The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published its report on the issues surrounding the Welfare Reform Bill.
Read the story Peers prepare to highlight human rights issues in welfare reform bill by clicking here.
The JCHR report can be found by clicking here - our submission has been miss-spelled as "Thcell".
PDF version The flow of information to and from, and extended powers passed to Jobcentre Plus are highlighted in the report in the first article & the Welfare Reform Bill is being discussed in the Lords today (29th April 2009).
Part 1.45 in the report on deals with the related issues here. It does state however that information provided for the purposes of a benefits claim would not be admissible for the purposes of supporting criminal prosecution.
One of the core issues as it affects Human Rights is the broad nature of the powers to be given to Job Centre that doesn't specify whether approaches could be made to a medical professional. The implication that consent is not required. That this would put personal doctors in a difficult position regarding there 1st duty to the patient and a compulsion to disclose from the state.
Welcome to Your Rights
This is Liberty’s website to provide support to individuals and organisations who wish to understand and enforce their rights under the Human Rights Act 1998. This website has three main sections:
1. YourRights guide
This guide aims to provide an easily understood guide to help you understand what your rights are in different areas of law, ranging from the rights to privacy to the right of peaceful protest. You can access the chapters of the YourRights guide by following the links on the left.
The YourRights guide is written by expert lawyers, but is intended primarily for people who have no specialist legal knowledge.
2. Voluntary Advice Sector
Through this site you can also access Liberty’s dedicated human rights advice and information service for voluntary advice sector organisations. If you work in the voluntary sector and want information or advice on a human rights issue affecting your client, click here
3. Human Rights Advice?
This site also allows you to access Liberty’s advice services. If you are not able to find the information you want on the YourRights guide you can submit a query to Liberty.
For information on how to get advice, please click here
About Liberty
Liberty (also known as The National Council for Civil Liberties) is one of the UK’s leading civil liberties and human rights organisations. Liberty works to promote human rights and protect civil liberties through a combination of test case litigation, lobbying, campaigning and the provision of free advice. You can find out more about Liberty by visiting Liberty's website, using the link below.
Human rights
9 May 2007: Responsibility for the Human Rights Act and the development of human rights policy has passed from the Department for Constitutional Affairs to the Ministry of Justice. The information on this site is still current and we will advise you when it is transferred to the new ministry's website.
This section contains information about the Human Rights Act and the rights and freedoms protected by the Act. There is also information about the UK involvement in international human rights treaties.
We are not responsible for enforcing the Act and cannot investigate alleged human rights violations. If you want information about how to deal with a breach of your rights under the Act or on bringing a human rights case to court, you must contact a solicitor or other legal advisor. We can not provide this advice.
There are a number of charities who have submissions on the Welfare Reform Bill today (13th June 2009) in the Guardian. Click here for the article.
The National AIDs Trust are included. Whereas the issue they raise concerning Drug users is important I have to say that although I fully agree with the point made. I feel this is a "wasted" oppourtunity to not have written more generally about issues faced by the whole HIV/AIDs community and the new Welfare Reform Bill. You should also note that the Equality Bill, Right to Control, Disability Discrimination Act and actions underway at the Department of Health all need to be considered here.
Stigma, poor training of DWP staff, confidentiality, the public exposure of seeking redress (that stops people with HIV securing their rights), the list goes on - effect all of us.
Whereas we welcome NAT's involvement in the Welfare Bill since October 2008 I am somewhat disappointed that a broader statement here is amiss. Yes the issues over drug use is important and of course is a matter of confidentiality that is at the heart of the issues over to whom the DWP discloses HIV status.
I wish they could take a more hard hitting line here.
NAT's accounts show income for 2007/2008 of £922,000.00, our accounts for 2008/2009 show income of £620.00. Terrence Higgins Trust spent 3% or £475,000 on Campaigning, Lobbying and Advocacy in 2007/08 on total income of £15, 816,000.00 with 41% or £5,666,000.00 on Care and Advice. You should note that the term "UK" used by some charities exclude's Northern Ireland.
This is important, whereas all organisations are now, in some part taking on board the issues around Equality & Welfare Reform. We wish the "big boys" would be more vocal and certainly more transparent on the activities they undertake on these issues. Lets hear about the meetings with ministers etc.. that the rest of us are not party to.
And Welfare Reform and Equality is as much about the issues of being in and seeking work as it is about accessing state benefits.
When I talk with my fellow peers with HIV there has seemed to be a "disconnect" between grass-roots and the large HIV Charities hopefully re-engagement is on the cards.
We oppose the welfare reform bill in its current form because it does not contain what is needed to help more people into decent jobs and decrease child poverty (In the workfare state, poverty is always an individual failing, 12 June). Parents need a right to high-quality childcare, while disabled claimants need an entitlement to tailored support and an end to employers' discrimination. Every claimant moving into employment needs decent pay and opportunities for training and progression if we are to do more than just cycle people between in-work poverty and out-of-work poverty.
The bill does not provide for any of this; it creates a complex bureaucracy for issuing orders and punishments to claimants, and limits the childcare choices of the poorest parents. What has become unthinkable is a decent minimum income standard for all claimants and an entitlement to the good, personally tailored support that really helps to get people off benefits and into decent jobs. Yvette Cooper now has the opportunity to think the unthinkable.
