room.

Deaf campaigners are now spearheading three separate legal cases against the government in connection with its continuing refusal to provide BSL interpreters at vital televised briefings.

Supporters of the #WhereIsTheInterpreter campaign have been trying for the last year to persuade the government that it must provide an interpreter at its pandemic briefings, and not rely on an in-screen interpreter on the BBC News channel.

This week, Boris Johnson held the first coronavirus briefing in his new Downing Street briefing room.

The government has already admitted that the platform for speakers had no built-in, step-free access for wheelchair-users, despite the £2.6 million cost.

But this week shocked Deaf viewers realised that Johnson had also not ensured the new facilities would allow an on-platform BSL interpreter.

Lynn Stewart-Taylor, founder of the #WhereIsTheInterpreter campaign, said she felt “emotionally zapped” when she watched the BBC One coverage of Monday’s briefing and realised there was no interpreter alongside the prime minister and two health experts.

Stewart-Taylor, a consultant, writer and researcher, told Disability News Service: “Despite the £2.6 million upgrade to a bigger and bespoke media studio, the UK government has, yet again, shown their lack of regard towards the Deaf community, and our pleas for equal access.

“If Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can all provide a BSL interpreter in the room of their coronavirus briefings, why can’t the UK government?”

She added: “We didn’t want to have to go to court, to be honest; we were hoping we could solve the issue between us, but this has shown that sign language citizens have been totally and unfairly forgotten and ignored.

“How many more people are there out there who are missing out on COVID information?

“Everyone should be equal and have access to their preferred language.”

She said that she and others were feeling “exhaustion and hopelessness” over the government’s failure to act but were now “even more determined to get justice in the courts”.

She and campaign supporters say the failure to provide an on-platform interpreter – and rely instead on an in-screen interpreter through the BBC News channel – is a breach of the Equality Act, the Human Rights Act and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Vicky Foxcroft, Labour’s shadow minister for disabled people, said yesterday (Wednesday) that she was concerned about both the lack of an on-platform interpreter and the failure to ensure the platform was designed to be step-free.

She said: “The government need to urgently rectify this failure.

“It is unacceptable that £2.6 million of public money has been spent on a new press room that actively excludes disabled people.

“Once again the Conservatives have shown that disabled people are an afterthought for this government.”

There are now three separate legal actions, all being taken through disability discrimination experts Fry Law.

About 300 Deaf people are taking cases through the county court over the government’s failure to provide any BSL interpreter for a series of televised briefings in the early days of the pandemic.

They are seeking damages from the government for breaching the Equality Act by failing to provide an interpreter for nine separate briefings by Boris Johnson between 3 and 19 March 2020.

These nine briefings took place before the BBC provided an interpreter for COVID-19 briefings on its BBC News channel, and they provided vital information to the public, including informing them that they should avoid pubs and restaurants, that schools were closing, and advising them how to protect themselves from the virus.

A second legal case, being taken by Deaf campaigner Katie Rowley, relates to the failure to provide a BSL interpreter at two televised briefings with health experts in Downing Street on 12 October and 21 September.

Now Rowley is spearheading another legal case, this time over the failure to provide an on-platform interpreter for the prime minister’s briefing on Monday, focusing on the government’s failure to meet its public sector equality duty.

This will argue that, by refusing to provide an on-platform interpreter, the government is continuing to exclude Deaf people from mainstream society.

Deaf campaigners and allies highlight the contrast with other countries, including the devolved Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland governments, and Norway, France, Japan, Italy and New Zealand, which have all been able to provide on-platform BSL interpreters for their COVID briefings.

A government spokesperson declined this week to explain how the prime minister justified spending £2.6 million on new inaccessible facilities that do not allow the presence of an on-platform BSL interpreter, or whether the government believed that it had breached its public sector equality duty by spending such a large amount of money on an inaccessible briefing room.

But he said in a statement: “We are committed to supporting disabled people through every stage of this pandemic and have established BSL interpretation at the No 10 press conference via the BBC News channel and iPlayer, available on all TV packages as part of Freeview.”

1 April 2021

 

 

Government faces legal action over ‘disrespectful’ strategy consultation

Four disabled people have launched a legal action against the government over its “disrespectful” and “unlawful” approach to seeking their views on the proposed national disability strategy.

The four claimants say that a controversial survey, carried out by the Disability Unit, did not give them and other disabled people the chance to say what they really felt about what should be in the strategy.

Instead, all but four of the questions in the survey were multiple choice.

Three of the other questions were limited to just 100 words, and the other one to 250 words.

The launch of the legal action came as the Disability Unit denied that the publication of the strategy had been postponed.

Ministers had previously stated that the strategy would be published this spring, but recent ministerial statements have promised only to publish it “this year”.

There has been continuing controversy over the strategy and the survey over the last three months, including why the survey included a question that asked non-disabled people if they would be “happy to have a physical relationship with a disabled person”, and concerns about it being rushed, inaccessible, over-long and poorly-planned.

On 1 February, 10 disabled people’s organisations wrote to Justin Tomlinson, the minister for disabled people, to ask him to postpone publication of the strategy until the summer.

A spokesperson for the Disability Unit said this week that the government “remains absolutely committed to delivering an ambitious National Strategy for Disabled People in the coming months”.

When asked whether this meant that it had been delayed, the spokesperson said he was not aware of any postponement and that he was working to a timescale of “within [the] next few months”.

But he has so far been unable to explain why ministers have stopped referring to the strategy being published in the spring.

The legal action is being taken on behalf of four disabled people by law firm Bindmans.

They argue that the survey is unlawful because it offers only limited information about the strategy and does not allow disabled people to provide a “proper and effective response”.

They want the consultation to be declared unlawful, and for there to be a new, lawful consultation before the government publishes its strategy.

The government has apparently told Bindmans that the survey is not a consultation – even though the Disability Unit’s own website lists the survey as an “Open Consultation” and the survey is hosted on the unit’s “Consultation Hub” – and that it is not obliged to consult disabled people about the strategy.

Disabled campaigner Doug Paulley, one of the four claimants, said: “The secretary of state’s approach to consulting disabled people, on a national strategy which aims to ‘transform’ the lives of disabled people, is immensely disrespectful.

“Disabled people are best placed to say what changes would improve their own lives.

“This survey has not given disabled people any meaningful opportunity to do so, and therefore any strategy developed from the survey will be imposed on disabled people without their voices being heard.”

A government spokesperson said he could not comment on ongoing legal proceedings.

1 April 2021

 

 

‘Vaccine passport’ scheme is ‘deeply troubling’, say disabled artists

Disability arts organisations fear that possible government plans to set up a “vaccine passport” scheme could undermine the rights of disabled artists, workers and audiences.

Members of the #WeShallNotBeRemoved campaign warned this week that any such scheme could infringe disabled people’s rights and threaten their “visibility” within the creative sector.

They believe it could create a “troubling and ableist precedent which potentially undermines existing protections in equality and employment law”.

Among their concerns is that the scheme – which could see admission to venues only for those who can prove they have been vaccinated or have tested negative for COVID-19 – could exclude disabled people who cannot have a vaccine because of a health condition.

They say it could also discriminate against those who do not have a mobile phone, if the passport is provided through an app.

Another fear is that the scheme could “coerce or penalise” disabled people who are homeless, undocumented migrants or cannot share health or personal information.

They also warned that a vaccine passport scheme could create “a false sense of security” among those attending events and make venues and workplaces more unsafe for those who are susceptible to the virus.

The #WeShallNotBeRemoved campaign has called on the government to ensure that any scheme that is introduced obeys seven key inclusive principles, including complying with the Equality Act and making reasonable adjustments to ensure disabled people do not face discrimination.

They also say that it should follow the social model of disability and be co-produced with disabled people.

The campaign was responding to a short call for evidence from the Cabinet Office, which is reviewing whether so-called “COVID-status certification” could “play a role in reopening our economy, reducing restrictions on social contact and improving safety”.

There were reports this week that the government is considering applying the scheme to workplaces as well as cultural, leisure and arts venues.

Last month, Penny Mordaunt, the paymaster general and former minister for disabled people, said the review would look at “the ethical, privacy, legal and operational aspects of certification and their implications for those who are unwilling or unable to be vaccinated, the equalities implications… and the impact of certification on groups who are disproportionately affected by the pandemic”.

#WeShallNotBeRemoved members include hundreds of the country’s leading disabled creative practitioners, disability arts organisations and allies, including Graeae, Shape Arts, Disability Arts Online, Nabil Shaban, Jamie Beddard and Kim Tserkezie.

They also include cultural consultant and broadcaster Andrew Miller, a co-founder of the campaign, who yesterday (Wednesday) ended his stint as the government’s disability champion for the arts and culture sector.

Miller said: “Disabled people are deeply troubled by the integration of health data into cultural participation.

“We feel alarmed by the introduction of additional barriers and any shift in policy away from the social towards the medical model of disability.

“I cannot see how any COVID-status certification system can avoid being discriminatory and ableist.”

Jenny Sealey, Graeae’s artistic director and another co-founder of the campaign, added: “It is vital that the government and our sector understand the ethics of ‘vaccine passports’ and their potential to infringe human rights.

“Deaf, disabled and neurodiverse people have fought hard for the last 40 years to be visible within the creative sector and that progress is now threatened.”

The #WeShallNotBeRemoved campaign was set up last spring as a reaction to the impact of the pandemic on disability arts.

The government has said that the review of the vaccine passport scheme will be finished before the implementation of step four of the four-stage lockdown easing plan, which will happen no earlier than 21 June.

