Ongoing Correspondence with the EHRC - Who cares about my Human Rights?

3. My response to the EHRC's response.

Dear Mr Hammond,

Your reference - NS184

Thank you very much for your reply to my e-mail of the 2nd October 2013. I would like to take you up on your offer of further consultation made in the final paragraph of your response.

I feel very frustrated by the continued statement of the position that the EHRC is not a campaigning body. It was particularly puzzling in this case when you continue in the same sentence to point out the EHRC's responsibility to promote and where it can ensure the harmonization of national legislation, regulations and practices with CRPD. Having double checked with more than one source as to the degree of shared meaning in these 2 words I will in future use the word "promote" where I would in the my normal use of language use the word "campaign". 

It would be very useful if you could point me towards the current report that details: 

1. Which UK Laws comply with the CRPD.
2. Which UK Laws are being harmonised with the CRPD in the next year.
3. Which UK Laws are being harmonised with the CRPD in over a years time.
4. Which UK Laws will not be harmonised with the CRPD.

I would like to ask what timescale has been accepted by the EHRC before compliance with Article 4 of the CRPD, The General Obligations under this convention, is required. How many expected extra deaths have been accepted by the EHRC due to any delay in full implementation of the CRPD?

My response, which I have widely consulted on, is as follows.

1. I feel that "promoting" an issue is a very subjective activity, as the process involves a high level of personal judgement in deciding what to do and how to do that. It is with this point in mind that I suggested that Lord Holmes, a Conservative Peer, has a significant conflict of interest when it comes to fulfilling his role. I fail to see how it could be possible for a Disability Commissioner not to have a significant influence over the activities of the EHRC. He is a Board member of the EHRC with input into the EHRC's strategic direction towards Disabled People and has taken a political position on his elevation to the House of Lords. How many times has he declared a conflict of interest and withdrawn from discussions and votes? 

Where the organisational structure creates the perception that a Conflict of Interest might occur I would expect a public body such as you to immediately remove the danger of that apparent or perceived conflict being crystallized. How have the EHRC done that? I believe that as we live in unprecedented times where a Minister of Her Majesty's Government has repeatedly demonized sick and disabled people, radical action is needed on your part to protect your independence and objectivity.

It has been suggested to me that I am proposing the exclusion from holding office at the EHRC of anybody with a declared political affiliation. I would be intrigued to hear your view on this and whether politics and human rights mix? I personally believe Human Rights are an absolute and Politics is about making choices but I await your views with interest.

2. The UNCRPD was ratified by the UK Government in 2009. You state that you are now gathering intelligence to identify key issues supported by evidence. To me that appears to be 4 years after the event and too late for the 10,000+ people that have died within 6 weeks of being made to submit to a work capability assessment. Surely these key issues should have been identified before ratification of the CRPD and I am dismayed to see that you do not see Equality of Opportunity as a key issue. Without that, in my opinion, disabled people remain in their current role as "pets" and without that you are accepting discrimination against disabled because they are "different". I am awaiting confirmation from the UN as to how they define Equality of Opportunity.

It is my personal opinion that 4 years into the process, in my opinion, you should be preparing to report to the UN how you have closed the compliance gap and how close the UK is to being fully compliant? If the human rights of disabled people can be said to converge with the rights afforded in the CRPD who took the decision to deny disabled people their human rights as outlined in the CRPD when it was ratified in 2009? Why have you not acted sooner to protect life? In my opinion the "Respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make one’s own choices, and independence of persons" enshrined by the CRPD has been eroded by the Governments Welfare Reform Act 2012 and I remind you that the Government used the procedure of claiming "financial privilege" to "steamroller" the sensible concerns of the House of Lords. The "Bedroom Tax" is arguably an attack on the individual autonomy of the UK's sick and disabled population so I presume you have taken prompt action to investigate and if necessary ensure the UN are aware that the UK are in breach of its obligations under the CRPD? The flawed Work Capability Assessment arguably shows no respect for individual peoples dignity so again I presume you have taken  prompt action to investigate and if necessary ensure the UN are aware that the UK are in breach of its obligations under the CRPD? The new upper rate mobility criteria of "Can stand and then move unaided more than 20m" will, I believe, leave the UK in breach of its obligations under general principles of the CRPD, specifically: a. Respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make one’s own choices, independence of persons - are you planning to wait until people take desperate action following the loss of their independence before you take any action? 

I could go on. I ask again, as you did not address this in my initial letter, do you agree with Amnesty International UK who recognised that the Human Rights of Sick and Disabled People are being abrogated by the UK Government?

3. I will start by pointing out your duty to promote the CRPD. I will also reinforce my dissatisfaction with your tactic of actively intervening only after Human Rights have been violated. Unfortunately the links provided in your response are largely broken so I am unable to read at the moment (can you please check the links you gave external to your own website?) but again they seem to, in the main, relate to instances where you are offering guidance on interpretation of the law or instances where the UK Law has been challenged in court. Again, I strongly argue this is too late. I believe that unless the EHRC act strongly and urgently to neutralise bad and dangerous laws that could be used to deprive citizens of their Human Rights, people will continue to die. Have you done a risk assessment of your viable strategic options to identify which strategy is likely to facilitate the minimum loss of life?

