Government’s Legal Costs for Fighting against Disabled Peoples Equality?

Action, All Posts, Bedroom tax, Disability Rights, ILF, Independent Living, Independent Living Fund ILF, legal challenges, local authority cuts, Politics, UNCRPD, welfare cuts, write to your local councillor, Write to your MP 4 Responses »

Dec 092014

John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab): What legal costs his Department has incurred in legal proceedings involving disabled people relating to the under-occupancy penalty and the closure of the independent living fund. [906481]

The Minister for Disabled People (Mr Mark Harper): The Government have robustly defended their policies in relation to the closure of the independent living fund and the removal of the spare room subsidy. The total known legal costs to date, in respect of both policies where disability formed part of the grounds of the claim, are £415,000: £236,000 for the ILF and £178,000 for the removal of the spare room subsidy.

John Healey: That is a part answer to a very direct question about the cost to the taxpayers of Government lawyers defending the indefensible—axing the ILF and introducing the hated bedroom tax. Will the Minister not recognise that many severely disabled people flourish with the fund but are now frightened of losing their independence when he shuts it down next year? He might have won the legal case this year, but he has lost the moral and policy arguments, so even at this 11th hour will he rethink the protection available to ILF users?

Mr Harper: No, I will not. I have talked to disability organisations about this matter, and they agree with the Government. More than 1 million people get social care through the mainstream social care system. The Government are not making any savings by moving the ILF to local authorities and devolved Administrations, and we are working closely with each local authority to ensure that the amount of money being transferred at the point of closure next year will be exactly what is needed and what is being spent by the ILF, meaning that disabled people will be protected.

Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab): Some £4.3 billion has been taken out of adult social care budgets over the past four years because of the Government’s cuts. If that funding transfers across, as is planned, it will plug only a very small part of the gap. If they will not rethink this policy, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) just suggested, will Ministers require that the funding be ring-fenced to ensure that 70 people in Salford and 18,000 people across the country with disabilities can look forward to keeping their independence and to this continuing support?

Mr Harper: Of course local government has had to play its part in the savings, but local authorities can make choices. My local authority in Gloucestershire has protected the value of social care because it thinks that protecting older people—[Interruption.] No, my local authority has faced cuts, like all local authorities, but it has chosen to—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members want me to answer their hon. Friend’s question, they should stop yelling. My local authority has prioritised funding for older people and people of working age. Clearly, the hon. Lady’s local authority has made different decisions. If those on her local authority want to ring-fence the money transferred from the ILF, they are absolutely free to do so, so I suggest she take that up with them.

8 Dec 2014 : Column 632

We want to thank John Healey MP for raising these questions

But other questions arise: which disability organisations did Harper speak to and why did they agree with the Government that closing ILF was a good thing for disabled people with high support needs and their employees? Did Harper speak to ILF users?

Watch this space……

Secret Changes to Motability Grant Making Conditions – People needed for Legal Challenge

Action, All Posts, Independent Living, Legal aid, legal challenges, Politics, welfare cuts, Welfare reforms 1 Response »

Dec 032014

Motability have introduced changes to their grant making conditions discriminate against disabled people with the highest support needs who are unable to work for a minimum of 12hours a week, carry out at least 12 hours voluntary work (which apparently can’t be internet based but has to be outside the home and doesn’t include travelling time), are not in education for at least 12 hours a week and who need specialised adaptations to transfer to drive or drive-from-wheelchair vehicles.

These changes have not been made publicly known or advertised to current customers in any way about who is eligible for a grant and the changes were made without any consultation.

We understand these changes were made from June 1^st this year but customers are only being told about them when they enquire about a grant for a replacement vehicle.

The impact of these changes which affects those with the highest and most costly needs are potentially life-changing. It could well prevent people having contact with family (let alone friends) if they live in a rural area with little or no transport, it means anyone who can only travel with equipment like hoists. Oxygen cylinders and other bulky items won’t be able to go anywhere. It also ignores the fact that with other cuts to services people will not be able to ensure they have the physical support from someone else to drive them.

We have sought legal advice to see whether these changes can be challenged as discriminatory and now need to hear from anyone who is or would be affected by these changes in the near future and who would qualify for legal aid.

If you think you might be affected by these changes and are willing to consider taking legal action then please contact us at mail@dpac.uk.net

https://linkis.com/disabilitynewsservice.com/fZhn2

https://dpac.uk.net/2014/11/motability-and-the-deserving-and-undeserving-charity-not-rights/

Government steals Millions from Poor then Lies about it #Sanctions #CameronMustGo

All Posts, News, Politics, sanctions 4 Responses »

Dec 022014

The government steals from the poor and lies about it: £60 million of benefits withheld in the first 6 months of 2012 as a result of benefit sanctions

On the 1st of December 2014, Esther McVey was asked how much benefit was withheld from claimants in benefit sanctions in some constituencies and she responded that ‘The Department does not estimate the amount of benefit withheld as a result of benefit sanctions’.

She was asked the same question during the Parliamentary debate of the 2nd of December 2014 about sanctions and gave the same answer. Unfortunately for her, Stephen Timms MP was able to produce evidence that DWP had in fact made an estimation of these figures, which had been given to him by Mark Hoban in 2013.

DWP Reply to question abotu how much benefits have been withheld by Sanctions

Considering the increase in the number of sanctions since October 2012 and the fact that ESA sanctions are not included, a figure of £200 million for 2013-2014 is not unrealistic and might even be a very conservative estimate. £200 million is not a huge amount in the scale of things and as part of the UK budget but it was for example the amount of tax evasion by British clients of an HSBC-owned private Swiss bank in 2012, or it is the amount Iain Duncan Smith may have wasted on Universal Credit according to the National Audit Office .

As demonstrated during the Parliamentary debate, sanctions are applied indiscriminately, by staff unable to use their moral judgement before making decisions which have cost the lives of some claimants.

People with mental health conditions or learning difficulties who do not understand what is required from them are sanctioned, single parents who cannot juggle the demands from Job Centres and their commitments as parents are sanctioned, sick people who cannot attend a Job Centre interview because of a hospital appointment are sanctioned and many more who have to do without income for a minimum of 4 weeks, unable to put food on the table, or to pay for electricity.

It was mentioned during the debate that the parcels now delivered by foodbanks need to be ‘Cold parcels’ because many people can no longer afford to warm their meals. There are also many restrictions on who can claim hardship payments, but apparently Job Centre staff tell sanctioned claimants they are not entitled to them even when they are.

What was also mentioned were the sanction targets: at least 8 per month for Job Centre staff, and those who don’t sanction enough are put through a ‘performance improvement process’.

Esther McVey did not address in her response the increase in sanctions. She did what she always does, which is to go through the ‘numerous successes’ of her department. But she also lied. She also lied because she knew that this money which had been stolen from the poorest is now given as electoral sweeteners and tax cuts in order for the Conservative party to win the next election.

Remember that when George Osborne delivers his budget on Wednesday.

People Needed to Join a Legal Challenge to DSA cuts

Action, All Posts, Inclusive Education, Independent Living, News, Politics, welfare cuts, Welfare reforms 2 Responses »

Nov 182014

New regulations have very recently been laid before Parliament which will cut Disabled Students Allowance. At DPAC we are concerned that these cuts will seriously reduce or even prevent disabled students from taking part in higher education. We are concerned that the Regulations were laid without a public consultation and in breach of the public sector equality duty. If you are worried about the cuts to Disabled Students Allowance because you are (or will be) a university student who would apply for DSA, please get in touch with us at mail@dpac.uk.net

Our Response to Labour’s WCA Proposals (again)

All Posts, Politics, WCA 2 Responses »

Nov 142014

Benefits and Work website yesterday published an email sent by Labour which explains their proposals to improve WCA.

It is a summary of previously announced proposals but we thought we would take this opportunity to restate, perhaps in even more strident terms our position with respect to Labour’s WCA Proposals.

We have done this many times of course, both on the blog and in direct communication with Labour but nothing ever seems to sink in.

Labours proposals are:

1. We will start by transforming the way the WCA is designed to make it more effective at helping disabled people into work. With Labour, disabled people would receive a copy of the assessor’s report of how their health condition may affect their ability to work, and information about the support that is available in their local area to help them – a first vital step towards a more integrated system of support.

2. Secondly, we would continue to produce an independent review of the WCA, and ask the Office for Disability Issues to support an independent scrutiny group of disabled people to work together with the independent reviewer to assess whether the test is being conducted in a fair and transparent way. We will commit to responding to the recommendations of this report.

3. Finally, a Labour government will go further in ensuring that the assessments get it right first time. We would make sure that in the new system there would be clear penalties for poor performance by assessors, measured both on the number of times decisions are overturned by DWP decision makers, and the number of times they are overturned on appeal.

These changes are falling very short of being crucial.

First they are very vague, and do not address the very high number of ESA overturned decisions by tribunals or even by DWP own reconsideration process (before mandatory reconsiderations were introduced).

The reviews that Labour is committed to produce have been discredited. Professor Harrington, by deciding to talk about his misgivings about moving IB claimants onto ESA only, after he lost his lucrative job for DWP when he could have spoken up before, Dr Litchfield because he devised the Mental health descriptors and was very unlikely to challenge them later in his review.

What disabled people have been waiting for, is a sign from Labour frontbench that disabled people have been unfairly targeted by cuts, but also mistreated, bullied, abused and driven to suicide.

They are still waiting.

One Labour backbencher suggested that one way to improve things very quickly was to pause the reassessments. This suggestion from Sheila Gilmore is welcome and it is surprising that it was not followed up by Rachel Reeves or Kate Green.

The focus on disabled people working, contributing to the economy shows that Labour, like the Tories only see people as economical variables, not people who deserve to live a decent life.

Lastly, if you still have some illusions, sanctioning disabled people wasn’t introduced by the Tories, it began under the last Labour Government.

These WCA Proposals from Labour are “figleaf policies”, intended only to do the barest minimum needed to avoid embarrassment for Labour. It hasn’t worked.

So here it is again, our response to Labour on WCA (maybe this time it will sink in):-

Are you taking the Piss?