But it is set to produce some initial findings of work on a potential scheme on 5 or 12 April.

The Cabinet Office declined to respond to the campaign’s concerns this week.

Meanwhile, the disability arts commissioning programme Unlimited has announced funding of more than £700,000 for 34 disabled artists.

Unlimited is funded by Arts Council England, Arts Council of Wales, Creative Scotland and the British Council, and delivered by the disabled-led arts organisation Shape Arts and the arts-producing organisation Artsadmin.

Among those commissioned are projects by musician John Kelly and artist-activist Dolly Sen, and Do I Look Okay To You?, a short, poetic moving image piece by Jameisha Prescod that explores the lives of black British people with long-term health conditions.

David Hevey, chief executive of Shape Arts, said the commissions would “push boundaries, challenge expectations and continue Unlimited’s legacy of innovative, exceptional work”.

1 April 2021

 

 

DWP decision to resume face-to-face assessments ‘is too soon and too dangerous’

Disabled campaigners have warned the government that it is too soon, and too dangerous, to resume face-to-face assessments for disability benefit claimants.

They spoke out after the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) announced this week that face-to-face work capability assessments (WCAs) and assessments for personal independence payment (PIP) will resume next month (May).

Face-to-face assessments for industrial injuries disablement benefit (IIDB) claimants in England will resume even earlier, on 12 April.

This will initially be for those who DWP has been unable to assess on paper, or by telephone or video assessments.

All face-to-face assessments have been suspended since 17 March 2020 because of the pandemic.

The move came as DWP announced that it was now rolling out the use of video assessments across England, Scotland and Wales, following trials that began last year.

DWP has published guidance on the resumption of face-to-face assessments for both claimants and assessment providers.

It makes it clear that even disabled people considered clinically extremely vulnerable to the virus will not be exempt from attending, if asked to do so.

It also says that the healthcare professional carrying out the assessment should stay two metres away from the claimant and not attempt any physical contact for WCAs and PIP assessments.

Some IIDB assessments may involve a physical examination, but in those cases the assessor will wear extra protective equipment.

The guidance says that the room should be cleaned after each assessment.

But disabled campaigners reacted with concern to the DWP announcement.

Paula Peters, a member of the national steering group of Disabled People Against Cuts, said the resumption of face-to-face assessments “will cause further fear and dread for disabled people”.

She said: “Over four million disabled people have been shielding for over a year during the course of the pandemic and many have not had their full course of coronavirus vaccinations.”

She said they will now be expected by DWP “to travel miles to attend the inhumane and degrading assessments for disability benefits, putting themselves at risk.

“We are still in the middle of a pandemic; yet the DWP demonstrates yet again with the resumption of face-to-face assessments it doesn’t care about the distress this will cause disabled people or the safety and risk implications.”

She said the greatest loss of life during the pandemic had been of disabled people, who account for nearly three-fifths of all deaths.

Fazilet Hadi, head of policy at Disability Rights UK (DR UK), also said it was too soon to resume mandatory face-to-face assessments.

She said: “We are still in the midst of a pandemic with the prime minister urging us to be cautious and with the government setting out gradual steps towards unlocking society.

“This is not the time to re-introduce mandatory face-to-face assessments.

“The DWP should at least again suspend its rule on removing benefit if someone cannot show ‘good cause’ for not attending a medical assessment.

“Phone and video assessments have worked well for many during lockdown, yet the DWP fails to build on this learning.

“People should be able to select their preferred assessment method, in line with the reasonable adjustment provisions of the Equality Act.”

She added: “We would ask that the forthcoming green paper on welfare reform recommends more disability inclusive practice across the benefits system.”

Vicky Foxcroft, Labour’s shadow minister for disabled people, who herself has shielded during the pandemic, said she also believed it was too soon to resume face-to-face assessments.

She said: “With the COVID-19 pandemic still ongoing, the government need to ensure no disabled person or people with health conditions are forced to attend an unsafe face-to-face assessment.

“The government must learn the lessons of the past year and ensure a variety of assessments methods are made permanent, to give disabled people more choice over how they engage with the department.”

Fran Springfield, co-chair of Chronic Illness Inclusion, a new disabled people’s organisation, said that restarting face-to-face assessments was “inherently unsafe”.

She said: “Whilst some disabled people will stop shielding shortly, many of us will still continue to take extra precautions and will be remaining at home.

“Travelling on public transport still does not feel safe as nobody is ensuring that masks are still worn and few people will be able to afford a cab to an assessment centre.

“Unless it’s a black cab there is no protection for us or the cabbie.”

She said there was “no obvious reason not to continue the present paper-based assessments”.

Springfield added: “Forcing disabled people, many of whom are clinically extremely vulnerable, to attend a face-to-face assessment is putting us at risk, not only of catching COVID but of being further traumatised by having to undergo these unnecessary interviews.”

1 April 2021

 

 

DWP admits number of disability employment advisers plunged during pandemic

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is facing questions over its commitment to disability equality after new figures revealed the number of disability employment advisers fell sharply during the pandemic, while the number of mainstream work coaches soared.

The figures were finally released – weeks late – by DWP in response to a freedom of information request by Disability News Service (DNS).

They show that at the start of 2021 there were just 447* disability employment advisers (DEAs) in post across DWP, compared with 661 on 1 February 2020.

But over the same period, the number of work coaches across DWP rose from 12,555* on 1 February 2020 to more than 19,000 at the start of this year, as part of ministers’ pledge to recruit 13,500 new work coaches to deal with the pandemic unemployment crisis.

This means that the number of DEAs fell by 32 per cent during the pandemic while the number of work coaches was rising by 51 per cent.

Last September, DWP declined to comment on claims by a whistleblower that it was about to move DEAs to new roles as work coaches.

The new figures do not prove that that happened, but they do show that DWP has appointed thousands of new work coaches across the country, while allowing the number of DEAs to fall sharply.

The whistleblower warned in September that DEAs were concerned that the changes would “drastically” reduce the availability of advice and support for disabled people on out-of-work benefits.

According to a parliamentary briefing published last year, DEAs are trained to “help disabled people to find suitable jobs, and work alongside work coaches to provide additional professional expertise”.

In March last year, the minister for disabled people, Justin Tomlinson, stressed the importance of the DEA role, suggesting to MPs that they would play a key part in achieving the government’s target of seeing one million more disabled people in work between 2017 and 2027.

Work and pensions secretary Therese Coffey then announced last July that the number of mainstream work coaches would be doubled to 27,000 by March this year.

DWP told DNS yesterday (Wednesday) that any suggestion that the department had behaved in a discriminatory way was completely misleading.

The department said that both DEAs and work coaches support disabled jobseekers and those with complex health conditions, and so the figures provided in the freedom of information response should be taken as a combined total of the support the department provides.

A DWP spokesperson said: “Our priority is to support all jobseekers into employment.

“Throughout the pandemic both disability employment advisers and work coaches, alongside work and health services colleagues, have supported jobseekers with complex health conditions and disabilities to move towards, or into, sustainable employment or to remain in work.”

*The number of full-time equivalent posts

1 April 2021

 

 

DPOs call on minister to scrap ‘unfair’ SEN coronavirus measures

Three disabled people’s organisations have asked the education secretary why he is refusing to scrap controversial measures that handed him the power to restrict disabled children’s right to education.

Ministers insist that the powers, which were introduced a year ago through the government’s Coronavirus Act, are still needed as an “important contingency”.

The act was reviewed by MPs last Thursday, but the government refused to scrap the education powers, even though it agreed to remove similar measures affecting disabled people’s rights to care and support under the Care Act.

The measures give education secretary Gavin Williamson the power to amend parts of the Children and Families Act (CFA) 2014 so that a local council only has to use “reasonable endeavours” to provide the education, health and care (EHC) needs named in a disabled pupil’s EHC plan.

They also give the education secretary the power to amend the act so that a school would no longer have a duty to admit a disabled child if that school is named in the child’s EHC plan.

Some local authorities and schools took advantage of the CFA “easements” last year when Williamson introduced them, but there are concerns that some local authorities and schools are still acting as though they are in place, even though they have not been switched on since last July.

Labour’s shadow health secretary, Jonathan Ashworth, told MPs last week that Labour remained concerned that the CFA measures were still in the act.

And Caroline Nokes, the Conservative chair of the Commons women and equalities committee, urged the government “to reconsider and to remove these unneeded easements”.

Labour’s shadow women and equalities secretary Marsha de Cordova secured a response from education minister Vicky Ford this week to a written question about the CFA measures.

Ford told her that ministers do not “consider it appropriate at this stage to remove the power to issue notices relating to the law on EHC plans”.

She said: “Use of the power was and remains an important contingency to use swiftly in the event of local authorities, health bodies and education settings again needing flexibility to prioritise their resources in response to the changing demands of the outbreak.”

The Alliance for Inclusive Education, Disability Rights UK (DR UK), Inclusion London and the human rights organisation Liberty have now written to Williamson to ask him to remove the CFA measures from the Coronavirus Act.

The letter tells Williamson that his government “must leave no child behind in its pandemic response – and that includes disabled children and young people” and that he needs to repeal the CFA measures “in the interests of clarity, fairness, and equity”.

In the letter, they also warn him that neither local authorities nor schools “are consistently complying with their duties to arrange provision for disabled children within either school or home settings”, even though the CFA measures are not currently switched on.

Fazilet Hadi, DR UK’s head of policy, said this week: “There is no consistency in scrapping the Care Act easements and keeping the CFA easements.