Dr Paul Dornan
Head of policy, Child Poverty Action Group
The welfare reform bill ignores one essential principle, which should inform all of the many regulations about job-seeking conditions, work-related activities etc. Lord Northbourne's amendment, supported in the debate by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, but not by the government, requires due consideration to be given to the wellbeing of any child whose life might be affected by the decisions of officials implementing such regulations.
The government's good intentions are marred by an overemphasis on the benefit to a family of parents moving out of unemployment into work. Children become official barriers to work rather than the overriding responsibility of parents. Work is beneficial if it is adequately paid and the children are not harmed because the parental bond is strained or broken when they are put into childcare at crucial stages of their educational and emotional development.
The bill has the balance of power wrong at the point where officialdom touches family life. The social security advisory committee questioned the government's primary analysis that people are unwilling to work and unlikely to work, and need to be coerced into employment. A more socially aware analysis is that parents love their children, want to do their best for them and should have their commitment empowered and encouraged.
Rev Paul Nicolson
Chair, Zacchaeus 2000 Trust
Libby Brooks highlights some very worrying aspects of the current welfare reform consensus. The political parties seem united in the belief that work is the only route out of poverty, but seem unwilling to address the question of what the best route out of poverty is for those disabled people who are not considered likely to return to work.
The last Welfare Reform Act allowed the government to identify those furthest from the labour market. But benefit rates mean that this group of disabled people, some of the most vulnerable in society, can be left with only £5 more a week than those looking for work, and no route out of abject poverty.
Welfare reform must ensure that disabled people are not simply left to live in inescapable poverty.
John Knight
Leonard Cheshire Disability
The bill also allows information held by certain public bodies, relating to drug use by individuals, to be shared with benefit officers without consent. The National Aids Trust strongly opposes these measures, as do Liberty, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Drugscope, the all-party parliamentary group on Aids and the joint committee on human rights. The proposal undermines the right to privacy and will only drive many drug users away from services designed to help them. We hope the House of Lords will agree to the amendment tabled by Lord Rea to remove these measures from the bill - and, indeed, that Yvette Cooper, the new secretary of state, reconsiders the government's position on this important issue.
Yusef Azad
Director of policy and campaigns, National Aids Trust
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2009/jun/13/letters-welfare-reform...
45,000 public bodies across Great Britain are covered by the Disability Equality Duty (DED), which came into force in December 2006. The DED is meant to ensure that all public bodies - such as central or local government, schools, health trusts or emergency services – pay ’due regard‘ to the promotion of equality for disabled people in every area of their work.
The Disability Rights Commission (DRC) produced a range of information on the duty, some of which is available to download here. The DRC closed at the end of September 2007, and was replaced in October 2007 by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. You can find more information on the duty and the work of the new Commission at: www.equalityhumanrights.com
For introductory information, including the Code of Practice, and guidance on key elements of the duty, such as involving disabled people and impact assessments, see below. The sectoral guidance page contains information written for public bodies across the different sectors. The putting the duty into practice page contains reports and assessments by the DRC on how the public sector had responded to the duty before the end of September 2007.
An investigation of the additional needs and associated financial costs of disability from the perspective of disabled people themselves. While it has long been acknowledged that disabled people face additional costs to meet their needs, there has been no clear evidence of the true extent of these.
In this study, the research used a rigorous consensual standard methodology to develop budgets based on needs. The authors review disabled people's incomes, employment, benefits and other services in order to provide a context for the budget standards.
Using five case studies of disabled people of working age with physical or sensory impairments and a range of levels of need, they then draw up and explain the detail of their budget standards. They conclude with an overview of these standards, and discuss the implications of their findings. The analysis identifies a wide range of additional costs, and finds that benefits fall significantly short of the budgets required by disabled people to ensure an acceptable, equitable quality of life.
Summary
Download as PDF, 4 pages, 0.07 MB
It is well known that disabled people face additional costs to enable them to meet their needs. However, there has been no clear evidence about the true extent of these costs. This research, conducted by the Centre for Research in Social Policy with the support of Disability Alliance, presents budget standards for groups of disabled people who have different needs arising from physical or sensory impairments. The budget standards represent the amounts disabled people (of working age) require in order to cover the costs of an acceptable and equitable quality of life. They were developed by disabled people themselves, through a series of rigorously conducted focus groups. The budgets were not based on 'wish lists'. Rather, they represent the minimum essential resources necessary to meet disabled people's needs, to enable them to achieve, as far as possible, a 'level playing field' with non-disabled people. They were arrived at through debate and negotiation within the focus groups. The research found that:
- Disabled people experience additional costs in most areas of everyday life, from major expenditure on equipment essential for independence, to ongoing higher expenses for, for example, food, clothing, utilities and recreation.
- The weekly budget standards required for disabled people are as follows:
- £1,513 for a person with high-medium mobility and personal support needs;
- £448 for a person with intermittent or fluctuating needs (i.e. from relatively negligible needs to higher needs);
- £389 for a person with low-medium needs;
- £1,336 for a person with needs arising from hearing impairment;
- £632 for a person with needs arising from visual impairment.
- Deaf people face particularly high costs due to their need for interpreter/communicator services.
- The weekly income of disabled people who are solely dependent on benefits is approximately £200 below the amount required for them to ensure an acceptable, equitable quality of life.
- Unmet weekly costs for disabled people who work 20 hours per week at the minimum wage are up to £189 (for those with high-medium needs).