The WCA DOESN’T WORK

The WCA is a cause of stress and hardship to disabled people, it is inaccurate, causes harm, and it DOESN’T EVEN GET DISABLED PEOPLE INTO WORK.

The WCA has caused people to commit suicide and your WCA will continue to cause people to commit suicide.

You are still planning to use LIMA, a computer program to MAKE CATASTROPHICALLY WRONG DECISIONS, TIME AND TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

You are still planning to bully people who CAN NOT WORK with repeat assessments.

Will you stop mandatory consideration? If so how are you going to handle the flood of appeals from wrong decisions? If not, you are no better than the Tories.

More “Harrington” Reviews of the WCA? Don’t make us laugh.

YOU ARE STILL INTENDING TO USE PRIVATE CONTRACTORS WHO DON’T CARE ABOUT DISABLED PEOPLE BUT DO CARE ABOUT PROFITS

and after all that, after the fear, the misery, the anxiety, the hardship and the suicides, your WCA won’t get disabled people into work because THERE ARE NO JOBS AVAILABLE for us.

EMPLOYERS CAN’T BE BOTHERED WITH US, DONT YOU GET THAT?

And when a job is available, we can’t get there because WE DON’T HAVE ACCESS TO TRANSPORT,

DPAC’s response to Labour’s WCA proposals in a nutshell:

SCRAP THE WCA & ESA and Scrap Sanctions for all.

Then come up with something much much better that addresses our real needs, not Daily Mail headlines.

Has it sunk in yet?

A Political Analysis of the UK, November 2015

All Posts, DPAC Research, News, Politics, Who2Vote4? 5 Responses »

Nov 102014

In May 2015 there will be a general election in the UK.

Where we are now

Since 2010 the UK has been governed by an unelected Conservative party who were only able to form a government by allying themselves with the Liberal Democrats. The policies that have been put in place by this coalition which are wiping out disabled people’s human rights on a daily basis and which have led to massive increases in hate crime against disabled people were never part of either party’s election manifesto and so were never voted on by the UK electorate.

We start from already having some of the lowest benefit rates in Europe both for those of working age and pensioners. ^¹

Spending cuts have been so severe over the past 4 years with more to come that on some estimates the UK will by 2017 have the lowest share of public spending among leading capitalist economies, including the US.

Professor Taylor-Goody says there is no realistic prospect of that fundamentally changing, irrespective of the outcome of the general election.^²

This report says there must be speculation about why the 7th richest country, which experiences no difficulties in borrowing over long terms at low interest rates, should choose to adopt such unusual economic policies, particularly since such policies are now agreed by most commentators to be damaging to the national interest. Welfare for the poor is being cut back sharply. ^³

A recent UNICEF report found that millions ‘have fallen prey to the dangers of austerity’ during the recession years and said Britain should ‘review’ its economic policies as a ‘priority’ and raise working tax credit, increase benefits in line with inflation, and push up the minimum wage for under 21s.^⁴

The Resolution Foundation shows how job insecurity is increasing and wages stagnating, particularly at the bottom end.^⁵ This obviously has an additional impact on disabled people.

Poverty has risen dramatically and food bank usage has increased both for those in and out of work. In April 2013 over 900,000 people had been forced to use Trussell foodbanks an increase of 163% over the previous 12 months. ^⁶

Malnutrition is becoming a public health emergency with hospital admissions for this doubling between 2008 and 2012-13 (latest available figures).^⁷

Sanctions Which result in the removal of all benefit payments from 4 -26 weeks and in some cases for 3 years

For disabled people on ESA the numbers sanctioned between March 2013 and March 2014 increased from 1,356 to 6,1495 almost trebling. 65% of those sanctioned have Mental health conditions.

This figure does not include disabled people who have been wrongly found fit for work and forced to claim Job Seekers Allowance.^⁸

The latest data for England shows that there were 118,002 JSA claimants that received an adverse sanction decision in the last month for which data is available.^⁹

We have already evidenced how the Coalition austerity measures have impacted on disabled people and led to increasing levels of poverty, destitution and despair. They are causing and continue to cause grave and systematic violations of disabled people’s human rights enshrined in UNCRPD. Even when court cases can be brought (legal aid has now been restricted) the courts do not always help eg. although bedroom tax has been found to be a disability discrimination issue the court has ruled that this is justifiable.

The cumulative impact of the loss of disabled people’s human rights has not been measured in any way by the government although this has been called for by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Prospects for the general election and after

Minority Parties

UKIP – this is a relatively newly formed political party which is opposed to the EU, immigration and appears to be attracting disillusioned voters of the right and left. Currently they are shown by polls to have 16% share of the vote. UKIP are unlikely to have enough elected MPs to be able to form a government but as a particularly right wing party could be espeacially dangerous if they were to become part of any coalition government or hold the balance of power in any way. They are forcing everything to the right and pulling Conservatives and Labour further from policies that are consistent with equalities as they compete for who can be toughest on migrants (and there are disabled migrants of course) and especially migrants claiming benefits which is fuelling the demonisation of benefit claimants.

Liberal Democrats – currently in a coalition with the Conservatives. Viewed as generally untrustworthy as they have abandoned most if not all of their principles to secure a share of power. Share of vote in polls 6%

Green Party – a minority party which has effectively been excluded from taking part in party political debates by the state controlled BBC. Share of vote in polls also 6%.

Others -SNP, Plaid Cymru, UDP,SDLP and Sinn Fein in the devolved regions may all also have a small number of MPs elected to parliament.

On an equal footing from polls with approximately 34% of the vote each are the 2 main political parties –Labour and Conservatives.

Conservatives –

What is already apparent from the Coalition propaganda is that this election and the run up to it will be about further castigating and scapegoating disabled people as a financial drain on the economy which is unsustainable and driving further the agenda of disabled people as being undeserving.

Further cuts the Conservatives have said they will impose if elected

Implement a further £12billion cut from the welfare bill, a quarter of this to come from freezing benefit levels for 2 years in spite of fuel costs rising 73% and food prices by 40% since 2006. ^¹⁰
Pull Britain out of the European Convention on Human Rights
Scrap the Human Rights Act
Reduce funding to Equalities and Human Rights Commission^¹¹
End the need for Equality Impact Assessments to be carried out to monitor the impact of policies on disabled people.
A further reduction of the overall benefit cap from £26,000 per annum to £23,000 per annum.
Loss of welfare assistance funding from May 2015. These are emergency payments now made by local authorities to people in dire need.
Reduction of ESA rates for disabled people in the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG) to 50p above the Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) rates. This would mean a reduction in weekly benefits of £30 per week. ^¹²
The discredited Work Capability Assessments will be taken over by Maximus another corporation which has been found guilty in several legal challenges in the US. They will be paid £500 million over 3 and a half years to continue the tick box assessments that have led to so many deaths and suicides of disabled people.
At the same time disabled people are facing these threats to their basic incomes there remain 2,700 ex-Remploy factory workers unemployed, cuts to Access to Work Funding and almost 90% of Employment and Support Allowance claimants on the Work programme have not moved into employment.^¹³
There is still no commitment to support independent living as a right and the Care Act coming into place in April 2015 replaces the term independent living with wellbeing something which is far from the former.

Continuing Misuse of Statistics

For the first time UK tax payers will receive a breakdown of where their tax money supposedly goes via a propaganda exercise costing £5 million. Money which even Austerity Britain seems able to find when it wants to.

This however seems to be a total misrepresentation of data and facts and what is shown as welfare spending in fact includes a large number of unrelated items to the real welfare spend of the country. While old age pensions have been separated, no other cost has, meaning the category includes in-work tax credits, money for disabled and sick people, child benefit, winter fuel payments for old people, Plus it seems all pension payments made to those in receipt of public sector pensions are included in the category of welfare spending. This alone accounts for £20 billion of money supposedly spent on welfare provision.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has also shown that the welfare total included £28.5bn of “personal social services” which is normally classified as a health and social care cost and not as a welfare spending.

Using IFS tables to calculate a more conventional figure for total welfare less state pension expenditure shows that these figures used by the government inflate the published welfare spending total by around 40%.^¹⁴

Another issue the government appears to have misrepresented is rolling together income tax and national insurance despite the fact that these are paid separately, and fund different things. National Insurance is partly an insurance premium to safeguard against unemployment and the sickness and disability that stop you working, so some of the ‘welfare’ money is effectively payouts covered by premiums, and this has been made deliberately unclear by the presentation chosen.

We have already outlined numerous examples where Conservative politicians have been shown to be manipulating and misusing statistics but in relation to the Work Capability Assessments. We believe that the government has started manipulated the figures in view of the General Election, which means that the figures that the government could present to the CRPD Committee have become meaningless.

Disabled people stuck in the WCA assessment phase are included in the claimant count. What this means: 1) the number of ESA claimants is higher than it should be (some of the people in the assessment phase will be eventually found fit for work or will have recovered and ended their claims), which means that Iain Duncan Smith can claim that the WCA is working better.

2) the backlog is now 600,000 people, If you assume that 60% of them go onto ESA according to the latest figures (going back a while) and the rest on JSA, it means that to keep people in the assessment phase is artificially lowering down the number of JSA claimants, therefore the unemployment figure. There are however no recently available statistics to show this trend that have been published.

3) Without a more thorough analysis of the data WCA statistics may look as if they are improving as more assessments are paper based now to clear the ever increasing backlog which means those that are being processed on paper only relate to people viewed as having the most severe disabilities.

The number of appeals has also fallen but this is due to the change to Mandatory Reconsiderations and also the fall in the number of assessments.

It is also 12 months since Mandatory Reconsiderations have been introduced as an alternative to people having a right to appeal against decisions relating to their benefit claims. No information has been published about how these are working or the time taken for them to be processed although during that period claimants cannot receive any income from ESA and many are left with no source of income.

Labour Party

The Labour party are offering little different to the Conservatives and seem unlikely to offer any real alternative. They say they will commit to keeping to Conservative spending levels for the first two years if they are elected which makes it impossible for them to alleviate any of the worst effects of the austerity pogrom that disabled people have endured.