“It is just plain wrong that we are putting back the human rights of disabled adults but not those of disabled children.”

1 April 2021

 

News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com

 

 Posted by at 18:45
Mar 312021
 
PRESS STATEMENT
Disabled People Against the Cuts (DPAC) and Black Activists Rising Against Cuts (BARAC) UK
For immediate release
From today  (31st March), disabled workers most at risk of catching and suffering long term impacts from Covid will have no legal protections against going into the workplace and putting their lives on the line as shielding comes to an end for those who are clinically extremely vulnerable.
The majority of those shielding have not had the second vaccine and therefore they are still extremely vulnerable.
We believe it is irresponsible and discriminatory to intersectional disabled people to end shielding at this time and that those most at risk need protections in place. Recent research demonstrates that those with existing conditions such as asthma and diabetes are more likely to get long covid and that long covid is leading to increasing numbers of people becoming disabled as a result. Middle aged women are the  hardest hit by long covid. In addition black and minority ethnic people are disproportionately contracting covid. Six out of ten people dying from  covid have been disable, according to ONS data.
The coronavirus pandemic has exacerbated existing discrimination and inequalities which have been amplified through over a decade of austerity. It is unacceptable  for government to leave those most at risk unprotected and at risk of losing jobs. When disabled and black and minority  ethnic people lose their jobs, it takes longer for them to find a new job because of existing discrimination in the labour market.
A spokesperson from DPAC said:
“The government has always prioritised profit above disabled people’s lives. They have calculated they can get away with this. Their scientific advisors have said there will be a third wave and at least another thirty thousand deaths. How many of those will be disabled workers? It is chilling to think what the motivations behind this could be.”
Zita Holbourne, National Chair of BARAC UK said:
“Black, Asian and minority ethnic people are  up to three times more likely to contract and die of coronavirus and are more likely to work in precarious work with worsened terms, conditions and extremely low pay. Many work in frontline jobs. Lifting protection for those who are shielding is likely to lead to more black workers placed at risk or losing their jobs if it is unsafe for them to travel to workplaces and worse still, more deaths. Long covid is devastating lives and there needs to be urgent action by government to protect the jobs of all those who have long covid to ensure their jobs are protected and that  there is no detriment to pay, pensions and benefits. The intersect between disability plus race, gender, sexual orientation and age cannot be ignored.”
Ends
Contact:
BARAC UK
Zita Holbourne
Tel.07711861660
DPAC
Paula Peters
07909594434
 Posted by at 19:30
Mar 312021
 

DPAC statement on attack on disabled protester in Bristol

Footage has emerged of the police in Bristol violently attacking an autistic man during a protest in Bristol against the new policing Bill.

Disabled People Against Cuts are disgusted at the actions of the police who repeatedly and brutally strike the man with a riot shield after he has clearly told officers that he is autistic – the footage shows he has done nothing at all to warrant such aggression.

(See the video here – warning contains graphic footage of violence: https://youtu.be/UQdHB39nEt E – )

This was not a use of reasonable or proportionate force – but a vicious and deliberate act of violence against a disabled person willing to stand up for our right to protest.

That such an incident took place during autism awareness week speaks volumes to the lack of awareness of neurodiversity and the contempt the police have shown for disabled people.

By abusing the power they already hold the police are showing just why they should not be granted any new powers.

This is not an isolated incident but part of a history of violence against disabled people on the part of the police. That history includes the killing of black men with mental health support needs Sean Rigg and Kevin Clarke, the fracturing of a wheelchair users shoulder outside DWP headquarters on our protest against ATOS in 2012, the denial of access to medication to disabled protesters held in police custody and many more examples.

We condemn the actions of the police in Bristol and call for an enquiry into the attack on the man shown in the footage, violence against other protesters and the decisions taken by the police that led to confrontation.

Disabled People Against Cuts are in full solidarity with the protesters in Bristol and in other towns and cities who are standing up for our right to protest – a right which has been vital for us to exercise in the face of unprecedented attacks on disabled people’s living standards by successive governments.

 

 Posted by at 18:36
Mar 262021
 
“Disability Activism in Europe: Young Disabled Activist’s Views and Experiences”  exploring understandings of disability activism, politics, and the resistance practices of young disabled activists across Europe.
Currently, there is an open, online survey exploring young disabled people’s opportunities and challenges to participating in disability activism across Europe, as well as understand the importance of disabled people’s social movements.
To take part in the survey, respondents will:
– need to be within the age range of 18 to 35;
– identify as a disabled person;
– currently live in a European country (EU or beyond);
– have experience or an interest in disability activism.
The survey is available in English, English Easy Read, French, German, and Spanish.
 Posted by at 20:44
Mar 262021
 

 

Government’s ‘shocking’ list of pandemic rights shame

The minister for disabled people has refused to apologise for as many as 24 breaches of disabled people’s rights – and probably even more – by the government in the 12 months since the first COVID-19 lockdown.

Disabled people’s organisations (DPOs) and activists this week described the list as “shocking” and said that each example represented a “profound injustice done to disabled people by the UK government”.

It provides fresh fuel for calls for an independent inquiry into the disproportionate number of deaths of disabled people during the pandemic.

The list includes the government’s decision – early in the pandemic – to discharge hospital patients into care homes without testing them for COVID-19, causing the loss of thousands of lives of disabled and older people.

This was later mirrored by the decision of the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) to draw up a strategy that allows patients infected with COVID to be discharged from hospitals into residential homes, as part of a so-called “safe discharge” scheme regulated by the Care Quality Commission.

The list also includes the decision to place those disabled people seen as clinically extremely vulnerable to the virus as low as sixth on the initial list of priority groups to be vaccinated.

There have also been several examples of government delays in releasing life-saving guidance, such as taking five months to produce advice to protect disabled people in supported living services.

Another breach of rights was the repeated refusal to extend the £20-a-week benefit increase handed to those on universal credit to disabled people on employment and support allowance (ESA) and other “legacy” benefits.

Another saw the minister for disabled people, Justin Tomlinson, fail to carry out meaningful engagement with DPOs during the early months of the pandemic, while his Disability Unit failed to provide updates on its website for months at the height of the pandemic, while thousands of disabled people were dying from COVID-19.

There is also growing evidence – some of it revealed at this month’s TUC Disabled Workers’ Conference – of government departments refusing to allow many disabled staff to work from home during the crisis, forcing them to attend potentially infectious workplaces, and refusing other reasonable adjustments.

Another major breach of disabled people’s rights came with the government’s repeated failure to provide vital COVID-related information to Deaf and disabled people in an accessible format, including the refusal to provide an on-stage British Sign Language interpreter at televised ministerial briefings.

The list* – compiled by Disability News Service (DNS), and building on an earlier version published last July – is likely to underestimate the true scale of breaches of disabled people’s rights during the pandemic, and only attempts to list those directly attributable to the UK government.

Ellen Clifford, a member of the national steering group of Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC), said that each breach “represents a profound injustice done to disabled people by the UK government”.

She said: “Despite the hardships and tragedies of austerity and welfare reform, at no point in my lifetime has it been so clear as it has become through this pandemic, how dispensable disabled people’s lives are held to be and how quickly and easily our rights can be cast aside when it becomes politically expedient to those in power.”

Clifford said disabled people needed to add their voices to calls for the prime minister to honour his promise to hold a public inquiry into the government’s handling of the pandemic, “and to be clear and loud in our expectation that this include a thorough investigation into breaches of disabled people’s rights and discrimination”.

Professor Peter Beresford, co-chair of the disabled people’s and service-user network Shaping Our Lives, said the list was “shocking in its own right”.

He said: “But what is no less shocking is that it is part of a much bigger generalised failure on the prime minister’s part which seems to have no come-back.

“This is catastrophe in plain sight and yet there are no signs of Johnson being held to account.”

He said that those “undoubtedly suffering the worst in this failure are again disabled people.

“There is something rotten in the state of our politics, victimising some of the most powerless of our people.”

Fazilet Hadi, head of policy for Disability Rights UK, said: “This list is not even exhaustive when it comes to the ways in which the government has failed disabled people during the pandemic.

“As our bodies have piled up, so too have the mistakes which have led, not just to a diminishing in the quality of our lives, but to the loss of our lives.

“The vast majority of deaths during this pandemic have been disabled people’s. This virus has also increased our numbers as a demographic.

“All of these points, and more, must be addressed in an Inquiry.

“Lessons must be learned, and moreover, action must be taken, to ensure that we never again have to face such stark, manufactured, inequality – inequality which has led to the greatest loss of disabled people’s lives since World War Two.”

Jumoke Abdullahi, communications and media officer at Inclusion London, said: “It has been a year since the first UK lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic and disabled people are still being disproportionately impacted.

“Considering that nearly 60 per cent of all COVID related deaths were disabled people, we should expect and are demanding more.

“However, there continue to be significant breaches of disabled people’s rights by the government.”

She added: “We demand that the government engage meaningfully with Deaf and disabled people’s organisations; it is needed now more than ever.”

Mark Harrison, a member of the Reclaiming Our Futures Alliance steering group, said: “The most disturbing thing about the government response to COVID-19 and disabled people is that every measure taken has disproportionately impacted on us in a negative way.

“The litany of policy and service failures illustrates that, for this government, disabled people are expendable.”

Mark Williams, founder of the grassroots disabled people’s organisation Bristol Reclaiming Independent Living (BRIL), said the government’s failure to produce accessible and timely information and guidance had put disabled people at risk of harm, and that “all the way through the pandemic disabled people have been an afterthought for the government”.