Background
Disabled people have a disproportionate risk of being poor, i.e. of having an income below 60 per cent of the national median average. Department for Work and Pensions statistics for 2002-03 showed that 29 per cent of households with disabled people were poor, compared with 17 per cent of households without disabled people. However, these statistics underestimate the true extent of poverty among disabled people because they are based solely on income (including disability benefits), and do not take into account the additional costs disabled people may incur because of their disabilities.
Lack of information about disabled people's living costs mean that levels of nationally provided financial benefits and local services are determined using limited evidence. Certain state benefits are meant to offset, at least partially, the additional costs associated with disability, but the extent to which these benefits meet additional needs and costs is unknown.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the additional needs and associated financial costs of disability from the perspective of disabled people themselves. Rather than focusing on what disabled people spend, the research investigated what disabled people need in order to be on a 'level playing field' with non-disabled people. Participants were allocated to different groups, based on the type and degree of their disability, and they prepared in advance for group meetings. This ensured that the full extent of additional costs was explored.
The disabled person budget standards
The budget standards developed in the study are based on one disabled person living alone in suitably adapted, rented accommodation. They do not include prescription charges or any income, benefits, services or items provided by health, social or other services.
Most of the participant groups reported additional costs in most areas of expenditure examined, i.e. food, clothing, household maintenance, fuel and power, household goods and services, transport, communications, recreation/culture, education, health, personal care, insurance and special occasions. Those with the highest needs had the highest costs in all areas except:
- transport - costs were highest for those with intermittent needs;
- communications and recreation/culture - costs were highest for deaf people.
Personal assistance costs
The biggest single cost for all groups was for personal assistance (see Figure 1). 'Personal assistance' was defined broadly to include interpreters for deaf people, trainers for visually impaired people, and personal care and other domiciliary services. Across all groups, the greatest need was for human assistance, rather than for adaptations and equipment.
The groups stated that someone with high-medium needs would require constant personal assistance, including sleep-in cover. On top of wages for personal assistants (PAs), participants identified a number of additional indirect costs, including:
- PAs' costs when participating in activities;
- employers' liability insurance;
- laundering PAs' bed linen after sleep-in duties.
Consensus among the groups of deaf people was that for profoundly deaf people to have access to public, recreational and commercial services equal to those of hearing people, they would require extensive 'on demand' interpreter/communicator services. Current interpreter/communicator services are not designed to provide this level of assistance, which explains the very high costs in this area.
The groups of visually impaired people explained that specialist training was essential to support and enhance independence, but that current levels of training provision were inadequate. The groups therefore decided that the budget standard should allow sufficient resources to enable individuals to 'buy in' training as required, even if this had to be on a one-to-one (and thus not the most cost-effective) basis.
Benefits and the budget standards
The disabled person budget standard totals can be compared with maximum benefit levels, made up of Disability Living Allowance (DLA), Income Support and Incapacity Benefit, and taking into account Housing and Council Tax Benefits (see Table 1). To compensate (approximately) for the value of current social provision, these figures do not include PA costs.
Maximum benefit levels reflect disabled people's needs insofar as people with higher needs are eligible for higher benefit payments. The study finding that deaf people and people with visual impairments incur similar costs is reflected in the similar benefit levels payable to both these groups of people.
However, even if receiving maximum benefits, disabled people still experience a substantial shortfall in income. The income of disabled people solely dependent on benefits, irrespective of the type or level of their need, is approximately £200 less than the weekly amount required for them to ensure a minimum standard of living. These figures suggest that, even without including PA costs, benefits meet only:
- 28 per cent of the costs of people with low-medium needs;
- 30 per cent of the costs of people with intermittent/fluctuating needs;
- 35 per cent of the costs of deaf people and people with visual impairments;
- 50 per cent of the costs of people with high-medium support needs.
This shortfall in income would need to be addressed through a combination of environmental improvements, enhanced service provision, improved benefits and/or wages from employment.
Paid work and the budget standards
The highest and lowest disabled person budget standards were compared with the wage of someone working 20 hours per week at the minimum wage, taking into account Working Tax Credit, Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit and DLA as appropriate. For disabled people on this minimum wage, unmet costs remain very high. Even if PA costs are excluded and it is assumed that full Housing and Council Tax Benefits are received, unmet costs would be between £118 and £189 per week (see Table 2).
To show how these figures vary according to the range of disabled people's work situations, the highest and lowest disabled person budget standards totals are also compared with the national average full-time wage, plus DLA where appropriate (see Table 3).
People with low-medium needs need to receive the national average wage before their costs would be covered (and then only if there were no PA costs). However, for people with high-medium needs, an income consisting of the average wage and DLA would still not meet their needs. Even excluding PA costs, a person with high-medium needs in full-time work would face unmet costs of over £80 per week.
About the project
The study used needs-based consensual budget standard methodology. A total of 78 disabled people completed questionnaires and participated in a series of focus groups and workshops. Participants were recruited on the basis of their self-defined needs. Groups with common needs constructed budget standards for people in their circumstances (i.e. groups of participants with high-medium needs developed the budget standard for a person with high-medium needs, and so forth). All decisions about what should be included in the budget standards were made by group members through a process of informed discussion, negotiation and 'check-back' groups. The fieldwork for the study took place in Derby, Birmingham and Nottingham in 2003-04.
http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/disabled-peoples-costs-living
Dear ******,
I write regarding the publication from the Dept. of Works and Pensions on the ratification of the UN charter into UK law on the 8th June 2009 for disabled people, tcell has already been in the forefront of advising this upon the website and suggest that this matter needs to be taken further, along with the disability equality duty http://benefits.tcell.org.uk/forums/disability-equality-duty
to reach out into the communities, authorities, service providers etc. within the UK, something that we are not able to do, on the resources at our disposal and raise this matter with yourselves
I would also kindly ask if the National Aids Trust would also help support us with funds for the maintenance costs from within your own budgets, this would help maintain the level of information, research required and would help promote the website through publication within the HIV and gay community.
the above test has been copied from a more full comphensive letter and attachments to the National Aids Trust dated the 9th June 2009 and my response today was:
Dear ******,
Thank you for you email and I am sure that many within the HIV/AIDS community and other funders will make their own options from your response with such income as yours, when http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/ShowCharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=297977&SubsidiaryNumber=0 says differently.