1. They will continue with the Work Capability Assessments and Personal Independence Payment agendas and only pause with regard to the roll out of Universal Credit. Their comments are only that they hope Maximus will get better results than ATOS.

2. They will continue with the sanctions regime that has left thousands of disabled people with no source of income.

3. They say if we win the court case they will keep the Independent Living Fund open for current recipients but will not re-open it to anyone else.

4. If they adhere to current spending limits then local councils will continue to have massive spending cuts imposed on them leaving them without the funding needed to support independent living.

5. The Labour party has allowed their own structures and support for their disabled members to collapse. This has resulted in disabled people having little or no voice in the party.

6. The labour shadow minster for disabled people has said that disabled people will no longer be forced to take part in the work programme unless they have mild impairments. What exactly she means by mild impairments is unknown and we feel this is open to abuse by untrained private sector work programme providers as well as open to interpretation by a whole range of others with no medical qualifications to make such a value judgement. This would particularly be the case if the biopsychsocial model was used to determine what is considered mild.

7. There is still no commitment to support independent living as a right and Labour support the introduction of the Care Act in 2015 which replaces the concept of independent living with that of wellbeing.

8. On a plus note Labour say they will abolish bedroom tax.

1 https://www.poverty.ac.uk/editorial/uk-benefit-levels-‘inadequate’

Council of Europe/benefit levels

https://money.aol.co.uk/2013/11/28/uk-state-pension-is-lowest-in-europe/ pensions

2 https://www.poverty.ac.uk/articles-government-cuts-international-comparisons-public-spending-whats-new/uk-heading-bottom-place

3 Taylor-Gooby, P. (2012) ‘Root and branch restructuring to achieve major cuts: the social policy programme of the 2010 UK coalition government’, Social Policy and Administration, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 61–82. Also available online at https://www.social-policy.org.uk/lincoln2011/Taylor-Gooby%20P4.pdf

4 : https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2811055/One-four-British-children-living-poverty-six-years-Great-Recession-reveals-damning-Unicef-report.html#ixzz3I2EmSPgo

5 https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/media/media/downloads/Who_Gains_from_Growth_2.pdf

6 https://www.trusselltrust.org/foodbank-figures-top-900000 NB. there are also many independent foodbanks being used as well.

7 – https://www.channel4.com/news/malnutrition-health-emergency-dwp-british-medical-journal

8 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/27/todays-britain-poor-forced-steal-food-banks

9 https://lginform.local.gov.uk/reports/view/lga-research/the-impacts-of-the-welfare-reform?mod-area=E92000001&mod-group=AllLaInCountry_England

10 https://www.realbritainindex.org/

11 The EHRC’s budget was cut by more than half, from £60m to £26.8m by 2014/15,in the 2010 Spending Review, representing a 62% cut to its original budget.

A comprehensive review of the remainder of the Commission’s budget was undertaken in 2012. The work of the Commission is now under threat

https://thewomensresourcecentre.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Appendix-6-Cuts-to-the-Equality-and-Human.pdf

12 https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/30/cuts-employment-support-allowance-papers-jobseekers-allowance?CMP=twt_gu

13 . https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-failure-of-idss-work-programme-is-a-scandal-9842188.html

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmpubacc/457/457.pdf

14 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/04/welfare-tax-statements-prime-minister-pension

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7424

Victories on Council Tax – spread the word!

Action, All Posts, Benefits, council cuts, Disability Activism, Disability Rights, DWP, News, Politics, welfare cuts, Welfare reforms No Responses »

Nov 072014

Rev Paul Nicolson, of Taxpayers Against Poverty, is publicising his two recent court victories — which we can all use to challenge our Council Tax bills and the court costs added on top. See letter below.

And read the interview with him and Haringey single mum Michelle Moseley: ‘A powerful win’: single mother takes down council in supreme court.

At the Supreme Court in June 2014 when the case was heard by the five judges.

At the High Court last month.

Key judgments on council benefit cuts

The Guardian, Sunday 2 November 2014

Two judgments given in October will impact on all council-tax payers, magistratescourts, local authorities and governmental consultations of the public. On 29 October the supreme court decided that the London borough of Haringey’s 2012 council-tax consultation was unlawful. On 10 December 2012 I had written to the leader of Haringey council: “I am shocked that no alternative to hitting the fragileincomes of the poorest residents of Haringey [with council tax] … was included in the recent consultation.” Declaring that consultation unlawful, Justice Lord Wilson wrote: “The protest of the Rev Nicolson in his letter … was well directed.”

Alternatives to the council’s preferred options must now be put to the public in a future consultation. In all fairness there must be an alternative to local government taxation of benefits that are being shredded by central government (Cameron accused of getting sums wrong on cuts, 31 October).

On 7 October the high court gave me leave for judicial review of the £125 costs for a summons sought by Haringey council from 28,882 late or non-paying households in 2013-14. The costs are imposed by Tottenham magistrates against benefit incomes on top of inevitable arrears. I have deliberately allowed my council tax to become a civil debt. I was duly summoned to court, which allowed me the opportunity to ask the magistrates how they arrived at that £125. Haringey council has now withdrawn a summons against me, “as a matter of prudence during this period of on going litigation” and waived the £125.

The council has not replied to my letter inviting them to cease issuing all summons until it has reviewed the rationality and legality of that £125 it asks the magistrates to impose. Maybe all magistrates and councils in England and Wales should take notice.

Rev Paul Nicolson

Taxpayers Against Poverty

DWP Work And Pensions Committee Hearing on Access to Work

DWP, Events, Independent Living, Politics, welfare cuts No Responses »

Oct 272014

DWP PARLIAMENTARY SELECT COMMITTEE FINAL EVIDENCE SESSION ON ACCESS TO WORK INQUIRY.

WHEN: Wednesday, 29th October 2014.

TIME: 9.30 a.m.

GIVING EVIDENCE: Mark Harper MP, Minister for Disabled People.

Colin Stewart, Work Services Director.

WHERE: Wilson Room, Portcullis House, Bridge Street, London, SW1A 2LW

Please note, BSL sign interpreter will be provided in the public gallery of the Wilson Room.

TV Channels to watch the session on, BBC Parliament and Democracy live, BBC Parliament recording will include BSL sign interpretation of the session, or you can watch on the internet www.parliament.uk click on what’s on, click on select committee, scroll down to DWP select committee and click on video if watching via computer or laptop.

HOW TO GET THERE: nearest underground station is Westminster, step free access is on Jubilee Line, accessible lift to ticket hall, then accessible lift to street level.

Buses that stop nearest to Parliament are, 3, 11, 12, 24, 53, 87, 88, 148, 159, and 211.

Please allow extra time to get to Portcullis House as security level is set at Severe, wheelchair access entrance is located at the front of the building in the middle, press the wheelchair symbol, and go through security, then to the reception desk and ask for Wilson Room, (a member of staff will escort you to the lift and the floor of where the Wilson Room is located.)

The final session of the Access to Work Inquiry will include the following:

To explore the Government’s position on a range of issues highlighted during the inquiry.

Potential for substantially increased funding of AtW in line with the recommendations of the Sayce Review.

DWP’s general approach to the administration of the scheme, including its approach to self employment and entrepreneurship.

Specific administrative issues including paper based application and invoicing processes and the recently introduced call centre system.

The clarity, transparency and consistency of the award decision making and review processes.

The level of disability awareness of DWP Staff administrating the scheme.

The guidance on funding for support workers.

Referral routes into the workplace, mental health support services and AtW employer cost sharing arrangements.

Freud Must Go. Urgent Call Out, Monday October 20th Caxton House 12.30pm

Action, All Posts, Benefits, Disability Activism, Disability Rights, Events, News, Politics 13 Responses »

Oct 162014

We say Lord Freud should resign after his disgusting comments that disabled people are not worth the minimum wage.

Freud is the architect of the government’s noxious welfare reform programme that is pushing disabled people off benefits and causing untold distress and misery, in too many cases leading to suicides and avoidable deaths.

The policies Freud designed show utter contempt for disabled people. His latest comments made to a Tory councillor at a party conference fringe meeting confirm this.

What kind of a society are we that the lives of disabled people are left in the hands of someone who thinks disabled people have lesser worth and refers to them as stock.

There are 11 million disabled voters plus their families in the UK. Do the Tories think allowing this type of reprehensible comment to be made by one of their senior ministers will encourage any of us to vote for them? If they wish to retain credibility (if they have any that is)and Freud refuses to resign they must sack him immediately.

Join us to demand Freud resigns or is sacked. Monday October 20th at DWP head office, Caxton House, Tothill Street, 12.30pm til 2.30pm ….. and if you can’t make the Caxton House Protest – you can join the Twitter Protest

Stop the Changes to Access to Work meeting, October 23rd, London

Action, All Posts, Politics, Reclaiming our Futures No Responses »

Oct 092014

You are invited to an open meeting on 23^rd October 6pm to 8pm to find out more about the changes to Access to Work and how Deaf and disabled people and interpreters have been opposing these changes and how you can get involved.

The meeting will be on:

·       23^rd October 2014 – 6pm to 8pm

·       Venue: 336 Brixton Road, London SW9 7AA

·       BSL interpreters available – let us know if you have other access needs

·       Refreshments available.

For further details contact Ellen Clifford – Ellen.clifford@inclusionlondon.co.uk – please let Ellen know if you are coming.

Labour Conference 2014 Tweetlist #Lab14

News, Politics 3 Responses »

Sep 212014

Crash the Labour Party Conference Twittersphere with DPAC!! (@Dis_ppl_protest)

Use Hashtag: #Lab14 to send your own messages or tweet ours!