A BRIL spokesperson added: “The inequality and human rights breaches disabled people already face have only increased under the government’s response to COVID.”

He said that 10 years of cuts and privatisation had left the mental health, social care, education and voluntary sectors “dangerously unprepared”.

He said: “Disabled people of all ages have told us about being ignored, forgotten and unvalued by the current government.

“One BRIL member said: ‘We will not forget. We cannot let this happen again.’”

Dorothy Gould, from the new user-led, rights-based organisation Liberation**, said: “During this last year, it has seemed clearer than ever that disabled people are thought of as second-class citizens.

“The government has not kept disabled people safe during the COVID pandemic – I’ve been shocked and hugely distressed by the high numbers of deaths among disabled people, still more so because government actions have actually contributed to these.”

She said the government’s “continued focus on maintaining large numbers of institutions” had “fed into this tragedy”, while the government had “failed yet again to involve user-led organisations in its planning”.

Claire Glasman, from WinVisible, which supports and campaigns for disabled women, said: “The biggest crime of the UK government has been the breach of the right to life of older and disabled people, mostly women, mainly in care homes where at least 30,000 residents have died attributed to COVID.

“After a year of campaigning, disabled people have just won the restoration of Care Act rights (see separate story), but services should have been prioritised.

“Instead, the living conditions of thousands of disabled and older people supposed to be getting care, plummeted.”

The government’s Disability Unit refused this week to say how Tomlinson explained so many breaches of disabled people’s rights over the last year, or what action he planned to take to ensure such breaches did not happen again if there was another pandemic.

And it refused to apologise for the way the government had treated disabled people during the pandemic.

But a spokesperson for the Disability Unit said in a statement: “Throughout the pandemic the government has prioritised support for vulnerable people across the UK.

“We have ensured that disabled people have access to disability benefits, financial support, food, medicines, as well as the latest public health information and guidance.

“As we look to build back better, we will ensure that the day to day needs of every person will be at the heart of our policy making.

“That’s why our forthcoming National Strategy for Disabled People takes on an even greater significance as it will ensure disabled people have consistent access to the support that they need.”

*Here is the full list compiled by DNS:

1 Ministers failed to offer recipients of so-called legacy benefits such as ESA the same £20-a-week benefit increase given to those on universal credit.

2 The Department of Health and Social Care took five months to produce guidance that aims to protect disabled people in supported living services during the pandemic.

3 Justin Tomlinson, the minister for disabled people, failed to carry out meaningful engagement with disabled people’s organisations during the early months of the pandemic.

4 DHSC drew up a strategy that allowed patients infected with COVID to be discharged from hospitals into residential homes, as part of a so-called “safe discharge” scheme regulated by the Care Quality Commission.

5 DHSC released new guidance for those seen as clinically extremely vulnerable to the virus, less than 24 hours before the England-wide lockdown that began in November.

6 Disabled people seen as extremely vulnerable to coronavirus were initially only placed sixth in the priority list for a COVID-19 vaccine when it was first published in November.

7 After the priority list was altered, following pressure from disabled campaigners, there were further concerns that hundreds of thousands of disabled people with underlying health conditions were still not being treated as a priority for the vaccine.

8 The government failed to provide shielding information in an accessible format to visually-impaired people, as well as failing to provide other information and guidance in an accessible format, including for BSL-users.

9 Government departments, including the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), refused to allow many disabled staff to work from home, forcing them to go into work, and also refused other reasonable adjustments.

10 The emergency Coronavirus Act restricted rights to care and education and the rights of people in mental distress.

11 The first official statistics showing how many disabled people were dying with coronavirus were not published until late June, even though disabled people were being disproportionately affected by the pandemic.

12 Many disabled people who receive direct payments to pay for their personal assistants were unable to access personal protective equipment in the early months of the pandemic.

13 The government only published guidance to help people on direct payments more than five weeks after it had published guidance for the wider social care sector.

14 NHS England guidance on banning visitors to patients discriminated against disabled people with high support needs, while NHS England then failed to consult disabled people on a new version of the guidance.

15 The government’s test and trace programme was not accessible to many disabled people.

16 Direct payments users were given only two days to digest new government guidance if they wanted to take advantage of the government’s COVID-19 job scheme for their personal assistants.

17 Shielding MPs were not able to take part remotely in House of Commons debates.

18 Delays in testing social care staff led to thousands of disabled and older residents of care homes becoming infected with COVID-19 and losing their lives.

19 Hospital patients were discharged into care homes without being tested for COVID-19, causing the loss of thousands of lives.

20 The government’s Disability Unit stayed silent on its web page from 2 April to 20 July, while thousands of disabled people were dying from COVID-19.

21 DWP re-introduced benefit sanctions in early July, while millions of disabled people were shielding from the virus.

22 Social care workers were omitted from a list of workers exempt from having to self-isolate for two weeks after entering the country, ignoring the support needs of disabled people.

23 Health and social care secretary Matt Hancock refused to provide guidance that would ensure disabled people had the same rights as non-disabled people to life-sustaining treatment if they contracted COVID-19.

24 The government introduced lockdown guidance (PDF) that discriminated against many disabled people who needed to exercise more than once-a-day.

**Liberation can be contacted via email at: Liberationrights@gmail.com

25 March 2021

 

 

Disabled student’s ‘five years of sheer hell’ at university

A disabled law student has spoken of the “sheer hell” he has been put through by the repeated and prolonged discriminatory actions of his university over the last five years.

So far, an ombudsman has upheld nine separate complaints made by Gary Copland against the University of Glasgow, with another 11 decisions pending.

Most of the complaints made by Copland, who is visually-impaired and autistic, concern a failure by the university to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act, and they now involve failings by nearly 100 members of staff.

They include a failure to ensure that books and articles he needed to read for his course were put in digital format – he says he was provided with just one of 600 legal texts he needed to read in his first year in an accessible digitised format, and in the second year just four out of 500.

Other upheld complaints concerned a failure to provide him with appropriate IT support, a failure to deal with his complaints in a reasonable way, and a failure to make reasonable adjustments for his exams.

One upheld complaint related to the university ushering Copland’s support worker from the room just as an exam was about to start, which left him humiliated, confused, and angry.

The university then refused to interview the support worker when Copland lodged a complaint.

During his five-and-half years at the university, he has had to respond to about 20,000 emails about his attempts to secure the reasonable adjustments he needed, and complaints of discrimination, while still having to manage his law studies.

He has often been forced to spend eight hours a day just reading and responding to the university’s emails.

And despite the ordeal, he still cannot graduate because of ongoing appeals over his results.

He has only been able to survive with the support of his uncle, Professor Simon Harding, a lecturer in criminology, who has spent 20 hours-a-week on his nephew’s case for the last five years.

Copland won a place at the prestigious university because of the A grades he secured at Motherwell College – now part of New College Lanarkshire – which had provided him with “fantastic” support that allowed him to show his full potential.

But from the beginning of his law course at Glasgow, the support he had been promised did not materialise.

He told Disability News Service: “It has just been awful, really, really awful.

“It has been a very, very difficult, stressful experience. It has been completely unbearable.

“I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. It has been a completely horrendous experience from start to finish.”

Copland said the university had appeared to be “more interested in being defensive and covering their backs and not actually solving the problems.

“It has taken an enormous toll on everyone who is involved. Even for the university it has been quite challenging.”

He said the university treated disabled students “dreadfully”.

He said: “My uncle is aware of other students who have had problems with disability support at Glasgow University. It’s not just me.”

He said the university needed to “take the issue seriously” and admit: “Yes, we accept we have got it wrong and we want to try and fix it.”

He said: “We accept that sometimes they will get things wrong, but they should be able to listen to criticism and put things right.

“I don’t think they are that familiar with the Equality Act because we keep telling them, ‘You need to do this and that and if you don’t you’re in breach of the Equality Act,’ but they don’t seem to really care.

“They are more interested in protecting their own reputation.

“I think they need to completely review how they manage disabled students and how they provide all their reasonable adjustments.

“It’s an ancient university, they are stuck in the past, not wanting to catch up with modern times.”

Copland was not able to graduate alongside his class-mates last year because the university had failed to provide him with a laptop and the necessary software for 33 weeks of his final year.

On one occasion, he attended a jobs fair for law students, and asked the university to put eight leaflets he had collected from potential employers into digital format, so he could apply for jobs.

Staff refused to digitise the leaflets and then failed to return them to Copland.

This resulted in one of the many complaints that has been upheld by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.

Copland began his law degree in September 2015 but since then his efforts to secure the reasonable adjustments he needs to complete his degree have taken over his life.

Harding said: “I cannot understand or fathom their behaviour, other than to think it is absolutely personalised and malicious from start to finish and that it is under-pinned by a cavalier culture towards disabled people. They are just thought to be trouble-makers.

“I think the university has a culture of denial. They have just had published a review of provision of support for disabled students.

“It shows there are multiple areas to fix and many, many issues that have been raised by the students who responded.

“There is enormous cultural failure here, systemic failure that comes from the top all the way down.

“They pay lip-service to many of these issues around disability and reasonable adjustments.”

He added: “Staff behaviours go unaddressed and unchallenged even when it amounts to bullying and harassment and victimisation.

“They seem to be complete strangers to the Equality Act.”

Over the last year, Copland has lost nearly five stone in weight because of the ongoing struggle with the university, and is experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder, as are his mother and uncle, as well as anxiety and panic attacks.