It is also through my work researching on Tcell and for other various HIV organisations that they have serious financially gained from my support over the years, yet when the tables are turned, let’s look after oneself? Over the past years by researching and volunteering has made a greater impact upon the whole HIV UK community, not restricted by funding, but though help and support within the lives, whether it be long or short, the HIV community has forgotten how to care and provide at various levels to assist life and it issues.
I would kindly ask that the National Aids Trust to look at the policies for which is promotes the sort of help and support as a national voice dealing within and outside the HIV/AIDS community.
I shall continue with my part in the need to support my illness, disability, LIFE, when others are reluctant to do, for the reasons they only know.
Many thanks
Kevin Kelleher
NOTE : lettered edited for grammar error's
As the welfare reform bill begins its fifth day of the report stage in the House of Lords, a small and determined group of independent and Liberal Democrat peers are putting up a fight; adding amendments, testing the government's arguments, picking over sentences in forensic detail. They're highlighting the threat to mentally ill people and those with learning disabilities, questioning the sanctions and the value of conditionality. And the shame of it all is the absence of Labour, the party that once stood tall in defence of the vulnerable and sick. The minister Lord McKenzie parries and deflects the critics with the stolid performance of a man who obeys his masters.
Sanctions are not appropriate for people suffering severe mental health problems. Lady Murphy makes the point: "We have to get real about what really happens to people with mental health issues." There must be a specific responsibility in the law to help people who lead chaotic and difficult lives as a result of mental illness. Lord McKenzie shows sympathy and offers assurance: "If a customer has a mental health condition the personal adviser will make an additional explanation." The rules on conditionality and sanctions will be read out twice rather than once.
His ignorance of mental illness reflects the wider ideological attack on welfare. The intellectual foundations of welfare reform were prepared by Cardiff University's Unum Centre, now renamed the Centre for Psychosocial and Disability Research. Funded by the giant US insurance company Unum, it drew on the tactics of the US insurance industry to redefine various forms of illness as "subjective". Its aim is the "fundamental transformation in the way society deals with sickness and disabilities". Sickness is a social and cultural phenomenon rather than a health problem. The solution is not to cure the sick, but to transform the culture of welfare. No one who is ill should have a straightforward right to receive benefit.
Welfare reforms to date are failing the needs of people with mental illness. Claimants who have "symptoms without diseases", or mental health conditions, and who cannot demonstrate that their illness has an "objective medical pathology" will be most at risk of being denied benefits or forced to undertake inappropriate work activity.
Personal Capability Assessment claims have been assessed by Atos Origin employees with no medical training. Computerised evaluations coupled with clearance time targets have led to significant statistical error. Fifty per cent of appeals against the refusal of claims found in favour of the claimant (pdf). In 80% of these cases the problem was poor assessment of mental health problems.
DWP research shows (pdf) that Pathways to Work pilots have done little to help people with mental illness find work. Further DWP research shows that one of the main barriers to attending work-focused interviews is mental ill health (pdf). The same report also reveals that sanctions have a negative impact on people's mental health, both for those who are already mentally ill and for others who develop anxiety or depression.
Welfare reform will contribute to the growing problem of mental illness. The DWP is taking on the role of a therapeutic agent, claiming work will make people better against the advice of their doctors.
We need exemptions from sanctions and voluntary participation as a safeguard for all the most vulnerable groups. At the moment exemptions are carers, parents of disabled children, single parents of pre-school children and the 10% who are most sick. Exemption on the most sick must be widened to include people with serious and enduring mental health conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
This could be achieved, but it still leaves at risk people with learning disabilities and all IB claimants suffering depression and other, fluctuating forms of mental illness. Now, at this 11th hour with three days to go we need that amendment. Tell Lord McKenzie of Luton that the rules must be changed, not read out twice.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/22/welfare-reform-bill-...
It is hard to decide what to object to most, so opaque and randomly synthesised is the draft legislation in the welfare reform bill. Perhaps it should be the clause allowing for the abolition of the fundamental state safety net of income support, or the privatisation of back-to-work services that will benefit only shareholders. Maybe it's the requirement that single parents with children as young as three should be available for "work-related activity" or face sanctions, with the adequacy of childcare provision to be judged by a jobcentre adviser. Others might choose the piloting of "work for your benefits" schemes, which will undercut the minimum wage, offering as little as £1.73 an hour to claimants who have been unemployed for more than two years.
The bill is so lacking in concrete detail and so wide-ranging in scope – from compulsory drug-testing of claimants (opposed by Liberty) to the criminalisation of women who refuse to name the father of their children on birth certificates (opposed by Gingerbread) – that campaigners have been left befuddled as to where to concentrate their energies.