Tweet this

C’mon Ed, grow a pair and support Disabled People https://t.co/LyWsKLVO4n #Lab14 #SaveILF #ScrapWCA via @Dis_ppl_protest

Tweet this

Hey Rachel “Tougher then the Tories” Reeves, try being fairer than the Tories, Disability isn’t a crime y’know #Lab14 via @Dis_ppl_protest

Tweet this

‘Every little helps ….’ Pls share these pics-full set: https://shar.es/1avdfK #SaveILF via @dis_ppl_protest #Lab14

Tweet this

New short film with the Daily Mirror: Save the Independent Living Fund! #SaveILF https://www.katebelgrave.com/2014/09/new-short-film-with-the-daily-mirror-save-the-independent-living-fund-saveilf/ via @hangbitch #Lab14

Tweet this

#SaveILF Campaign Pictures for Party Conference Season https://shar.es/1avjxX via @Dis_PPL_Protest #Lab14

Tweet this

The ILF Diaries: the difference the Independent Living Fund makes daily #saveilf /part 2 https://shar.es/1avjTn via @Dis_PPL_Protest #Lab14

Tweet this

Hey Labour! Don’t give in to Tory Propaganda on Social Security https://buff.ly/Z2UqRz @Dis_PPL_Protest #Lab14

Tweet this

Sign and Share the petition to support #anthonykletzander https://shar.es/1avkYw via @Dis_PPL_Protest #Lab14

Tweet this

A Tale of two Models:Disabled People vs Unum,Atos,Government & Disability Charities https://shar.es/1avyAt via @Dis_PPL_Protest #lab14

Tweet this

My first book: A is for Activism #saveilf https://dpac.uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Cockroach-pic-3-A-is-for-Activism.png?8f0b62 @Dis_PPL_Protest #Lab14

Tweet this

#SaveILF News https://t.co/dN4iE4zWto #Lab14

Tweet this

‘The fight is not over ….’ Pls share pics-full set: https://shar.es/1avdfK #SaveILF via @dis_ppl_protest pic.twitter.com/SGe4EQWmwE #Lab14

Tweet this

‘Cameron scared of us? …’ Pls share pics-full set: https://shar.es/1avdfK #SaveILF via @dis_ppl_protest pic.twitter.com/eCnKMtxR3F #Lab14

Tweet this

‘Mobilise,Mobilise,Mobilise..’ Pls share pics-full set https://shar.es/1avdfK #SaveILF via @dis_ppl_protest pic.twitter.com/xBQiXpuKSS #Lab14

Tweet this

‘Young Nick Cleggie ….’ Pls share pics-full set: https://shar.es/1avdfK #SaveILF via @dis_ppl_protest pic.twitter.com/BkWp8YpySX #Lab14

Tweet this

‘Its Party Conference Time! ..’ Pls share pics-full set https://shar.es/1avdfK #SaveILF via @dis_ppl_protest pic.twitter.com/7Fwt29oRXL #Lab14

Tweet this

#SaveILF Legal Challenge Pls share pics-full set: https://shar.es/1avdfK #SaveILF via @dis_ppl_protest pic.twitter.com/YCTnkl4vCt #Lab14

Tweet this

‘A is for Activism….’ Pls share pics-full set: https://shar.es/1avdfK #SaveILF via @dis_ppl_protest pic.twitter.com/4PA535epYM #Lab14

Tweet this

‘Verbs ….’ Pls share pics-full set: https://shar.es/1avdfK #SaveILF via @dis_ppl_protest pic.twitter.com/LyWsKLVO4n #Lab14

Tweet this

‘Every little helps ….’ Pls share pics-full set: https://shar.es/1avdfK #SaveILF via @dis_ppl_protest pic.twitter.com/3MlJ6Oz5mF #Lab14

Tweet this

Independent Living Fund Media Reports https://dpac.uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/DPAC-Report-Independent-Living-Fund-UK-Media-Coverage.pdf?2c6fce #SaveILF #Lab14

Tweet this

Come on Labour, fight Tory Welfare propaganda, cos its a load of lies https://dpac.uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/DPAC-Report-on-DWP-Abuse-of-Statistics-Final-22-June-2013.pdf?2c6fce #Lab14

Tweet this

The WCA can’t be reformed, Scrap It https://dpac.uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/DPAC-Report-ATOS-WCA-Factfile.pdf?2c6fce #ScrapWCA #Lab14

Tweet this

What will happen if the ILF Closes? Nothing good. https://dpac.uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/DPAC-Report-ILF-Closure-Factfile.pdf?2c6fce #SaveILF #Lab14

Tweet this

Read it and weep, a couple of hundred reasons to #scrapWCA https://dpac.uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/DPAC-Report-Work-Capability-Assessment-UK-Media-Coverage-Issue-2.pdf?2c6fce #Lab14

Tweet this

Disability Hate Crime in the News – there is a lot more here https://dpac.uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/DPAC-Report-Media-reporting-on-Disability-and-Disability-Hate-Crime-Issue-1-May-2014.pdf?2c6fce #Lab14

Tweet this

If this doesn’t leave you crying, you should join the tory party https://dpac.uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/DPAC-Report-No-Money-No-Food-No-Heating-Disabled-People-who-have-been-Sanctioned.pdf?2c6fce #Lab14 #Sanctions

Tweet this

Does Labour really think the WCA can be reformed? https://dpac.uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/DPAC-Report-Reports-of-WCA-Related-Suicides-Issue-1-May-2014.pdf?2c6fce #ScrapWCA #Lab14

Tweet this

This is happening, Right Here and Right Now https://dpac.uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/DPAC-Report-Six-Months-and-Still-Waiting-Personal-Testimonies-of-PIP-Assessment-Delays.pdf?2c6fce #PIP #Lab14

Tweet this

Appeals and #Sanctions More Chaos at the DWP https://dpac.uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/DPAC-Paper-Appeals-and-Sanctions.-More-chaos-at-DWP-July-2014.pdf?2c6fce #Lab14

Tweet this

The UK Disabled People’s Manifesto – Reclaiming Our Futures https://dpac.uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/UK_Disabled_People__s_Manifesto___Reclaiming_Our_Futures.pdf?2c6fce #Lab14

Tweet this

Sign and Share the petition to support #anthonykletzander https://dpac.uk.net/2014/09/sign-and-share-the-petition-to-support-anthonykletzander/ #Lab14

Tweet this

The Policy Exchange report on #sanctions needs to be challenged https://dpac.uk.net/2014/05/the-policy-exchange-report-on-sanctions-needs-to-be-challenged/ #Lab14

Tweet this

DPAC Response to ‘How Labour would reform the Work Capability Assessment’ #ScrapWCA https://dpac.uk.net/2014/04/dpac-response-to-how-labour-would-reform-the-work-capability-assessment/ #ScrapWCA #Lab14

Tweet this

DPAC’s submission to Work and Pensions commitee on WCA https://dpac.uk.net/2014/04/dpacs-submission-to-wp-commitee-on-wca/ #ScrapWCA #Lab14

Tweet this

Response to the Work and Pensions Committee report into WCA #ScrapWCA #Lab14 https://dpac.uk.net/2014/07/response-to-the-work-and-pensions-committee-report-into-wca-joint-statement-by-bt-dpac-mhrn-and-newapproach/

Tweet this

Disabled people deemed to be acceptable collateral damage by Labour in 2010? https://dpac.uk.net/2014/06/disabled-people-deemed-to-be-acceptable-collateral-damage-in-2010/ #ScrapWCA #Lab14

Tweet this

#ScrapWCA, no descriptors, no computer assessments and no private corporations. https://dpac.uk.net/2014/04/dpac-response-to-how-labour-would-reform-the-work-capability-assessment/ #Lab14

Tweet this

Scrap #PIP disaster now, no more money to corporations for cock ups https://dpac.uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/DPAC-Report-Six-Months-and-Still-Waiting-Personal-Testimonies-of-PIP-Assessment-Delays.pdf?2c6fce #Lab14

Tweet this

Stop wasting our money to pay private firms to fail. Bring back in-house services https://dpac.uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/DPAC-Report-Six-Months-and-Still-Waiting-Personal-Testimonies-of-PIP-Assessment-Delays.pdf?2c6fce #Lab14

Tweet this

Say no to Universal Credit – thousands of years to roll out at this rate. https://leftfootforward.org/2014/09/coalition-misses-universal-credit-target-again/

Tweet this

Support @Dis_ppl_protest Reclaiming Our Futures alliance a legal right to life and independent living https://dpac.uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/UK_Disabled_People__s_Manifesto___Reclaiming_Our_Futures.pdf?2c6fce #Lab14

Tweet this

Support @dis-ppl_protest and ROF allaince a legal right to inclusive education. https://dpac.uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/UK_Disabled_People__s_Manifesto___Reclaiming_Our_Futures.pdf?2c6fce #Lab14

Green Party Calls On Bristol To Lead Fight For The Rights Of Disabled People

council cuts, ILF, local authority cuts, Politics, write to your local councillor No Responses »

Sep 112014

Motion to be debated at full council on Tuesday 16th September

The ability to be able to live independently is a fundamental right for disabled people – it is enshrined in Article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [1]. Over 18,000 disabled people in the UK, including over a hundred in Bristol, are only able to live independently by accessing the support they need through the Independent Living Fund (ILF).

Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett holding a Save ILF Postcard

Therefore, the Coalition Government’s decision to close the ILF will have seriously repercussions for many of our fellow citizens, denying them the right to choose to live in their own home, and to be active members of their local communities.

On Wednesday, the Bristol Green Party will ask the council to vote to ring-fence all funds transferred from the ILF, and to call upon the national leaders of the main political parties to reverse the closure of the ILF. If passed, it is believed that Bristol will become the first city to take an official position against the closure of the ILF.[2]

“We are calling for the funds that will be transferred locally to be ring-fenced but we also need any future national government to commit to providing the necessary resources to enable disabled citizens to live independently.” said Tony Dyer, the Green Party candidate for Bristol South, “Welfare reform, including changes to incapacity benefit and the introduction of personal independence payments have badly affected many disabled people – they have too often borne the brunt of this government’s cuts.

“Changes to the ILF fund in particular are causing stress for many people who depend on the fund for their support needs and who fear that it will be cut” he continued; “Disability rights groups are also concerned that some people who will have been eligible for ILF support have not been able to apply to the fund since it was closed to new applicants and thus we are also calling for the Council to ensure that these people are not forgotten.”

What is the Independent Living Fund? [3]

The ILF was originally set up in 1988 as a national resource dedicated to the financial support of disable people, enabling them to choose to live in their communities rather than being forced in to residential care.