Harding said: “My sister will drive miles out of her way when driving across Glasgow, because she feels physically sick when she passes the university.

“She will run from the room when somebody mentions the university.

“That’s the impact it has had on her. It has impacted the entire family.

“It is the worst experience of our adult lives. It is absolutely devastating.”

A University of Glasgow spokesperson refused to say what so many upheld complaints demonstrated about the university’s treatment of disabled students and its understanding of the Equality Act; and whether it was embarrassed at such prolonged and repeated discrimination.

But the spokesperson said in a statement: “The University of Glasgow is committed to promoting and implementing equality of opportunity in the learning, teaching, research and working environment.

“Our students are able to draw on the expertise of our disability advisers and IT professionals, along with a team of dedicated support workers.

“We are able to and do make bespoke adjustments to both teaching and assessments with the needs of our students in mind.

“The University’s Disability Service and its distributed network of disability co-ordinators, who are operational in each of our academic areas, provide a dedicated service for students with disabilities and/or impairments, assessing and putting in place appropriate provision to assist with their learning.

“We do all we can to support our students to be effective learners and continually seek to improve.

“Since Gary successfully completed his degree programme last year, we have undertaken two reviews of our disability provision for students with disabilities – one by external advisers and one led by a vice-principal. We are implementing the findings of both.”

The university has this week refused to offer an apology to Gary Copland.

As a result of the discrimination he experienced during his degree, Copland is not sure if he will be able to continue on the path towards a legal career, as the next step is another year at university, and his experience at Glasgow has damaged his confidence.

He said: “It has kind of messed up my ambitions.

“At the start I was really, really keen to do this. Now I just feel I am not actually that motivated anymore.

“What if these problems re-occur? And if I come back to Glasgow, it would be another year of sheer hell.”

25 March 2021

 

 

Government’s shielding decision ‘will have chilling impact on disabled workers’

Disabled activists have warned of the “chilling” impact on disabled workers of the government’s decision to end shielding from the end of this month.

The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) last week began sending letters to those on the shielded patients list – those considered to be clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) to the virus – telling them they will no longer be advised to shield from 1 April.

But the move will put disabled workers at “real risk” at a time when the pandemic is still not under control, a year after the first lockdown was introduced, disabled activists have warned.

It will mean that the 3.8 million people on the shielded patients list will no longer be eligible to receive statutory sick pay (SSP) or employment and support allowance (ESA) on the grounds of being advised to shield.

Although everyone is still being told to continue to work from home where possible, DHSC has told shielders that if they cannot work from home, they should attend their workplaces from 1 April.

CEV pupils and students are also being advised to return to their schools, colleges and universities from 1 April.

Supermarkets will continue to provide priority access to delivery slots for shielders until 21 June, DHSC said.

Despite ending its shielding protections, DHSC said it was still important that shielders “continue to keep the number of social interactions that you have low and try to reduce the amount of time you spend in settings where you are unable to maintain social distancing”.

More than nine in 10 CEV people have now been vaccinated, but only with their first dose.

Ellen Clifford, a member of the national steering group of Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC), said: “I find it chilling to think that from 31 March there will be no legal protections for disabled workers on the CEV list in situations where their employers are forcing them back into workplaces.

“These are people most at risk of contracting COVID, most at risk of serious and long-term cases of COVID and among those most likely to be denied life-saving treatment in situations where the NHS is over-stretched.

“The government says that nine out of 10 of those on the CEV list have had the first vaccine but that means that one out of ten haven’t, while none of them are fully protected from catching coronavirus; the chances for each person have just been reduced.”

Clifford, whose book examining the impact of a decade of government austerity measures, The War on Disabled People, was published last year, added: “We have been warned by the government’s scientific advisors of a third wave and that there are at least another 30,000 deaths to come.

“I am literally shuddering when I think of what proportion of these are going to be disabled workers who needed to shield but were effectively sent to their deaths by a decision made by government that their lives were dispensable.

“It would be perfectly straightforward to take less of a blanket approach to the guidance and to advise that everyone on the CEV list – which in itself is actually too narrow – should shield until a few weeks after their second vaccine.

“The government have decided against this.”

Dave Allan, speaking on behalf of the TUC and as the TUC General Council member for disabled workers, said it was “deeply irresponsible” of the government to change its advice to all shielders, regardless of their vaccine status.

He said this “puts the lives of disabled workers at even greater risk”.

He called on the government to rethink its decision on shielding, and to offer a guarantee that no shielding worker should be forced to return to workplaces outside their home, with a guaranteed right to furlough for CEV workers.

Allan said: “Right now there are hundreds of thousands of workers in the shielding group who are anxious about being forced into a workplace that will increase their risk of infection with potentially deadly consequences.

“Setting an arbitrary date of 1 April to send workers back does not match with the science-based approach set out in the [government’s] roadmap.

“I advise these workers to speak to their union rep, who can help ensure their exposure is minimised.”

Ann Galpin, co-chair of the TUC disabled workers’ committee, added: “COVID has significantly worsened life and outcomes for disabled people – and many businesses.

“The need to shield is not going to disappear just because the government wants to stop supporting those people who are at high risk if they contract COVID.

“Workers who need to shield should not have to choose between their life and livelihood.”

She said the government needed to review its approach and issue new guidance which “ensures all employers know they cannot force these workers to work outside their home and which reminds them to fulfil their obligations to provide reasonable adjustments to support disabled workers to remain in their jobs (or find a suitable alternative role)”.

Another to raise serious concerns about the move this week was Elane Heffernan, from the University and College Union (UCU).

Earlier this month, she told the TUC Disabled Workers’ Conference that, for disabled workers, the pandemic had “deepened the prejudice and inequality that we face at work every day”.

She said this week that the end of shielding puts disabled workers and CEV relatives “at real risk at a time when we have already endured so many unnecessary deaths in our community”.

She said: “It is not good enough to end shielding, to deny SSP and end priority slots for delivery of food and necessities and instead to rely on vaccinations as the sole means of safety, not least because some disabled people are not able to take the vaccine and many younger disabled people are still awaiting a first dose.”

She said far too many universities and colleges do not have entirely COVID-secure workspaces.

UCU is campaigning for on-line learning to remain the default position, while disabled members are pushing for a right to work from home at all colleges and universities and a continuation of paid time off where this is not possible, and for the right to work from home to become a permanent right.

Heffernan said: “While some universities and colleges will allow working at home, many will not.

“The situation in prison education is especially difficult, because of the continuing difficulty in securing reasonable adjustments, and ending the right to shield creates a serious risk in this sector.

“There is also the risk that those who request to continue shielding become the first to be selected for any proposed redundancy.

“We will be resisting blanket returns that put disabled people at risk and are resisting compulsory redundancies and discriminatory redundancies.

“Our members in Birmingham City University are currently in dispute over safety [relating to COVID-19], including fighting for the right for those with family members in the CEV group to stay home.”

Dr Jenny Harries, deputy chief medical officer for England, said this week: “Shielding has always been an advisory measure to safeguard those who are the most clinically vulnerable in our communities.

“We recognise how difficult this period has been for so many and the impact it has had on people’s wellbeing.

“With the prevalence of the virus in the community continuing to decrease now is the right time for people to start thinking about easing up on these more rigid guidelines.

“If you have been shielding, we strongly urge you to take extra precautions following 1 April to keep yourself as safe as possible, such as continuing to observe social distancing and working from home.

“We will continue to monitor all of the evidence and adjust this advice should there be any changes in infection rates.”

25 March 2021

 

 

Care Act easements set to be scrapped, but SEN measures will stay

The government is to abandon measures that ran “a coach and horses” through the right to social care during the pandemic, but similar restrictions imposed on disabled young people’s right to education are set to remain.

The measures were all part of the government’s emergency Coronavirus Act, which became law a year ago today, on 25 March 2020, and will remain in place for at least two years from March 2020, unless suspended or repealed by ministers.

The act is due to be reviewed and voted on in parliament today (Thursday).

Last week, more than 20 disabled people’s organisations wrote to health and social care secretary Matt Hancock to ask him to suspend the so-called “Care Act easements”.

These measures have allowed councils 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.

Ministers said earlier this week that they wanted to end the Care Act easements, which were used temporarily by just eight local authorities, and not by any council since last June.

Other Coronavirus Act powers, that could have been used to reduce the number of doctors’ opinions needed to detain someone under the Mental Health Act from two to one and to extend legal time limits on the detention of mental health patients, were scrapped last September.

In a review of the Coronavirus Act, published this week, the government set out 15 further measures which it hopes parliament will vote to scrap because they are “no longer essential to the national response to COVID-19”.

Although these 15 measures include the Care Act easements, there is no mention in the review document (PDF) or a government press release of measures – also introduced through the Coronavirus Act – that have provided powers to restrict disabled children’s rights to education over the last year.

These measures gave the education secretary the power to amend parts of the Children and Families Act (CFA) 2014 so that a local council only had to use “reasonable endeavours” to provide the education, health and social care needs named in a disabled pupil’s education health and care (EHC) plan.

They also gave the education secretary the power to amend CFA so that a school would no longer have a duty to admit a disabled child if that school was named in the child’s EHC plan.

Disability News Service has been told that education secretary Gavin Williamson wants to keep these education powers as an “important contingency”, even though the government has decided it no longer needs the Care Act easements.

The Alliance for Inclusive Education (ALLFIE) has now written to Williamson to ask him to remove the CFA powers from the act.