Despite this embarrassment of riches, one woman with firsthand experience has no problem pinpointing her least favoured gem – that women escaping domestic violence should be given but one month's grace before having to comply with job-seeking conditions. "By the time you get out, you don't know who you are any more," Marianne told me. "I was like a beaten dog in a corner. It took me three months to find somewhere to live. If I had gone for an interview, they'd have thought I was a nutter. Yet my future is now supposed to be at the discretion of a jobcentre adviser, who isn't even properly trained. It's a joke."
The bill is now in the House of Lords where a Liberal Democrat amendment to extend that grace period to a year will be discussed. Whether or not the lords back the amendment, the implication would remain that it is plausible to legislate a deadline for recovery from trauma. A handful of other amendments, as well as John McDonnell's early-day motion tabled on Monday to maintain income support, offer faint hope that the blunt force of these reforms could be softened. But this is last-chance saloon stuff.
Following the principled walkout last week by the architect of this legislation, James Purnell, there is speculation about how Yvette Cooper – his successor at the Department of Work and Pensions – will navigate the welfare reform agenda. A slim chance exists that she may reconsider the do-ability of getting more people into employment in the middle of a recession. But most assume she will see the reforms through, and then close down controversy in advance of a general election.
As the newly appointed chancellor in 1997, Gordon Brown stated his government's aim was to "rebuild the welfare state around the work ethic". More than a decade on, this has been realised in the starkest sense. The fact is that compulsion and discretion and "personalised conditionality" equal, however fiercely Labour might deny it, workfare – an alternative vision of the welfare system imported from the US that replaces entitlement with reciprocity, and social need with availability to work – all of which establishes poverty and unemployment as individual failings.
The DWP has wilfully ignored comparative research it commissioned that found the model to be counter-productive, detracting from the time people have to actively job-seek, making them less likely to take risks and targeting vulnerable groups for sanction. The language used may be circumspect, but the aims of workfare are all too explicit – to police benefit entitlement and send a message to claimants that long-term unemployment will be punished, regardless of your caring responsibilities, and your physical or mental health.
Westminster may be in the papers for its disharmony at present, but this bill enjoyed an untroubled passage through the Commons – precisely because an ideological consensus now exists between Labour and Conservatives, which values stick over carrot, couches coercion in the rhetoric of empowerment, and is in essence closest to the workhouse principle that there is a high price to be paid for unemployment.
And so, even more alarming than the impact of these measures is the potential for a future Conservative government to develop them. Note that David Freud, who advised Purnell on welfare reform, defected to the Conservatives in February. David Cameron has been keen to distance himself from the Brownite work-and-more-work ethic, averring that a society comprised solely of good producers and better consumers is not conducive to wellbeing. But in the spring of 2008 he proposed that the unemployed undertake voluntary work in return for benefits, while George Osborne said recently that welfare spending would be one of the biggest areas of saving for the Conservatives. Labour will have a hard time shouting down from the opposition benches cuts that they opened the door to.
Interestingly, the sliver of cigarette paper that separates the parties only wrinkles in the case of the availability of parents of very young children to work. Research by Iain Duncan Smith and the Centre for Social Justice has repeatedly emphasised the importance of early years care and state support for committed (married) couples. How the Tories square this with the inconvenient existence of single parents remains to be seen.
It has become a truism for both main parties that the welfare system is outmoded, and that dependency is automatically demeaning. Still, the workfare model attacks those arguably most socially useful – mothers, those who care for the disabled and ageing.
Over the last decade, outwith government, the debate around the work and care ethic has advanced tremendously. Take the American political theorist Joan Tronto, who believes that the threat of dependency has been greatly exaggerated, suggesting that the human condition is best understood in terms of interdependency: "People are sometimes autonomous, sometimes dependent, sometimes providing care for those who are dependent."
In a recession, when worklessness is no longer considered the province of the workshy, there is a genuine opportunity to reconfigure our understanding of welfare, both in philosophy and in practice. It will be devastating for too many people if the discussion continues to revolve around compulsion.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/jun/11/welfare-reform-bill-workfare
The LGA believes that pilots for city consortiums to tackle worklessness with additional funding and flexibilities are a step in the right direction and councils have been trialling this approach. We believe the pilots should be rolled out to all areas and integrated into the Local Area Agreements framework.
The LGA hopes that the changes to incapacity benefit will mean better mental health assessment, an extension of the support for people with disabilities to get back into work and greater access to employment for other groups e.g. people with learning disabilities.
Summary of key Government proposals:
The most important proposals for local government in the recent announcement are:
- A new pilot initiative in cities to tackle worklessness, where locally formed consortiums (including local councils, the private and voluntary sector) can bid for funding and be given greater freedom over funding and targets to deliver agreed outcomes.
- Incapacity benefit reform – a new Employment and Support Allowance to replace incapacity benefit, changes to the medical test for exemption and reform of statutory sick pay to encourage people back into work with new claimants expected to agree activity to get back into work or face benefit reductions (not for those exempt through the most severe health conditions and disabilities).
- Housing benefit reform - enabling Local Housing Allowance to be ‘rolled out’ in the private rented sector.
- Additional help to encourage lone parents and older people into work.
Further information on the government’s proposals is available here
-
http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/core/page.do?pageId=103949
-
A survey carried out by CELLO mruk on behalf of London Councils found that four out of 10 people who have a relative with social care needs find it difficult to know who to speak to once they are in the system, or to understand what care is free and what needs to be paid for.