The ILF is amongst the most efficient of all public sector organisations, with administration costs of just 2% compared to an average of 16% for local authorities. It also has a 98% satisfaction rating amongst its users. In addition, the average weekly ILF fund of £345 to allow disabled people to live at home should be compared with an average weekly cost to the taxpayer of £738 per week to provide residential care.

Despite this exemplar performance, the Coalition government announced in December 2012 it will close the scheme. This decision was subsequently overturned at the Court of Appeal where a judge found that the decision breached the government’s equality duty.

However, the Coalition Government has since repeated its intention to close the fund in June 2015 and transfer its funding responsibilities to local authorities but has only committed to funding local authorities for one year. Disabled groups have already stated their intention to also challenge this decision in the courts. Meanwhile, in August, the UK became the first country to be the subject of an investigation by a high level United Nations commission into “grave violations” of the rights of disabled people. [4]

“I am proud that the Green Party is raising this issue with the Council.”

said Rob Telford, Green Party councillor for Ashley. “The UN human rights investigation to find out if Coalition Government policies have led to ‘grave violations’ of the rights of disabled people comes in the wake of studies showing that those with disabilities have been impacted disproportionately by the cuts – almost 20 times as much. Here in Bristol we must aim to do everything we can to ensure disabled people can live independent, dignified lives and be allowed to contribute to our communities. Any effective future solution needs to directly involve disabled people themselves in the decision making process”

Many of the actions called for by the Greens are based on the concerns raised by Disability Rights UK following responses to Freedom of Information requests sent to all the relevant local authorities. Only 10 local authorities confirmed they were planning to ring-fence ILF transfer funding. [5]

References

(1) United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; https://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml

(2) Green Party motion to full council on Independent Living Fund is now available on the Council website – it is motion a, under agenda item 10 – and will be the first motion debated

https://www.bristol.gov.uk/committee/2014/ta/agenda/0916_1800_ta000.html

(3) House of Commons Library Standard Note on the Independent Living Fund is available here; https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/SN05633/independent-living-fund

(4) UN sparks fury over human rights investigation https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2735958/UN-sparks-fury-launching-human-rights-investigation-Britain-s-treatment-disabled.html

UK is first country to face UN enquiry into disability rights violations

https://disabilitynewsservice.com/2014/08/uk-is-first-country-to-face-un-inquiry-into-disability-rights-violations/

(5) Most councils will not ring fence ILF resources

https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/2014/august/most-councils-will-not-ringfence-ilf-resources

Further Information on

Tony Dyer (named as Green Party candidate in Bristol South)

https://www.bristolgreenparty.org.uk/tony-dyer-named-as-green-party-candidate-in-bristol-south

Rob Telford, Green Party councillor for Ashley Ward

https://robertjessetelford.com/blog/?page_id=3

Stop Discrimination by DWP Towards People Transferring from DLA to PIP

Action, All Posts, Disability Rights, DLA, News, PIP, Politics 1 Response »

Aug 162014

Responsible department: Department for Work and Pensions

We are asking for the inequality in the way Personal Independent Payment (PIP) claims are handled to be stopped and for those making transfers from Disability Living Allowance (DLA) to PIP to be treated in the same way as fresh claims for PIP.

Currently those making claims for PIP have their payments backdated to date of claim. However those receiving DLA do not get their claim backdated even if a change of circumstance means they are entitled to a higher rate of payment.

Payments are made from date of decision, meaning current delays, which the DWP admit to, mean claimants losing out on several weeks payments, depending on the length of delay and time to process a claim.

This goes against what the DWP themselves have said in response to questions from Susan Elan Jones MP i.e. ‘…the benefit is backdated so NO ONE is left out of pocket’. The current system is in no way equitable and victimises long term disabled people.

There is a petition at https://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/66447

Also let us know if this has happened to you by emailing : mail@dpac.uk.net

ILF users and allies #saveilf Summer Mobilisation for download

Action, All Posts, ILF, Independent Living, Independent Living Fund ILF, Politics, Write to your MP No Responses »

Aug 152014

The campaign to save the Independent living Fund (ILF) is now at its most crucial stage, because it involves you.

Following the high profile Westminster Abbey sit-in and the tea parties held outside DWP offices, we’re now asking ILF recipients to invite MPs to their homes to show them exactly what the ILF means in reality and why it must be kept.

This Summer is a great time to lobby MPs as they’ll be back in their constituencies working hard in the hope of securing votes in the run up to the 2015 General Election.

Please take the simple steps in this toolkit and let us know how it goes so we can target politicians and do everything we can together to save the ILF.

It includes writing a letter/email to your MP, writing to the local paper, meeting your MP, arguments and briefing and an invitation for your MP to the MP Drop in on 2^nd September

Independent Living fund Drop in

– with BBC Silent Witness actress Liz Carr

2 September 2014; 2 – 4pm; House of Commons Committee Room 19

This drop in session will be a chance for MPs to find out more about the closure of the ILF which currently supports nearly 18,000 disabled people with the highest support needs to live independently in the community, to contribute to society in employment, education, volunteering, as family members, friends and as members of our communities and to build the local economy through employing teams of Personal Assistants.

The surgery will be an opportunity to ask questions and to speak to Liz who has been enabled, through support from the ILF, to progress an acting career that has spanned stand-up comedy, presenting for BBC and primetime television.

Also in attendance to answer your questions will be a former ILF staff representative and a disabled person who missed out on the ILF through its closure to new applicants in 2010 and whose experiences reflect those of many other disabled people now excluded from participating in areas of life that non-disabled people take for granted.

The Drop in is being organized by PCS Union, Disabled People Against Cuts and Inclusion London.

For more information contact ellen.clifford@inclusionlondon.co.uk or Natasha@pcs.org.uk

Click Save-the-ILF-mobilisation to download the full Save ILF Mobilisation Word document

Press release: Anti-fracking protestors join occupation of Cuadrilla site

Action, All Posts, Politics No Responses »

Aug 142014

At midday today (August 14), protestors from Reclaim the Power set up camp at Preston New Road, at fracking company Cuadrilla’s proposed drilling site. Approximately 1000 attendees will stay for six days, to take direct action and share skills and knowledge. They do so in support of the local community’s fight against Cuadrilla’s plans to drill for shale gas in Lancashire.[1]

Last year, the Reclaim the Power camp shut down Cuadrilla’s operations in Balcombe, Sussex for a week. The company later announced that they would not frack the site, and the Balcombe community has set up an initiative to supply their area with renewable energy.[2]

In 2011, Blackpool experienced earthquakes caused by fracking. Hannah Jones from Reclaim the Power said:

“Blackpool is where the fracking industry started in the UK, and this is where it has to stop. Besides the damage it can cause to water and air locally, fracked gas can be as bad for the climate as coal. We need energy that’s sustainable, democratic, and affordable, instead of corporate controlled fossil fuels.”

Since August 7^th, a group of Lancashire grandmothers, mothers, and children have been occupying the field at Preston New Road – one of Cuadrilla’s proposed drill sites. Local residents handed in a record-breaking 14,000 objections to a council consultation on Cuadrilla’s plans.[3] When asked why the local women are occupying the field, Tina Louise from Lancashire said,

“The shale gas industry and Cuadrilla in particular have not acted honestly in their dealings with our community and are not to be trusted with the health and well-being of our children. We do not want them here and so are gathering to make sure we are heard and we are calling others to help us amplify this. As air and water do not recognize county boundaries, the defence is for everybody in the UK.”

[1] Press pack with more detailed camp information available. [2]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/17/balcombe-fracking-energy-community-renewables[3]https://www.foe.co.uk/news/14000-people-call-frack-free-lancashire

Contacts @nodashforgas
07447 027112
press@nodashforgas.org.uk

Is the United Nations Committee on Rights of Persons with Disabilities investigating the UK?

All Posts, News, Politics, UNCRPD 3 Responses »

Jul 192014

This video on youtube seems to suggest that it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR_sLy_8B-8 (watch from 1hr and 4 minutes in)

This video is taken from a proceedings of a recent conference on the UNCRPD in Galway in June this year

The conference session is entitled:

Monitoring the CRPD — the Work of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

And the person speaking is Gabor Gombos Adjunct Professor at NALSAR Law University, India and at NUI Galway

We have isolated the relevant clip of the video and posted it below:-

Here is a transcript of the video:

 "The primary mandate of the treaty bodies is this country review, which is mandated by
 the treaty itself. Now under several treaties including the CRPD, there are optional protocols
 which give additional mandates to the treaty body. In the case of the optional protocol
 to the CRPD one of the additional mandates is inquiry procedure."

 "The inquiry procedure is basically about grave and systemic violations of human rights in
 the country. Where the issue has been raised and the government did not really make effective
 actions to fix the situation, it is a very high threshold thing; the violations should
 really be grave and very systemic."

 "And it cannot be based on gossip. An inquiry procedure against a country has a very, very
 high profile internationally also, it should be established and the procedure is highly
 confidential until the outcome, the end of the procedure."

 "The committee has not completed an inquiry procedure yet, but the committee started its
 first inquiry procedure against the United Kingdom, I wanted to share this with you,
 this is a public piece of information. Nothing else about the inquiry procedure is public,
 okay?"

 "So we only know that the United Kingdom has the privilege to be made accountable through
 an inquiry procedure by the CRPD committee regarding grave and systemic violations of
 persons with disabilities in the United Kingdom. We'll see, I'm really curious what will happen
 and what this inquiry procedure is about."

 "Again civil society does play an enormous role in this. Typically an inquiry procedure
 is initiated by civil society organisations; it's a highly confidential procedure as I
 told you and it's a very dynamic procedure, the treaty body can delegate some of its members
 to visit the country and meet NGOs, meet governments and enters into a dialogue with them."

So it seems there is a quiet investigation into the violations by the UK government of the rights of disabled people. As said in the video, the inquiry procedure is not triggered by gossip but by very serious human rights violations corroborated by facts and statistics.

If true, this is what disabled people have been waiting for a very long time: a genuine, thorough and independent investigation of the retrogression of disabled people’s rights and of what they had to suffer for the past 4 years .