Simone Aspis, ALLFIE’s policy and campaigns coordinator, said yesterday that the government’s decision to keep the education powers but scrap the Care Act easements was “absolutely inconsistent”, and she called on Williamson to “do the right thing and remove the CFA easements immediately”.

She said: “There should be a parity of esteem between upholding disabled adults’ rights and upholding the rights of disabled children and young people.”

Aspis said that some local authorities and schools had used the CFA easements last year when Williamson introduced them, but “some local authorities and schools are still acting as though those easements are still in place” even though they have not been switched on since last July.

She said the last year had been “dire” for many disabled children and young people and their families because they have not been receiving the support they need to access mainstream education, because of both the pandemic and the CFA easements.

She said: “We are hearing that whilst those measures are not being put in place, local authorities are still getting the message that they are able to depart from their duties by not arranging provision.

“It is very serious in terms of the impact. It could end up with more and more children being out of school, being denied access to education and falling behind in the progress they could be making, and not having the same opportunities.

“We could be finding ourselves with a lost generation of disabled people as a result of this.”

The Department for Education was asked why the CFA measures were not mentioned in the review of the Coronavirus Act, but it had refused to comment by noon today (Thursday).

25 March 2021

 

 

Scottish government ‘must act over disproportionate deaths’

The Scottish government is facing fresh calls to investigate why so many disabled people have died during the pandemic, after new figures showed for the first time that they accounted for nearly three-fifths of all deaths involving COVID-19 in Scotland.

The national disabled people’s organisation Inclusion Scotland responded with “extreme concern” yesterday (Wednesday) to the figures from National Records of Scotland (NRS).

But Inclusion Scotland also questioned why it had taken NRS so long to publish the figures (PDF), when similar statistics covering the deaths of disabled people in England were first published last June.

The new NRS figures show that disabled people accounted for 4,333 of 7,490 deaths involving COVID-19 of those aged 30 and over in Scotland, between 16 March 2020 and 31 January 2021.

This means that 58 per cent of deaths of those aged 30 and over were of disabled people, even though they make up only 18 per cent of that population, while NRS suggested that this was still likely to be an under-estimate of the true number of disabled people who have died.

After adjusting for age, disabled women with higher support needs were 3.2 times as likely to die with COVID-19 compared to non-disabled women, while disabled men with higher support needs were 3.0 times as likely to die with COVID19 compared to non-disabled men.

These figures were slightly lower than the most recent ONS figures for England (4.1 times as likely for women and 3.2 for men).

Heather Fisken, director of policy and research at Inclusion Scotland, said the figures were “sadly not surprising” because of the earlier ONS statistics.

But she said: “Our own research and that of other disabled people’s organisations has shown that the pandemic has had a devastating effect on all areas of disabled people’s lives.

“The loss of vital social care support, unequal access to healthcare, information and food, the misuse of Do Not Resuscitate notices and the lack of [personal protective equipment] for personal assistants and carers have all put disabled people’s lives at risk.

“Today’s figures clearly show that disabled people have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 and not properly protected during this crisis.

“The delay in publishing the Scottish figures is also further evidence of the lack of urgency with which issues affecting disabled people have been dealt with.

“Such data is essential to inform decisions on future prevention and planning and to ensure that disabled people’s lives are protected.

“This data should feature large in how the government responds to this crisis and future emergencies.”

She added: “Inclusion Scotland recently signed a letter to the Scottish government calling for it to commission a public inquiry into Scotland’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We repeat this call and urge the Scottish government to ensure there is a full investigation into what happened to disabled people during the pandemic and the reasons why so many disabled people have died from COVID-19.”

Asked why it had taken so long to produce the figures, an NRS spokesperson said: “The ONS published valuable evidence on the impact of COVID-19 on disabled people in England in 2020.

“There was broad agreement that this evidence provided a robust indication of the situation in Scotland.

“Following discussions with disabled people’s organisations, NRS agreed to produce analysis based on Scottish data which would address the question of whether disabled people in Scotland were more likely than non-disabled people to have died with COVID-19 over the course of the pandemic.

“The NRS and ONS analyses both provide strong evidence that COVID-19 has had a disproportionate impact on disabled people.”

25 March 2021

 

 

DWP faces another call to act over pandemic assessment unfairness

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is facing its second call to act in consecutive weeks over the impact of the pandemic on disabled people waiting for their benefit claims to be assessed.

Last week, Disability News Service (DNS) reported how some claimants of personal independence payment who successfully overturned decisions at tribunal are being told their support could soon be cut off, because of a shortage of assessment professionals and a backlog of claims caused by the COVID-19 crisis.

But last year’s decision by DWP to halt all face-to-face assessments is also causing financial difficulties for another group of claimants.

Many disabled people who have been seeking support through the contributory form of employment and support allowance (ESA) are still waiting for decisions on their claims.

This is because assessors from DWP’s private sector contractor Maximus have not been able to secure all the information they need on some claims through telephone assessments, and it has told those in this position that they will need to wait for the resumption of face-to-face assessments.

But contributory ESA claimants – who qualify for the benefit because of past national insurance contributions rather than on income-related grounds – can only receive payments for a maximum of 12 months if they have been placed in the work-related activity group (WRAG)*.

All those claiming ESA are automatically placed in the WRAG until the assessment process has been completed.

This means that, even if they should have been placed in the support group and should therefore be entitled to continue to receive payments after 12 months, their payments will be cut off if their claim has not been decided by the time the year is up.

The last pre-pandemic DWP figures showed that 64 per cent of those who had an initial work capability assessment (WCA) were assigned to the support group, and just 16 per cent to the WRAG.

One of those affected is David**.

He submitted an application for the contributory form of ESA [now also known as New Style ESA] in May 2020, and took part in a telephone assessment by Maximus in November.

He later received a letter from Maximus telling him that the company’s assessors could not complete the assessment because they needed more information, which they could only obtain at a face-to-face assessment.

He was told he would have to wait for this assessment until DWP lifted the suspension on face-to-face assessments.

But in February, in a letter informing him of the annual increases to benefit payments to be introduced in April, he was told that his payments would cease in May when his year’s entitlement will expire.

He was told: “This is because you will have reached the maximum of 365 days that you can get contribution based ESA.”

Even though he believes he should and will be placed in the support group when his assessment is finally completed, his support will end – at least temporarily – on that date.

He has been told by welfare rights advisers that they have received many enquiries and concerns about the same issue, while his MP has raised the issue with work and pensions ministers.

He said: “I’m lucky. I won’t end up on the street or go hungry. My wife works and our house is paid for.

“What really riled me about the DWP’s approach was its callous indifference and injustice.”

Finn Keaney, welfare rights team lead for Mind in the City, Hackney and Waltham Forest, said: “The DWP’s insistence on withholding New Style ESA payments until claimants can go through a face-to-face assessment process that the department and their contractors are currently unable to administer has left many sick and disabled adults with no idea how they are going to pay their basic living expenses.

“Even those who are not excluded from claiming universal credit face an impossible choice: go without payments for an indefinite amount of time on ESA, or switch to universal credit and go without payments for a very definite five weeks.”

He added: “I first spoke to a DWP employee about this in July 2020 after I became aware of the issue.

“They confirmed to me that it had already been identified and taken ‘as high as it will go’… difficult to believe that eight months later it is still an issue.”

Ken Butler, welfare rights adviser with Disability Rights UK, said DWP’s own figures showed it was “likely that most people whose contributory ESA has stopped will in fact later be found to be eligible through being in the support group.

“Given the disability employment gap, there was no justification for limiting contribution-based ESA payment to only 365 days.

“Given the backlogs the pandemic has caused, this payment limitation should be lifted until the disabled claimant has had a successful WCA or until the appeal process has been completed.”

DWP declined to say how many claimants were affected by the issue, and whether it believed it was causing unfairness.

But it said that it had improved its capability and processes, which means it can now carry out a second telephone assessment for those claimants who have previously had a telephone assessment without a decision on eligibility.

This should reduce waiting times, it said, while claimants who cannot be assessed by telephone or video will be prioritised when face-to-face assessments resume.

As a result of this statement, David contacted Maximus this week to ask if he could have a second telephone assessment, but he was told he could not and that a face-to-face assessment was still necessary.

A DWP spokesperson said: “The vast majority of claimants can now be safely assessed over the telephone and we are working hard to make sure people get the support they are entitled to at the earliest opportunity.

“Contributory ESA claimants who have not had a WCA by the time their claim comes to an end can have it reinstated if they are placed in the support group when they do have their WCA, with money owed to them paid in arrears.

“They may also be eligible for support through universal credit.”

*DWP says the WRAG is for those considered “able to get back into work in the future”, while the support group is for claimants with higher support needs and barriers to work

**Not his real name

25 March 2021

 

 

Government backs down over inaccessible shielding letters, hours before court case

The government has been forced to make a series of promises aimed at improving the accessibility of the way it communicates with those shielding from coronavirus.

The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) made the concessions hours before it was due to face a judicial review hearing brought by disabled campaigner Sarah Leadbetter.

Leadbetter, who is blind, took legal action against the department after receiving inaccessible shielding letters during the pandemic.

She did not know she had received any of the four letters about shielding that were sent to her during 2020 until she was told about them by her mother.

She argued that the failure to provide these letters to blind and partially-sighted people in an accessible format was unlawful disability discrimination, a breach of their human rights, and a failure to comply with the government’s accessible information standard.

Now DHSC will have to reconsider the way it communicates with those on the shielding list, and must start to introduce any changes within four months.