It also revealed that most Londoners were not concerned about their future care needs, with only one in 10 expressing ‘great concern’ and a further third being concerned only to some extent.
CELLO mruk carried out a total of 1,011 telephone interviews with Londoners aged 18-64. The sample was representative of the population in terms of age, gender and ethnicity.
The release of the survey results is timed to coincide with the publishing of the government’s anticipated social care green paper – expected the week beginning Monday 16 June 2009.
related documents
Social care survey report More disabled people will gain protection from discrimination after a landmark ruling
01 July 2009
More people with disabilities will now receive protection from discrimination after a landmark ruling from the House of Lords today, in which the Commission intervened.
The Lords found that people with a physical or mental condition which varied in its severity over time should still be termed disabled if it was likely their condition would become substantial again in the future. The ruling extends the scope of the term 'disability' meaning more people will be entitled to legal protection.
The Commission intervened in the case to argue that people with medical conditions that they managed themselves but varied in severity over time, should be entitled to the same legal protection as those whose conditions were more stable.
The case was brought by Elizabeth Boyle who alleged she had been discriminated against by her former employer of 32 years, SCA Packaging. She had developed vocal nodules which she managed with a strict regime including speech therapy and only speaking very quietly. Mrs Boyle began her legal action nine years ago after her employer developed plans to remove partitions near her desk despite opposition from Mrs Boyle and her surgeon. The company argued Mrs Boyle was not disabled as her condition no longer had an adverse effect on her life.
Susie Uppal, Director of Legal Enforcement at the Commission, said:
'Many people have chronic medical conditions, such as epilepsy, rheumatoid arthritis or diabetes. Often, they do not define themselves as disabled as they can manage the symptoms or their condition may be in remission. However, it is important that these people are recognised as being disabled under the law so they get the protection they need to prevent their conditions recurring and their quality of life suffering as a result.
'Lord Hope said the case was important for people with intermittent conditions who needed protection under the law. He said that these people included “those suffering from conditions such as diabetes or epilepsy whose disability is concealed from public view so long as it is controlled by medication. Their disability is insidious. The measures that are taken to treat or correct it, so long as they are effective, enable them to carry on normal day-to-day activities just like everyone else. But the disability is there nevertheless.'
The case will now return to the Northern Ireland Employment Tribunal to consider if Mrs Boyle has been subjected to unlawful discrimination based on her disability.
Ends
Your rights - disability discrimination
Legal updates: recent developments in disability discrimination cases
Media contact: Krista Eleftheriou on 02031170251.
Notes for Editors
1. Case summary
The facts
Mrs Boyle had been employed by SCA Packaging since 1969. In 1974 she developed throat nodules. Since an operation in 1992 to remove them she had followed a strict regime to help ensure they did not return, including resting her voice, speaking quietly and maintaining her hydration levels. The nodes did not occur after 1992. In September 2000 her employer took down a partition separating her office from the stock control room. Mrs Boyle complained that the resulting increase in noise levels would have a substantial adverse effect on her health. The company refused to reinstall the partition. In October 2001 she began proceedings under the Disability Discrimination Act alleging she was being discriminated against on the basis of her disability. In February 2002 she was made redundant.Â
The law
Section 1 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 defines a disability as a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long term adverse impact on a person’s normal day to day activities.Â
Impairments that do not have a substantial adverse effect on normal day to day activities due to corrective measures or treatment can still be covered if the substantial adverse effects are likely to materialise were those measures or treatment to be removed.
Where an impairment ceases to have a substantial effect, it is to be treated as having that effect if it likely to recur. In this case, 'likely' was held to mean 'could well happen'.
2. The Equality and Human Rights Commission
The Commission is a statutory body established under the Equality Act 2006, which took over the responsibilities of Commission for Racial Equality, Disability Rights Commission and Equal Opportunities Commission. It is the independent advocate for equality and human rights in Britain. It aims to reduce inequality, eliminate discrimination, strengthen good relations between people, and promote and protect human rights. The Commission enforces equality legislation on age, disability, gender, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation or transgender status, and encourage compliance with the Human Rights Act. It also gives advice and guidance to businesses, the voluntary and public sectors, and to individuals.
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/new-ruling-extends-disab...
Jackie Ashley is wrong about the Equality and Human Rights Commission (Trevor Phillips should go. But the whole body is misconceived, 27 July). She writes: "Ministers thought that if you brought lesbians, wheelchair users and Afro-Caribbean people into the same organisation, they would all share the same view of equality and human rights and campaign for one another."
Surely the point is that quite a lot of wheelchair users are African-Caribbean and some are even lesbians. There are real common threads that unite people who face discrimination, including the denial of employment, goods and services because of other people's power and prejudice.
Ashley then states: "If a Labour government is not monitoring, measuring and legislating to improve people's rights, what is it there for? ... the creation of the EHRC is a category mistake." This is also wrong. A government may legislate, but it will never monitor and measure to improve people's rights. Would they know how? Most government departments and agencies have not trained all their staff to understand and implement equality law, despite this being a specific duty under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. Similarly, government departments don't set out how they deliver on their disability equality commitments. This is a duty of the Disability Discrimination Act 2005.
A single commission is needed to advance equality and human rights for all and to deal with discrimination on grounds of age, sexual orientation and religious and non-religious belief, as well as race, disability and gender. There are good advocacy organisations representing older people, lesbians and gay men or people of all faiths and none. They will continue to exist, but they are no substitute for the EHRC. The commission must remain in place and make greater use of its statutory powers that hold public bodies and all businesses to account.