We sincerely hope that it is true.

Were you at the Battle for Westminster and wanting to make a complaint against police treatment?

All Posts, legal challenges, News, Politics, Uncategorized No Responses »

Jul 082014

Here is information on making complaints to IPCC

https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/complaints

They have guidance just read the section and you will see link.

Here is link to MPS complaints

https://content.met.police.uk/Article/Complaints-process/1400010861919/1400010861919

You can make individual complaints and also organisational complaints.

Those directly affected by the restriction of medication , food and drink should individually complain.

It will take time for the complaints to be processed so I suggest people do this asap.

If you need help making a complaint they can approach MP, Citizens Advice and some DPOs may assist too.

The MPS has already launched an inquiry into policing at the Westminster demonstration

https://www.thefedonline.org.uk/disability-in-the-news/westminster-abbey-protest-police-launch-inquiry-over-treatment-of-protesters

Legal Challenge to PIP descriptors, Birmingham – vigil July 9th 1pm

Action, All Posts, Benefits, PIP, Politics, welfare cuts, Welfare reforms No Responses »

Jul 012014

Urgent – Legal Challenge to PIP 20 metre descriptor to be held in Birmingham Administrative Court, Bull Street next week on July 9^th and 10^th.

The solicitors have asked for a room for observers to the case and are waiting for confirmation of that. They would like anyone who can to attend to show how important this case is to disabled people.

There will also be a vigil outside the court from 1- 2pm on July 9^th. Bring placards, banners and friends and supporters.

To get updates on room availability and to check the case will not be affected by strike action on July 10^th please email

birminghambenefitjustice@gmail.com

#SaveILF URGENT ACTION NEEDED

All Posts, ILF, News, Politics, Write to your MP No Responses »

Jun 132014

Get your MP to the House of Commons Debate!

Wednesday 18th June 11am

The future of the Independent Living Fund will be debated in the House of Commons for the first time this Wednesday 18th June from 11 – 11.30am.

We need to make sure as many MPs know it’s happening and will be there prepared to stand up for the ILF and the future of independent living support for disabled people.

The fight for the ILF is far from over.

In March the Minister for Disabled People announced a new decision to permanently close the ILF in June 2015 following a ruling by the Court of Appeal in November 2013 which quashed the Government’s previous decision to close.
Last week ILF recipients launched a fresh legal challenge which you can read about here

Meanwhile #SaveILF supporters have been busy contacting their local councillors and MPs collecting sign ups to the campaign statement and spreading the word with the brilliant ILF postcard campaign: www.facebook.com/ILFpostcard

One supportive MP Nic Dakin MP for Scunthorpe has managed to get a debate on the future of the Independent Living Fund for this Wednesday 18th June 11 – 11.30am.

Whilst it is only half an hour, it is the first time the ILF and the fundamental question of the removal of disabled people’s right to independent living which its closure represents, has had a debate in Parliament.

This is an opportunity to make sure politicians know what the ILF is and why it is so important.

We need to take urgent action to write to our MPs, urging them to attend the debate, telling them why it matters and most importantly sharing your stories and experiences that show why we need not only to keep the ILF open but to reopen it to new applicants.

You can find your MPs email address and post address here.

Here is a briefing about the ILF you can download and send them as an attachment. ILF briefing 13 June 2014 (just click on the link)

If they can do it in Scotland, why not here?

Disabled people deemed to be acceptable collateral damage in 2010?

Disability History, ESA, News, Politics, WCA, Welfare reforms 1 Response »

Jun 032014

As part of DPAC’s Who 2 Vote 4 campaign Anita Bellows delves in to the history files, to examine who made the decision to move Incapacity Benefit Claimants onto ESA and the warnings that were made about that at the time.

Even before the full reassessment of Incapacity Benefits claimants was in full swing, academics predicted a disaster with 600,000 claimants forced off Incapacity Benefits, particularly for those living in regions of high unemployment.

A Guardian article refers to a study undertaken in 2011 by the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research of Sheffield Hallam University (CRESR) which showed that it was possible to anticipate the dire consequences of IB reassessments and of the ESA regime which relied on a tougher test, but which was already known at the time to be flawed: the Work Capability Assessment.

But the CRESR was not the first, and certainly not the only opponent to the IB migration, and to raise doubts about IB reassessment, the Work Capability Assessment, and the Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) regime.

As early as May 2010, the Social Security Advisory Committee, the House of Lords Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, and the House of Lords all separately warned first the Labour government and then the Coalition government of the potential negative impacts on disability benefit claimants if the IB reassessments went ahead, especially with a tougher test and a standard of assessment which was “not always good enough, especially for people with mental health and cognitive difficulties”.

Both governments decided to ignore these warnings and to go ahead, even before knowing the findings and recommendations of the first review of the WCA.

Background to the reassessment of existing Incapacity Benefit claimants

Employment and Support Allowance did not initially affect existing claimants of incapacity benefits, but the Labour Government made it clear from the outset that existing claimants would be reassessed for ESA.

Budget 2008 [para 4.5] announced that all existing Incapacity Benefit claimants would be required to take the Work Capability Assessment from April 2013.

March 2010 regulations

Regulations laid before Parliament by the Labour Government on 29 March 2010 provided for the “migration” of the remaining incapacity benefits claimants customers to ESA between October 2010 and March 2014, provided they satisfied the Work Capability Assessment.

The draft regulations were subject to full scrutiny by the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC), who published its report in March 2010 with the response of the government.

March 2010 Social Security Advisory Committee’s report

The Committee believed that the migration arrangements in the draft regulations could not be implemented without the risk of “operational stress and adverse impacts on significant numbers of vulnerable people” before adding: “In our view, the Department should not embark upon the proposed migration until the well-documented problems with current ESA processes and procedures (including those with the WCA) have been resolved, any changes to the Pathways programme have been implemented and bedded-in, and improvements have been made to the support available for JSA claimants with a health condition or disability”.

The Committee raised also several concerns:

Lack of a solid evidence base for the decision to migrate or the proposed migration arrangements.
Underestimation by DWP of the support required by this group of claimants, in terms of both their participation in a more active benefit regime and the support required to move them closer to the labour market.
ESA evaluation for new claimants is not planned to be completed until 2011, by which time the proposed migration arrangements will have commenced.

And the Committee recommended that the migration to ESA did not proceed to the current timetable but waits until:

a stronger evidence base on what works and whether ESA is achieving its aims is available
the new regime for claimants with a health condition or disability (as an outcome of the Pathways review) has bedded down
DWP’s review of the WCA is complete, recommendations have been considered and any necessary changes have been made
demand-side approaches to stimulating the labour market have begun to have a positive impact on local demand for labour, particularly in areas with a high concentration of IB claimants.

And in case the migration did proceed as planned the Committee made several recommendations, notably that the quality of the WCA should be improved, particularly for claimants with mental health problems and cognitive and learning difficulties, and that Incapacity benefits claimants currently exempt from the PCA should be automatically treated as meeting the conditions for the ESA Support Group.

March 2010 Government’s response

In its response in the same document, Point 141, the Labour Government rejected the Committee’s call to alter the timetable for migration, but took on board some of the Committee’s concerns and undertook to continue to engage with “stakeholders” as the migration proceeded, stating:

“The Government has carefully considered the Committee’s concerns in relation to the ESA transitional Regulations and their wider concerns about the migration programme. However, for the reasons outlined in this response it does not accept the Committee’s recommendation that migration should not continue to the current timetable. The Government considers the migration of existing incapacity benefits customers to be a key element of welfare reform and one that will greatly benefit customers at a time when support to get back to work is urgently needed. The Government does not believe it would be right or fair to delay this support for customers who have been without it for too long already”.

June 2010 House of Lords Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee’s report

In June 2010, after the General election, the House of Lords Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee published a report which echoed the concerns voiced by the SSAC about whether there would be sufficient support for these groups of claimants, and the lack of evidence on how ESA was working for new claimants, notably that the Committee, from the limited evidence they have seen thought that a

“major project with a potential impact on the lives of some of the most vulnerable in the community is being conducted in a rather ad hoc fashion. The second phase is being rolled out before the first has been evaluated and although better information will be sought on the outcomes, the Department’s intended course of action, and evidence to support it, all seem rather vague”

It voices also concerns about the capacity of only 20 Benefit centres to absorb and process the transition of 10,000 cases per week, the arrangements put into place by DWP for Job centres, as “many of the customers will have special needs”, and the quality of the Work Capability Assessment.

The Committee also asked DWP what percentage of those ESA claimants sent down the JSA route obtained work, and what happened to the 30% who moved off benefits, to which DWP replied that the Department did not hold the information centrally, but that it intended “to carry out a qualitative piece of in-depth research on unsuccessful ESA claimants who do not qualify for ESA, have their claim closed, or withdraw their claim”.

One report was published in 2011 [para 4.4.2] in which DWP acknowledged that it knew nothing about ESA claimants found fit for work, and not claiming JSA.

July 2010 House of Lords’s debate to motion

The House of Lords then debated a motion to take note of the Merits Committee’s report on 20 July 2010 which criticised the reassessment of existing IB claimants, the WCA and the ESA regime and which quoted Professor Gregg, the architect of the sanctions regime in the two most recent Welfare Reform Acts as saying: “To start moving people who may have been on incapacity benefit for years straight onto jobseeker’s allowance is ridiculous. Before wading into the stock, the system has to be right“.

To which Lord Freud answered by providing reassurance that everything was fine and under control, and that even this year in March (2010), “a DWP-led review of the work capability assessment found that generally it is accurately identifying individuals for the right support”.

The General Election is one year away and the choice is likely to be between the two main parties.

Both of them were alerted in 2010 to the risks people claiming incapacity benefits could be exposed to, if IB reassessments went ahead.
Both parties knew there was a real capacity gap in Job centres and Benefit centres to deal with the number estimated by DWP to be found fit for work.
Both parties were warned about the issues already plaguing the Work Capability Assessment.
Both parties chose to ignore these warnings and to proceed with a flawed reassessment process.