Health and social care secretary Matt Hancock will also continue to work with GPs and hospitals to improve the recording of communication needs in patients’ records.

DHSC has promised to “reconsider” its practice of sending out hard copy letters to those on the shielding list that are not “tailored to their communication preferences”; to consider how this information can be given in an accessible format; and to investigate how to address “shortcomings” in identifying people’s communication needs.

Leadbetter, from Narborough, Leicestershire, was not sent any information about shielding in a format that was accessible to her, and only found out she was on the list of shielded patients when her mother read a letter she had been sent.

She said: “I am very happy that the DHSC has agreed to change its practices following my legal action.

“It has been a long battle for me to get important information about my health in accordance with my communication needs and I hope these changes will mean that I, and other disabled people, will now start getting information in an accessible format.”

Solicitor Kate Egerton, from Leigh Day, who represents Leadbetter, said: “I am very pleased that the DHSC has agreed to reconsider how it provides information to disabled people who are shielding.

“Sarah’s case raised important issues about the accessible information standard which requires health bodies to identify, record and then act on communication needs, and there is no greater time to ensure this is implemented than in a global pandemic.

“I am confident that the work the DSHC has commissioned will mean that a system will be put in place that automatically means that disabled people will get information in their preferred format, without having to ask for this basic right over and over again.

“I also believe that this case will send an important reminder to GPs and hospitals that they are legally required to proactively ask patients what their communication needs are, and then record and act upon this information.”

Alastair Pringle, executive director at the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which intervened in the case, said: “Receiving health information in a way in which we can access and understand it is always important.

“During a pandemic, it is vital, especially when it contains information about the need to shield.

“We welcome the news that the DHSC has now agreed to change the way that they communicate with disabled people during the pandemic.

“This is essential for Sarah and the many other disabled people who may have found themselves in a similar situation.”

DHSC confirmed the details of the agreement.

A DHSC spokesperson said in a statement: “We are doing everything we can to protect the most vulnerable in our society.

“The government has supported disabled people throughout this pandemic and we continue to assess what further support can be offered, including options for providing accessible shielding information to patients directly.

“It is vital that people have access to the right materials, and we’ve made a range of public health information, including guidance for the clinically extremely vulnerable, available in a variety of formats including easy read, British Sign Language, audio and braille.

“Letters summarising shielding advice for the clinically extremely vulnerable are also available in a number of formats and languages, and are also sent electronically by email where an individual has registered an email address with their GP practice.”

25 March 2021

 

 

DPO’s community journalist project ‘will amplify voices’

A disabled people’s organisation is hoping that its community journalism project will help amplify the voices of disabled people and empower them to tell their own stories.

The Camden Disabled People’s Voices project is training disabled people as community journalists, who can then use their mobile phones to post reports on a website in audio, video and written formats.

The scheme is run by Camden Disability Action (CDA), and eight disabled people have so far completed the course.

CDA hopes the “raw and real reports” will provide a public record of the challenges and barriers faced by disabled people in the borough, as well as the solutions they want to see.

And it hopes the reports will “start conversations with service providers, celebrate successes and push for positive changes”.

Both the trained community journalists and – eventually – disabled members of the public will be able to file reports.

CDA staff review all the reports and post the best ones on the project’s website.

Most of the initial reports have focused on the impact of the “streetscape” changes brought in as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including new cycle lanes, traffic-calming measures and wider pavements.

One of the reporters, Mary, said: “As a registered blind woman I am unable to go out alone without support if the streets are not accessible; but with the community journalism project I can help foster change in Camden’s streets which means I will be able to go out independently.

“It’s also given me a chance to air my anger about my local area where shopping is made difficult with inaccessible crossings and signage for motorists that aren’t clear.”

Another reporter, Jill, said: “It’s taught me a lot of things I didn’t know before. It gives you knowledge and it gives you confidence to speak up.

“Also, because I have a learning disability, I’m not good at writing so being able to send in reports via a phone is really great.”

The training is delivered by CDA and community journalism organisation On Our Radar, and offers three classes and mentoring support.

Colin Brummage, CDA’s chief executive, said: “Our stories largely go untold and even when we do speak, there is no guarantee the person listening has the empathy or life experience to understand where we’re coming from.

“Disabled people’s real-time everyday experiences must be known so we can lift the lid on the thousands of social injustices taking place, every single day.”

He added: “We wanted to cast the net wider than just the trained reporters because we want disabled people across the borough to use this as a vehicle to get their voices heard.

“We’re replacing the old ways of engaging, which we did through forums and questionnaires. This is a more direct and powerful way to have your say.”

25 March 2021

 

News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com

 

 Posted by at 19:16
Mar 102021
 
Background:

Whilst Universal Credit claimants have been supported with an additional £20 per week uplift during the pandemic, something that the Chancellor has confirmed at the recent budget is set to continue until August 2021, those on legacy benefits (Old-style ESA, JSA and income support) have received no additional support at all throughout this period.
There are in excess of 2.5 million people claiming legacy benefits, yet there has been no focus on their exclusion in the main stream media, who instead have centred on Universal Credit claimants.
On March 1st 2021 Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) held one of a series of online days of action to highlight this disparity in support, entitled ‘#20More4All’. The aim of which was to raise awareness of the lack of support for legacy claimants.
This day of action was supported by video statements from Jonathan Reynolds MP, Marsha Decordova MP, John McDonnell MP, Debbie Abrahms MP and Labour NEC member Laura Pidcock. There were also a small number of written tweets from other MPs including Vicky Foxcroft MP.
Unite The Union’s Steve Turner and numerous Unite Community branches also pledged their support for #20More4All with the message ‘Keep and extend the uplift to all claimants’.
On Sunday March 7th Martin Lewis highlighted the fact that mainstream media had not covered this issue, referring to budget related articles in the news as well as his one to one interview with Chancellor Sunak, he said “If you had a mail bag like mine and you saw all that the people with the disabilities, and carers and other people on legacy benefits, who are having massively increased costs due to the pandemic- that they are not able to support out, there are a lot of upset people and the phrase that the chancellor keeps using is ‘We are helping everybody, we will do everything we can to help people and businesses’, that sticks in the craw of those who are excluded from the help. But it’s been missed from these papers.”
You can view a captioned version of the interview clip here:
Please pass this motion in support of the DPAC #20More4All campaign at your CLP/Union meeting;
This CLP/Union notes that there has been a lack of awareness raised in mainstream media of legacy claimants who have not received any additional support during the Coronavirus pandemic.
This has lead to a widespread issue in that the public have, as a consequence, not been informed of 2.5 million legacy claimants suffering increased hardship throughout this period.
This CLP/Union resolves to
•Pledge our support for the DPAC #20More4All Campaign by sending a message of support to DPAC and posting it on our CLP/Union social media pages.
•Ensure any of our future campaigning by or around the £20 a week uplift is inclusive of those on legacy benefits, refering to #20More4All.
•Invite a DPAC speaker to our meeting.
•Write to our MP and ask that they are supportive of the #20More4All campaign going forwards.
———-
Please send statements of support to DPAC, or request a speaker from DPAC attend your meetings by emailing: mail@DPAC.uk.net
———-
Stay up to date with the latest Campaigns:
DPAC National Website: DPAC.uk.net
DPAC National FB page:
DPAC National Twitter page:
 Posted by at 20:36
Mar 102021
 

re-blogged from Jenny Morris blogspot. https://jennymorrisnet.blogspot.com/2021/03/why-have-so-many-disabled-people-died.html?m=1

Between January and November 2020, disabled people accounted for a shocking 60% of all deaths recorded from Covid-19.  We might think that this was because of the age profile or co-morbidities amongst this population group but Office for National Statistics analysis indicates that, even after adjusting for these factors the mortality rate was higher than for non-disabled people, and particularly so for disabled women and those with learning disabilities.

Other factors placed disabled people at risk, regardless of their age or health condition. For disabled people in general, measures of deprivation were the biggest factor accounting for some of the increased risk of catching and dying from the virus while for people with learning disabilities place of residence was the biggest risk factor, “suggesting that living in a care home or other communal establishment was a major factor in the increased exposure of people with learning disabilities to COVID-19”.

The risk posed by communal settings was also apparent amongst those deaths examined by the Learning Disabilities Mortality Review which found that:

A third (35%) of those who died from COVID-19 lived in residential care homes, rising to almost half of those with Down’s syndrome. A quarter (25%) lived in supported living settings. Priority must be given to supporting measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in these settings.

These are circumstances in which, generally, people do not have sufficient choice and control in their lives.  Care homes and supported living services (group homes) in general have accounted for a disproportionate number of deaths during the pandemic, not only because people were discharged from hospitals without proper testing or isolation but also because of the movement of staff from home to home and the general difficulties of infection control in communal settings (especially when protective personal equipment was in short supply).

The fact that socio-economic factors accounted for some of the higher death rate amongst disabled people in general is evidence of significant structural inequality. Since 2010, changes to the benefits system – particularly those introduced in 2016 – have had the impact of making disabled people poorer, increased food bank use and driven up debt levels. This inequality and its impact on the death rate amongst disabled people during the pandemic is therefore a direct result of government policy.

Nevertheless, according to the ONS data when all risk factors were taken into account, “a statistically significantly raised risk of death remained unexplained for more-disabled and less-disabled women (1.4 and 1.2 times respectively) and more-disabled men (1.1 times) but not for less-disabled men”.

This raises the question: Are disabled people at greater risk because of unequal access to treatment and healthcare once they become ill?