Two years before the commission opened its doors, Lord Ouseley identified that the former race, disability and gender commissions spent a tiny fraction of their budgets on enforcement work, especially on representing individuals. This was because the government favoured a light touch. Moi Ali expresses frustration with her poor advice and service from the EHRC, which "failed to deliver a sensitive, caring, efficient and accurate response and a swift decision." (Are you listening, Trevor Phillips?, Society, 29 July). But her experience was predictable. Government consultations on the creation of a single commission emphasised an intended focus on strategic interventions and arm's-length advice. It remains very hard to bring a case of discrimination against an employer or provider of goods, facilities or services. The equality bill does not propose to make it any easier. It costs over £100 to lodge a discrimination claim in a county court. How many working-class people can afford that?
The case for a strong and effective Equality and Human Rights Commission is clear. It must uphold and advance human rights, and address all forms of discrimination, including class discrimination. We need the commission to use its powers effectively and defend all of us.
Linda Bellos is chair of the Institute of Equality and Diversity Practitioners info@iedp.org.uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/31/trevor-phillips-race
Sometimes the obvious needs to be stated. Britain is an unequal society. The elite look after their own. Poverty traps people from one generation to another. Government action and huge expenditure have at best stopped social division worsening. Encouraging aspiration is hard. And these conclusions, from yesterday's excellent report on access to the professions, sit alongside some startling individual facts.
There are, it reveals, more students of black Caribbean origin at London Metropolitan University than in all the 20 Russell Group universities put together. Only 60 of the 250 schools that run cadet forces, feeding leaders into the army, are in the state sector. The vast majority of graduate recruiters target 20 or fewer university campuses, although there are 109 universities in Britain. While only 7% of pupils are educated privately, 75% of judges went to independent schools, 70% of finance directors, 45% of top civil servants, 32% of MPs – and many journalists, too.
It is uncomfortable to be told such truths; behind its modern veneer, British society is determined by who you know, and who your parents are. Some things have improved, of course. There is more gender equality (although not enough); more racial equality, too. But effort and merit are not rewarded as they should be. In some regards, poor children born in 1958 had better prospects than those born five decades on. This was, of course, one of the problems that Labour won power to tackle. The conclusion of the panel led by a former Labour cabinet minister, Alan Milburn, is that the party has failed.
What went wrong? It was not for lack of trying. Schemes were established and money was spent; schools were given targets and new structures; universities pressured to increase access. There was huge investment in support for early years, some of which will, if given time, make a difference. But the reality, which the report recognises, is that the state does not have all of the answers. Too much effort has gone into creating structures, and too little into developing that intangible thing, aspiration. Sometimes efforts to help the disadvantaged have instead ended up trapping people in failure. The report picks out the expensive Connexions scheme as an example: "Throughout our work we have barely heard a good word about the careers work of the current Connexions service," it says.
No wonder, then, that Conservative politicians were enthusiastic yesterday. "What's not to like?" as one put it. In one sense, the document is a model of David Cameron's much-cherished "post-bureaucratic age", a world in which social ills can supposedly be tackled by changing mindsets, not spending money. Internships, for instance, which dot the CVs of fortunate children, are not easily available to families in which no one has been to university. The corporate world needs to change; so do many professions, most of all the law, whose training structure could not have been more perfectly designed to protect privilege.
The report is refreshing in its refusal to draw political dividing lines, or blame underinvestment, when there is no more money to be had. It points out that to help people is not to dumb down society, or disadvantage the bright. Perhaps it shies away from the biggest source of inequality of all, Britain's addiction to private education; since no government in a liberal society would abolish it, the imbalances it creates must be fought in other ways. The cries from the right at the Charity Commission's attempt to force obligations on independent schools are telling. The report calls on the government to maintain education budgets, and stresses that what happens before 16, rather than after it, matters most – both challenges for a possible Cameron government. But this is a report for the future; the next government, from whichever party, will learn from it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/22/all-party-social-mob...
Tracy Hughes, head of delivery strategy at the DWP in Sheffield, gives advice to third sector organisations on bidding for large government contracts.
Futurebuilders, the largest social investor in the UK, met up with Tracy Hughes to talk about the DWP commissioning process and how smaller organisations can prepare for large contract bids.
Hughes on:
Prime contractors
“We award contracts to ‘Prime Contractors’ – this means we give a large contract for a specific geographical area to a single organisation and they are fully responsible for delivery, working with a range of sub-contractors and partners to ensure each customer has a positive experience. We look for a range of skills and attributes from our Prime Contractors, including things like management capacity and capability, experience of delivering large scale provision, ability to effectively manage and develop supply chains and financial stability.”
The DWP procurement process
“We generally operate a two stage procurement process whereby we shortlist organisations using criteria around these and attributes and the organisations who best meet that criteria are then invited to submit a full tender.
Once an organisation gets through the short listing stage and is invited to tender, they need to convince us that they can deliver a high quality service to unemployed people in that particular locality. They are asked to provide details of their delivery model, how it addresses the specific needs in the contract locality, and all the sub-contractors and partners they are going to work with to ensure the needs of each individual customer are fully addressed. We take account of the skills and experience of the sub-contractors when judging the tenders, so it’s in the Prime Contractors’ best interest to work with well respected, experienced delivery organisations who can help them address the needs and barriers of each customer.”