While the Conservative party, through Iain Duncan Smith, and the various Ministers for Disabled People has shown itself to be indifferent to the plight of people who need support because they cannot work, the Labour party should not be let off the hook.

Would Labour have done things differently? Maybe, but the fact is we don’t know, and while they were in power, they did not show any willingness to protect these groups of people from harm.

Before being trusted again, the Labour party has to acknowledge its errors of the past and make concrete proposals to put things right.

The ball is in their court.

‘Professionals’ try to deny our human rights yet again…..

Action, All Posts, Independent Living, Politics, professional oppression, Reclaiming our Futures, Social Model, UNCRPD 2 Responses »

May 182014

Disabled people have long been oppressed by professionals saying they’re acting in our ‘best interests’ as an excuse to maintain their own interests. One of the latest is their ‘take’ on facilitated communication, used by many across the world to express their voice if they do not have speech. FC is the use of a keyboard on which the user types what they want to say see the great piece written by the brilliant Quiet Riot

communication board in hand doing ordinary things like buying an ice cream. This does not require a “transition plan” or “a service delivery audit” Or a specialist training programme to create a team of ” Whippy Therapist”

Some claim FC is incorrect and shouldn’t be used. DPAC fundamentally disagrees and fully supports FC. But, of course keeping people voiceless is much more profitable for ‘professionals’, charities and other groups whose livelihoods and/or donations often depend on our oppression and on keeping us powerless and silent. This has been evident throughout disabled peoples’ history.

Imagine the loss of contracts, work they get to psycho – analyse us. The lesser need for speech therapists, researchers, psychologists, service providers and academics,and the drop in donations to pay top salaries to their charity directors if we develop our own challenging voices-of course its in their interests to deny any method that empowers our voice if it renders them obsolete!

All those denying our voices through which ever means we chose to express them are violating our human rights as set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Disabled Persons (UNCRPD) which argues we have a right to use any method we chose for communication including FC and that this should be respected and accepted. But in the so called disability business (i.e those who make money from us and from maintaining our oppression) profit speaks louder than human rights.

Please see below to find out how this can happen when the vested interests of ‘professional power attempts to overturn human rights…….

The ISAAC attack on the Communication used by Increasing numbers of Disabled People.

The International Society of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (ISAAC) released a “Position Statement” on facilitated communication (FC) on 23rd April 2014 to its international membership.

Along with theposition statement on FC, ISAAC finally issued the identities of the ad hoc committee, who were selected to deliver the statement. The majority of the committee had publicly condemned FC prior to joining the committee. Therefore, the condemnation of FC following their deliberations was the expected outcome.

The ISAAC ad hoc committee used flawed methodologies, collected biased data to support an unexplained hypothesis and cited highly selective references to create a spurious position statement on FC.

However, most significantly the committee refused to consult with disabled people who use FC. ISAAC had identified just one disabled person who was a member of this committee but this person did not use FC.

The remainder of the committee were Speech Therapists, Researchers, Psychologists, and Academics. There was no representation of people using the communication they were writing a “position statement” on. Such oppressive practice has no place in an organisation established supposedly to support a persons right to communication.

Rosemary Crossley (the founder of FC) alongside many disabled people using FC, had made many, well received presentations to large audiences at ISAAC events. Now following the work of the ad hoc committee FC, as a method of communication for increasing numbers of disabled people, has been dismissed as invalid.

This outcome appears to have been contrived to protect the power of professionals and academics whilst ignoring the rights of communication for disabled people using FC .

ISAAC have not established committees to create position statements on other alternative means of communication accepted within ISAAC ; Picture Exchange Communication System.(PECS), Rapid Prompt Method (RPM). This is another indication of the deliberate attempt to isolate and devalue FC by a group of professionals and academics whose status and “expertise” is seriously challenged by the authentic voice of disabled people.

Such an approach by ISAAC management requires the subjugation and acquiescence of disabled people and is an abuse of professional power.

This abuse of power and from professionals is being seriously challenged by large numbers of disabled people and their allies. Similar resistance to protect academic vested interests was used to stop the introduction of sign language and Braille and it took major struggle from Deaf and Blind people with their allies to overcome such oppressive practice.

ISAAC and it’s associated chapters state that:

“The International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (ISAAC) works to improve the lives of children and adults who use AAC. (Augmentative and Alternative Communication). ISAAC’s vision is that AAC will be ! recognized, valued and used throughout the world. ISAAC’s mission is to promote the best possible communication for people with complex communication needs.”

By dismissing a valued means of communication ISAAC management are devaluing hundreds of their members and in doing so fundamentally undermine the ISAAC mission statement.

This position statement has given a licence to “hate speech” about FC which cannot go unchallenged. The ISAAC committee have excluded a section of their own membership because they use FC. I invite members of ISAAC to demonstrate their protest at such an abuse of power and an abuse of thousands of disabled people around the world.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men (and women) to do nothing” Edmund Burke.

Adam Barrett

BA (Hons), PGCE, MEd, FC Trainer.

Gail’s report from DWP Select Committee Visit to St.James Park, Newcastle, May 13th

All Posts, Benefits, Events, Politics, WCA, welfare cuts, Welfare reforms 3 Responses »

May 132014

I went to the Work and Pensions Select Committee meeting in Newcastle today at the Newcastle FC in the Bobby Moncur Suite. Access to the building was fine although parking was a fair distance from stadium, but the best they could get. Signers and induction loop were available. I enquired with Sheila Gilmore MP the terms of reference for the meeting.

Dame Anne Begg opened the meeting which was to gather information from people on personal ESA/WCA experiences only. The meeting was well attended by individuals and also charities with case studies which were presented to the committee in report form. The horrors I listened to made me cry openly which is pretty hard I can tell you, as I’m not one for showing my emotions in public or private easily, and those who know me personally know this to be the case. The committee were also struggling to remain composed. The committee had come to Newcastle because it had the highest complaints across the entire system, so decided a one off trip to hear from people was appropriate.

Many cases of failure were given and it was brought up time and again of fabricated reports, people being humiliated by HCP’s which we have known about for years. Many cases of suicide were mentioned , many cases of where the claimant was terminally ill yet denied what they were rightfully entitled to in their time of need and that documentation from GP’s /consultants were being ignored as ‘they know better’.

I mentioned the fear of ‘brown envelope syndrome’ and that disabled peoples’ voices were not felt to be heard and our human rights were being abused on a daily basis. I called the WCA a ‘wicked regime’ which has targets even if they deny so, and is cost cutting exercise and nothing more. I also brought up as did others the fact most people would work if they could but many cannot, as getting through a day by day basis was as much as many could cope with. I also asked where the jobs were for those who wish to work and why those meant to help like Shaw Trust/Action for the Blind were also vilified by claimants for failures when they are supposed to help? Whether they could help as the claimants’ impairments mean that employers wont take them on so they are abandoned to their own devices.

It was mentioned frequently during the meeting about JCP disability advisors being no use and they also, didn’t understand conditions either; often bullying the claimant into jobs they can’t perform, and that education for those who needed to gain skills was being denied .

Decision Makers are trained by ATOS I found out today so that is a conflict of interest which I found disgusting given the level of control they have over peoples’ lives and the cumulative impact on a disabled person’s well being. I mentioned that this model used is flawed and didn’t take into account those with fluctuating conditions and the cost of tribunals and re-assessments of those with long term progressive illnesses , was a waste of taxpayers’ money unless changes had occurred .

I explained how we are demonised and treated as liars and criminals when, in actual fact all we are, is disabled or have a long term health condition. I asked why shouldn’t we be afforded the same rights as non-disabled people such as holidays which we have to save for, or have a pet , or go to the supermarket without the fear of being seen as a potential fraudster, when actual fraud was 0.8% including deptartmental error. I brought it up that many claimants have had support needs, financial and other, refused saying it wasn’t available.

On a lighter note the committee were understanding, listening and attentive and genuinely DO CARE and were encouraged by the turnout and assured us that those who sent in personal stories were not being ignored by them and that they were ploughing through each and every one of them, but they would encourage any further submissions of case studies by groups or individuals.

I have to say I found today harrowing as much as I do daily on facebook the horror stories that people are suffering. It has to stop!

Yet another Cut

All Posts, Benefits, Disability Rights, News, Politics No Responses »

May 072014

Another Tory cut targeting disabled people

On Monday last week, Tory Universities and Science Minister David Willetts announced plans to ‘modernise’ the Disabled Students’ Allowances [DSAs] for higher education students from England. What he really means is another Tory cut.

DSAs are grants which pay for disability-related support for students. Since their introduction in 1990, DSAs have helped thousands more working class disabled students get to university who would otherwise have been unable to afford it, and to get the extra support they need when there. In 2011-12, DSAs provided over £125 million of additional support for over 53,000 full-time undergraduate higher education students. Individual grants can be for several thousand pounds, including specialist equipment and tutorial support.

The report says that students with specific learning difficulties such as dyslexia & dyspraxia “will continue to receive support through DSAs where their support needs are considered to be more complex”. This means that students judged to have less complex needs will no longer be eligible. The government will “no longer pay for standard specification computers”, using evidence from a report from Endsleigh Insurance conducted by the NUS which claims “almost all students now own or have access to a computer.” But even if this were true, the government’s own website says disabled people are less likely to own an internet-enabled computer or use a public terminal.*

The report says the government wants to “rebalance responsibilities between government funding and institutional support.” This move to make universities pay for the additional support needs of disabled students might seem fair. After all, universities rake in huge amounts from student fees. But it’s unlikely to work out like that. Richer universities can afford to pay (as can richer parents), but the huge squeeze on Higher Education funding means others will try not to. Most students can’t afford to go to court to force them to cough up. So all this will lead to disabled students dropping out of their courses because they can’t get the support they need, and that less disabled students from poorer backgrounds get to university at all.

Willetts says the changes will ensure support is provided “where it is needed the most.” This argument has been used to justify other benefits cuts, and on each occasion it has led in practice to actually removing support from most who need it. That’s why we need to expose and resist DSA changes as cuts helping the Tories to make education something only the rich can afford.