On March 21st 2020, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence issued a new guideline on who should be admitted to critical care during the pandemic, based on the 1-10 Critical Frailty Scale. The guideline suggested that those scoring seven (severely frail, completely dependent on personal care “from whatever cause, physical or cognitive”) and above would be “unlikely to survive even with medical intervention” and that only those ranked 1-5 should receive critical care.  A focus on what people can’t do for themselves was at the heart of determining whether someone should get access to critical care. So, if a person needed help with all daily living activities, then they were considered too ‘frail’ to benefit from a higher level of care (such as artificial ventilation). The Chief Executive of NICE defended the issuing of this guideline, saying that – although the guideline was developed in only 6 days – an equality impact assessment had been carried out, and:

Despite doing it so quickly, we had a comprehensive set of comments and they were supporting the use of the clinical frailty scale. It was something already in use across the system at that point. We did not hear any concerns about it being discriminatory in relation to disability at that point.

However, an outcry from a number of individuals and organisations and an Early Day Motion laid in the House of Commons resulted in NICE issuing a revised Critical Frailty Scale, which currently states that it should only be used for people “aged over 65, without stable long-term disabilities (for example, cerebral palsy), learning disabilities or autism”.  Anyone, of any age, who had a “stable, long-term” condition, or “learning disabilities or autism” should receive “an individualised assessment of frailty” and the CFS score should not be used.

This, of course, still raises the question about why the need for personal care because of conditions related to old age should determine access to critical care. For disabled people of any age, it also begs the question: What is meant by ‘stable, long-term condition’? Many people live with progressive conditions for years and previously ‘stable’ conditions are often associated with increasing need for support as people get older.

I am puzzled as to why needing support in your daily life (at any age and for any reason) is evidence per se that you would be unlikely to benefit from being admitted to critical care.  This is the antithesis of what we mean by independent living: the need for support does not mean that you cannot have self-determination or a good quality of life, instead it is having choice and control over the support you need which delivers such things. Neither should the need for support undermine your right to life.

Yet it would appear that, not only might the need for support determine access to critical care, but it may have influenced whether some people got access to any hospital treatment during the pandemic.

In the early months of the pandemic, there were press reports of DNR notices and advanced care plans being applied across whole groups of people in residential settings.  These included care homes catering for older people as well as group homes catering for people with learning disabilities and/or autism. Reviews of the deaths of people with learning disabilities noted several instances where “frailty or ‘learning disabilities’ were given as rationales for a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decision for people who had died from COVID-19, yet this was not the case for people who had died from other causes”. The report concluded that “Further reminders that ‘learning disabilities’ or a clinical frailty score are not appropriate reasons for a DNACPR decision in people with learning disabilities may be required.”

The Care Quality Commission has found that some people living in care homes died potentially avoidable deaths because of inappropriate decisions about treatment.  Some were subjected to blanket decisions ruling out attempts at cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and “providers sometimes conflated decisions about DNACPR with decisions about whether to admit people to hospital or provide covid-19 treatment”.  An Amnesty International report specifically focussing on older people found considerable evidence of inappropriate or unlawful use of DNR notices by GPs, clinical commissioning groups, hospitals, and care homes.

Surely a clinically based decision is an experienced doctor’s judgement as to whether the treatment will improve your chances of survival to a quality of life that you find reasonable, combined with your views as to whether you want to go through the experience of whatever the treatment is itself. And in most cases I suspect that is what happens except that, in the case of disabled (and older) people, pre-existing prejudices about the quality, or indeed value, of someone’s life can get in the way – a particularly dangerous situation when someone has difficulty communicating their wishes, or is not even asked what they are.

In addition, a failure to enable disabled people to benefit from treatment even once they are admitted to hospital may also help to explain the disproportionate number of deaths.  Jo Whiley, in bringing public attention to the need to prioritise people with learning disabilities for vaccinations also provided a graphic description on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme of the kind of support her sister needed (and initially lacked) when she was admitted to hospital with Covid-19.  She described how her sister’s communication and cognitive impairment meant she was terrified and reacted by trying to escape from staff trying to treat her.  It was only when her parents were allowed into the hospital and were able to reassure and calm her that it was possible to provide her with the treatment that enabled her recovery and discharge from hospital.

But in how many other cases was there not such a response and happy outcome? Reviews of deaths amongst people with learning disabilities found, “The most frequently reported required reasonable adjustments that were NOT made for people who died from COVID-19 were: the provision of specialist learning disability services in hospital; tailoring care provision to meet individual needs; and ensuring the person was supported in unfamiliar settings by those who knew them.”

This is despite BMA ethical guidelines which state “Doctors should bear in mind that, as public servants, it may be appropriate to make reasonable adjustments for those with disabilities. That could mean permitting a learning disabled patient to be accompanied by a carer even if that is generally prohibited under infection control rules”.

For many many years, disabled people have been campaigning for choice and control in our lives, for the right to self-determination, to have a say in how we are supported, where we live and who with, and for the right to make the most basic daily living choices that most non-disabled people take for granted. We made progress but this was always limited, primarily because of the constraints inherent in the existing systems of delivering support and housing.

Since 2010 the government has made disabled people poorer, failed to reform and improve social care, and neglected to develop the kind of housing and support services which would have delivered a better quality of life. All in all they have exacerbated structural inequalities and the mantra of ‘work is the best route out of poverty’ remains an insult to those who are not able to work and/or face direct and indirect discrimination.

At the same time, we have been labelled ‘vulnerable’ with little or no recognition of the factors – which have nothing to do with our impairment or illness – which create socio-economic deprivation, unequal access to healthcare and, in this pandemic, a greater risk of dying.  In the run up to the Independent Living Fund being abolished in 2015, I wrote two blogposts entitled “What’s your plan for people whose lives we apparently can’t afford?” The lack of any plan has had its stark consequences during this pandemic.

 Posted by at 20:34
Mar 102021
 

You may have read last week’s Disability News Service article

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/atos-pays-out-for-negligent-pip-assessment-after-visit-from-debt-enforcement-officers/

We at DPAC absolutely love this idea and it is awesome to read that debt enforcement officers were sent into collect fees from Atos. We thought others might want to do the same so asked for more information about how this is done from the man who initiated this case. Many thanks for the very detailed eply he sent to us.

You can find out what equipment you need to record your assessment in this link. You don’t need a case or PAT test labels of course https://recoveryinthebin.org/put-pip-and-wca-assessments-on-the-record/

To start a claim information on how to do this is on the Small Claim Court’s (SCC) own web site,(now called the County Court Money Claims Centre and can be found at, https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money

their address is:- PO Box 527, Salford, M5 0BY.

The information is given in laymen’s terms and the forms are now all available online.

The claimant thought that it was a logical assumption that if “Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service” (HMCTS) had already found in your favour at a tribunal hearing and overturned ATOS/Capita’s decision then “they” were in the wrong, and would find it hard to defend themselves against a claim based on that decision in the same court system, especially if DWP had not appealed the decision when they had the chance.

He waited for the time DWP are given to appeal the Tribunal’s Decision to run out and filled in the online SCC form “n1″ and sent it in, (n1 is for a specific amount, I think there’s a fee of around £115 for a claim up to £3000 which must be paid with a Postal Order). You may be bale to get help with that fee cost and details are available in leaflet EX160A.The Court contacts the other party and gives them whatever information they need to reply to the claim.

The things you need to get right and accurateare the name and address of the company or person you are claiming from. He used  Company’s House web site to find the right name of the company. IAS for instance is just a trading name for ATOS and the claim form had to word the claim as ” Independent Assessment Service (Atos IT Services UK Limited)” to try to cover all the options. If you get the name wrong and win the case, when it comes to collecting the money the enforcement, be it court or bailiffs, can’t serve the paperwork/enforcement order if the name and address is not wholly correct.

He worked out what the interest would be on the arrears amount (which by this time had been repaid by the DWP so he had an accurate figure) as the SCC allows a claim of 8% per year for any claim, and claimed this amount as a  “Loss of Amenity” for a “Wrongfully Withheld Amount of £**** “, and claimed damages for causing “Mental Distress, Anxiety and Hardship, all of which were caused by ATOS/IAS’s incorrect assessment”. His claim was for over 18months so he worked out the interest for a month and multiplied it by 18.

He ticked in the box in the “Damages” section for the smallest amount, which was “up to” £1000, and was awarded that maximum amount, probably because ATOS/IAS had not bothered to reply to the Court. He ticked the smallest amount as he didn’t see it as an exercise in making money but more to prove a point – that they are responsible for their decisions. There is a table, suggesting amounts you can claim for different things.

ATOS didn’t defend the action and totally ignored the result, and made no effort to pay what the judgement told them to. I think they are allowed 4 days to pay before any action can be taken, they ignored that too.

All the fees paid, including the fees for the Sheriff’s action, are collected by them are returned as “costs”. I think there’s a charge of around £66 to start the process but that too is returned in the “costs” so in the event of a successful claim it costs the claimant nothing. The Sheriffs do all the subsequent Court procedure, I think they apply, before they “attend”, for a High Court Writ, to give them the power to enter and seize goods to the value of the claim if it is not settled there and then.

In his case, when the Sheriffs turned up someone at ATOS must have rushed through the payment the court had ordered as we got several cheques sent with that date on. They were subsequently cancelled when they were made aware that they would still have to pay the full amount to the sheriffs and their accumulated fees (I think the exercise cost ATOS around £4500). The money was forwarded by the sheriffs direct to the bank we had given them details for.

 

It wasn’t really hard to do.

 Posted by at 20:31