Barriers to smaller organisations winning contracts:
“I think that there are some key barriers to small, third sector organisations bidding for any large government contracts, one of which is access to the financial backing needed to operate at that scale. There is certainly an issue that we have identified with third sector organisations potentially having the right experience and the right ethos but not having the ability to take the financial risks that would be needed. That’s why we’re encouraging third sector organisations to consider partnerships with other organisations in order to bring together finances, expertise and management skills. This could take the form of a new legal partnership or involve third sector organisations working with larger companies on a sub-contractor basis.”
Working in collaboration:
“(Smaller groups) could work with larger organisations as a sub-contractor, and indeed, many third sector organisations already operate on that basis. When we procured Provider Led Pathways to Work a couple of years ago, for example, we were successful in attracting around 300 third sector sub-contractors. Or they could form consortia with other providers to increase their capacity to bid as a Prime Contractor.
We would find it really exciting in future tendering rounds to receive a consortia bid involving a group of third sector organisations who are pooling their skills, experiences and resources to enable them to bid as a prime contractor and we’re certainly trying to support that process by giving them some independent access to expertise.”
The importance of third sector organisations:
“Quite often third sector organisations work at grassroots level, they understand the need of the individual and they have credibility that we at DWP and some of the larger providers simply don’t have. We are really keen to engage with them. We have done a lot to try and facilitate that engagement and ensure that third sector organisations continue to have a role in the delivery of Welfare to Work Services, and we are always very keen to hear people’s views on what more we can do.”
Support for smaller organisations who want to bid for DWP contracts is available, especially those interested in forming consortia.
For further information, visit the Futurebuilders website (opens new window)
Source: Futurebuilders 06/07/09
http://www.fundingcentral.org.uk/newsview.aspx?WCU=DSCODE%3dOTSSCMLIVE%2cNEWSITEMID%3d248-N7155
07 May 2009
In reaction to today’s child poverty figures released today by the Department for Work and Pensions, Carey Oppenheim, Co-Director of the Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr) said:
“The figures on child poverty released today are very disappointing as they show that progress on poverty has stagnated and even deteriorated on some measures. These figures also pre-date the recession so the number of children currently in poverty today is likely to be higher.
“The recent Budget provided very little new cash to help bring down Britain’s high levels of child poverty - so there is no hope of halving child poverty by 2010. This means many more children will be growing up in poverty, and at greater risk of underperforming in school or missing out on employment opportunities in later life. Turning this around requires greater financial support for families, more access to jobs and improvements in education and skills.
“It is crucial for all the political parties to set out a clear action plan for how they plan to meet the commitment to end child poverty by 2020 in the context of recession and much greater pressure on public spending. Otherwise, we will continue to see future generations suffering the consequences of childhood poverty.”
Notes to editors
Nice Work If You Can Get It: Achieving a sustainable solution to low pay and in-work poverty, by Kayte Lawton is available to download from the ippr website.
Working out of Poverty: A study of the low paid and the working poor, by Graeme Cooke and Kayte Lawton, is available to download from the ippr website.
Contact
Kelly O’Sullivan ippr media officer, 020 7470 6125 / 07753 719 289 / k.osullivan@ippr.org
Following the Dissolution of Parliament on 12th April, all select committees have ceased to exist unless or until the House renominates them following the election on 6th May. There are no chairs or members of committees. The information on these pages refers to committees and their work before Parliament was dissolved. If there are committee Reports to which Government responses are outstanding, these may be responded to in the next Parliament.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights consists of twelve members appointed from both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Committee is charged with considering human rights issues in the UK but cannot take up individual cases.
The Committee undertakes thematic inquiries on human rights issues and reports its findings and recommendations to the House. It scrutinises all Government Bills and picks out those with significant human rights implications for further examination.
The Committee also looks at Government action to deal with judgments of the UK courts and the European Court of Human Rights where breaches of human rights have been found. As part of this work, the Committee looks at Remedial Orders, the legislative mechanism that allows legislation to be amended in response to these judgments. Please see links to 'Human Rights Judgments' and 'Remedial Orders' below.
If you would like further information regarding the Committee's scrutiny of Bills please click on the link below 'Legislative Scrutiny'.
If you would like further information regarding the Committee's inquiries, which it is currently undertaking please click on the link below 'Thematic inquiries'.
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/joint_committee_on_hum...
The report which I received in the post addresses some of the issues we raised in our submission to the Joint Committee on Human Right. Issues around the accountability of 3rd Parties being a particular area of concern especially with the passing of disclosure information on HIV. There is an ambiguity in whether a 3rd party who may be charged with finding a HIV+ person work is considered a "public body" for the purposes of the Human Rights Act. Thus allowing potential court action should a breach of a right occur.
We mentioned that HIV is not adequately subject to "training" both with Decision Makers & DWP medics. We argued that the public nature of any appeal on a benefit or employment tribunal case was unlike to occur for fear of public disclosure of the HIV. Due to stigma this openness perversely denies proper pursuit of Human Rights and legal redress. Recommending that some confidentiality about HIV in such cases would encourage challenge more than at present. That stigma affects family life where a single person is affected and this openness, and resulting stigma by association may extend to a breach of the rights of family members.
The report highlights a number of areas which the government has yet to make clear on its duty to the pursuance of it Human Rights obligations with respect to the Welfare Bill and much concern is raised over the power handed to Jobcentre plus staff without clear safeguards being in place.
I welcome any comments on this as it feeds any further submission we make.