Roddy Slorach

*Office for Disability Issues – see https://odi.dwp.gov.uk/odi-projects/digital-inclusion.php

NUS blasts David Willetts over changes to disabled students’ support

David Willetts is “arrogant and out of touch” in seeking “unfair” cuts to disabled students’ funding, according to the National Union of Students.

7 APRIL 2014 | BY JOHN MORGAN https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/nus-blasts-david-willetts-over-changes-to-disabled-students-support/2012501.article

Mr Willetts, the universities and science minister, says today in a written ministerial statement that he wants to “modernise” the Disabled Students’ Allowance.

The NUS said dyslexic students needing support for computer equipment to aid their studies would lose out, and warned the costs of specialist accommodation for disabled students may not be met by DSA.

The changes “look to rebalance responsibilities between government funding and institutional support,” Mr Willetts says in his statement.

Times Higher Education reported last week that the level of support offered to some disabled students varies widely between different universities.

DSA can pay for assistance including specialist equipment such as computer software; non-medical helpers, like a note-taker or reader; or extra travel costs. The maximum funding per student is £5,161 for specialist equipment (for the whole of a course), £20,520 for the non-medical helper allowance (per year) and £1,724 for a general allowance (per year).

Total government funding for DSA, the level of which varies from year to year depending on claims, came to £125 million in 2011-12, covering over 53,000 full-time undergraduates. The government said that in 2008-09, funding came to £91.7 million, covering 40,600 students.

Mr Willetts identifies a number of key changes in his announcement. The government will only pay “for higher specification or higher cost computers where a student needs one solely by virtue of their disability,” he says. The government is “changing our approach to the funding of a number of computer equipment, software and consumable items through DSAs that have become funded as ‘standard’ to most students,” he adds.

Students with specific learning difficulties will continue to receive support through DSAs where their support needs “are considered to be more complex,” Mr Willetts says. The government will only fund “the most specialist Non-Medical Help. The additional costs of specialist accommodation will no longer be met by DSAs, other than in exceptional circumstances.”

And the government will “define disability in relation to the definition provided by the Equality Act 2010, for the purposes of receiving DSAs”.

The changes, which would apply from September 2015, are subject to an Equality Impact Assessment, which assesses policies to make sure they do not unfairly disadvantage minority groups.

Hannah Paterson, NUS Disabled Students’ Officer, said: “The prospect of deeply unfair cuts to support for disabled students should concern us all. It is arrogant and out of touch to assume that disabled students can access ‘basic’ equipment or that universities will accept the new responsibilities ministers are seeking to place on them.”

john.morgan@tsleducation.com

How can Professionals Learn from”bloody awkward” Parents?

All Posts, Disability Rights, Inclusive Education, Politics, Social Model 4 Responses »

Apr 192014

“You have to love your own baby becos everone says they are a nusance”

Sally age 8

I have come to recognise another truism! – If you are a parent of a disabled child. The school will give whatever support, you believe, is necessary for your child – as long as it matches with what the school is prepared to offer.If you want something different ,You! “The parent” who is typically the mother, become “A problem” . The more articulate you are the more you are seen as “bloody awkward”.Colourful labelsgrow, the more you persist : “too pushy”, “in denial”, “neurotic”, “deranged”,”obsessed”, “too emotional”, “irrational” “naive” are a few of the polite names given to parents.

The rhetoric from schools and education authorities promoting partnership, between parents and professionals is common. This laudable aim, if realised,could save a great deal of pain and heartache for all concerned. The ultimate goal for most parents is for their child to feel safe welcomed and a belonging to the school. This is “gold dust” one parent said. Initially parents will “bend over backwards” to keep on the “good side of school” they are motivated by the desire to make this goal a reality for their child to experience. However, because there currently exists an unequal distribution of power and authority between parents and professionals the potential for “partnership” is only likely to happen when parents conforms to the plans of professionals.

After twenty five years being with parents advocating for their disabled child, I have not met a parent who had wanted conflict with the school. It is however, the professional who has the responsibility to change what they are doing to ensure the child can feel safe welcome and belongs to the school.A consequence of seeing the parent as a problem is that it is a distraction from supporting the child. There is a shift to devaluing and marginalising the parent ,which generates a struggle that can continue for weeks, months and sometimes years.

One mother said:

“They (the professionals) made me a monster. At first, I was totally compliant with everything they told me about my son. I would have balanced on my head if they wanted me to . Then I realised they lied to me and started bullying me- now professionals are having to manage the monster they created.”

The very act of questioning the practice of a school or an authority by a parent can result in unleashing of an assault that can leave the parent exhausted. The struggle increases if the parent challenges more than one statutory service and therefore multiple professionals. Such a position can overwhelm parents, with formal letters, procedures , phone calls ,e-mails, and now texts. The communications often contains implied threats or advice encouraging the parent to simply accept that which is being offered by professionals, even when they know this will go against what the parents believe is not in the interests of their child.

Does this mean that parents are always right and professionals wrong about a child’s support requirements? Such an assertion would be absurd. However, when a parent lacks confidence in the support provided by the school or when they are unable to influence the schooling experience for their child,when parents witness their child is disrespected, denied important opportunities, with no friendships the parent is likely to be propelled into demanding change. When a parent is forced to take such an exposed yet principled position, they will be subject to scrutiny and interrogation, by a number of professionals who will hold a different position, at a case conference or annual review. Whilst such formal settings are routine for professionals for parents they can be traumatic.

If individual professionals were subjected to the same degree of scrutiny and interrogation before a panel of critical parents they would, quite rightly, be calling upon their professional associations to represent their position.

The professional in a protracted dispute with a parent will have access to supports throughout the process : they have time away from work, they can hand over to another colleagues, they can have someone to type letters,make phone calls, arrange meetings, they get travelling expenses, they get time off in lieu if they work beyond contracted hours, they can even move to another job whilst in the middle of a serious dispute with a family, and they receive a salary- Professionals have protection from a school or system culture, where professionals will protect each otherkeeping internal disagreements behind closed doors, allowing them to present a united front.No such accommodations are available to parents engaged in the same protracted dispute not of their initiation. When the professional decision is made it becomes bizarrely impenetrable. Parents are patronisingly encouraged to follow the ” Complaints Procedures” if they are “‘unhappy” with the decision. This would be another professional procedure that can take months, with little expectation of changing the original decision.

Being a parent who is knowledgeable about the education system,aware of legislation and particular policies, is not a guarantee that your child will get the support you believe to be appropriate for your child. Being the “Parent” you can be positioned so that your contributions are devalued if they differs from professionals ” in charge” because it is they who the system invests the authority. A mother of a disabled child, who was extremely knowledgeable and articulate about the complexities of her child’s support requirements, she was aware of different teaching methods, how to differentiate curriculum, adapt resourcesfor particular children. This woman wasfamiliar with the range of external agencies able to enhance the support available in school. In addition she was familiar with internal workings of thelocal education authority, where her child attended school. This mother started her professional career as a teacher in the same authority, served eight years as a special educational needs co-ordinator(SENCO), followed by seven years as a deputy head teacher, finally taking on the roleof education advisor. But now she was positioned as a “parent” again she was asking for something different from that which the school was prepared to offer. She was described as being “too involved” and “too emotional” and no longer “objective” This mother was forced into a conflict with the professionals, from the authority she had served as a senior educationist.

How can such exhausting disputes be minimised? Professionals have to learn to listen and listen then listen again first to the child and the parent advocating for their child.

The professionals will have had training, they may well have many qualifications, they can have much knowledge about a particular impairment and yet know nothing about the support requirements of Heathar who may have that particular impairment. Professionals can only support Heathar effectively if they are able to develop a relationship with Heathar. The parent, advocating for their child can be a valuable introduction to Heathar.

If professionals ask questions, to which they don’t already assume the answer they are more likely to develop a meaningful understanding with the child and learn about the child. When a person is genuinely listened too, good relationship happen. This is far more likely to lead to the parent having confidence in the actions of the professionals who are there to serve their child. Professional can also build on a good relationship with the parent when they don’t:

Tell a parent their child is not the only one in the school!

Tell a parent the school does not have the resources to support their child!

Tell a parent that support to their child – will result in support being removed from other children.

Tell a parent that you are an extremely busy person!

Tell a parent that you are an expert in this type of condition, when referring to their child.

Tell a parentthe date and time of a meeting without first checking on their availability.

Tell a parent to come to a meeting on their own

Tell a parent you have to leave their meeting early because you have an important appointment to attend.

Tell the parents of an important decision, just before you go on school holidays.

Give the parent a patronising smile and nod of your head, when you totally disagree with them.

George Bernard Shaw suggested that it was the reasonable person who adapts themselves to the world as it exists. However, it is the unreasonable person who persists in adapting the world to accommodate a different way of thinking. GBS concluded, that all progress depends upon the “unreasonable” person orthe ” bloody awkward” parent?

Joe Whittaker

April 2014.

Bromley area – 2 events.Banner Theatre and Public Meeting about NHS

All Posts, local groups, News, NHS, Politics No Responses »

Apr 192014

SAVE THE NHS.

Come and learn about why the NHS is under threat and how you can join the fight to save it.

PUBLIC MEETING.

Tuesday 13th Mary 2014 at 7.30 pm to 9.30 pm

HG Wells Centre.

Off St Mark’s Road (Off Masons Hill/High Street)

BROMLEY

Kent.

BR2 9HG.

Speakers: Dr Bob Gill General Practitioner Welling.

Linda Kurcher – Expert on US/EU Trade Agreement.

Professor Allyson Pollock – Expert on Private Finance Initiative (PFI)

Transport:

Buses: 61,208, 320, 336, 358, 402.

Nearest Rail Station. Bromley South ( from central london, Catford, Orpington. This station is fully accessible with a accessible lift to street level at this station)

Greenwich & Bexley, Bromley, Lewisham trades councils present Banner Theatre with Burning Issue commemorating the miners’ strike £10 (£5) 7pm Saturday 10 May https://lewishamtradescouncil.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/come-and-address-burning-issue_22.html or contact tony.reay@gmail.com07903 755 074

Older Entries Newer Entries