4. Sadly you failed to acknowledge the 10,000 + deaths I referred to or the position of Amnesty International UK. Perhaps you would be kind enough to do so? Failure to do so suggests to me you have no concern about the human rights of sick and disabled people. 

It has been pointed out to me that the EHRC is limited in what it can do. I would be happy to discuss that with you in detail but I do not accept that position. The UK seems to have a lot to say about alleged Human Rights abuses committed by other countries. 10,000 deaths whilst being subjected to unreasonable mental strain in my opinion is a human rights abuse, but the EHRC is quiet on that? Somebody has to stand up for what is right and what is fair. I am saddened that this does not appear to be one of the roles of the EHRC.

In conclusion, it appears to me that your strategy of making strategic interventions after the event is flawed. By allowing, without significant protest or legal challenge, the UK Government to introduce laws that when exercised tend to deny Human Rights to the UK population, you seem to be accepting that the only way you can protect Human Rights is after they have been violated.

Do you not agree that is too late?

Yours sincerely,

Ian M Jones

2. The EHRC's response to my initial query.

Sent by Email

Email: ian8jones@me.com

Our Ref: NS184

29 October 2013

Dear Mr Jones,

Subject: Response to Email Dated 02.10.13

Thank you for your email of the 02 October 2013, in which you raise your concerns about:

1.   The continuing involvement of Lord Holmes as a Commissioner.

2.   The Commission’s role in monitoring UNCRPD.

3.   The Commission’s failure to campaign for the UNCRPD to be incorporated into UK Law

4.   The Commission’s work and perception of Work capability Assessment.

1. As a severely head injured disabled person I would like to protest in the strongest terms about the continuing involvement of Lord Holmes as Disability Commissioner. I believe it totally improper for anybody with a political allegiance to be in this position. Your treatment of disabled people may well be prejudiced by any political bias your disability commissioner displays.

As publicly appointed officers, Commissioners must observe Codes of Conduct, specifically as laid down in the Commission’s Governance Framework.

The Code of Conduct requires that Commissioners will provide knowledgeable, impartial and balanced perspectives on a range of sensitive and complex issues and will comply with the Board’s rules handling conflicts of interest.  It also includes the requirement “not use information gained in the course of their public service to promote their private interests, or those of connected persons, firms, businesses or other organisations”.

Commissioners who are peers are also covered by the Addison Rules, which state:

“A peer who is a member of a public board, is not by reason of such membership debarred from exercising his or her right to speak in the House of Lords, even on matters affecting the Board of which he or she is a member; and it is recognised that, in the last resort, only the peer concerned can decide whether he or she can properly speak on a particular occasion.”

When issues affecting the EHRC arise in Parliament, the present Minister and Government of the day generally are alone responsible to Parliament.  This means that the Commission cannot use the peer to influence Parliament, other than through the formally recognised channels.

Equally, as laid out in the Statutes, Boards are free to conduct their day to day administration without the intervention of Parliament or Ministers, except where otherwise provided. If Commissioners were to divulge the day to day operations of the Commission, then they would be in breach of this the Statutes.

There is no duty on the Commissioner to answer questions put to him during debate in Parliament, which means that the Commissioner can abstain from a Parliamentary or Commission discussion if the following should arise:

a.   A ‘conflict of interest’: involves a conflict between the public duty and private interests of a public appointee, in which the public appointee has private-capacity interests which could improperly influence the performance of their official duties and responsibilities.

b.   An apparent or perceived conflict of interest:  Where it appears that a public official’s private interests could improperly influence the performance of their duties but this is not in fact the case.

c.   A potential conflict of interest: arises where a public official has private interests which are such that a conflict of interest would arise if the official were to become involved in relevant (i.e. conflicting) official responsibilities in the future.

In considering whether a conflict of interest may exist, the Commission would consider: “Does the issue create (whether actual or perceived by a fair-minded person) an incentive for the member to act in a way that may not be in the best interests of the Commission?”

However, it should be noted that the identification of a ‘conflict of interest’ does not mean that corruption or some other abuse of public office has or will occur.

In the majority of cases, a declaration of interest, and abstaining from the issue at hand would be considered sufficient, unless it was felt that the frequency, at which the Commissioner had to abstain from discussions or decisions, significantly impaired their ability to fulfil their role.

The Commission’s Governance Framework is available on the Commission’s website at: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/about-us/governance/

2. The UNCRPD has been marginalised by not being written into UK Law. The UN have had to send in a Special Rapporteur, Raquel Rolnik to point out problems with the bedroom tax (66% of those affected by it have a disabled family member) but I haven't heard any comment from Lord Holmes or the EHRC on this subject. It appears to me the UN are having to monitor the implementation of the UNCRPD because Lord Holmes is refusing to! Do you have any comment on this?

The Commission is active in monitoring the harmonisation and implementation of English and Welsh (and GB wide) law and policy with CRPD, and does this separately and independently of the UN who also have the duty to monitor the convention through the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Accordingly, we are gathering intelligence from a wide range of academic, statistical and legal sources and asking the views of disabled people and their organisations so we can identify key issues, supported by a strong evidence base. This is so we can compile a list of issues with our partners in the UK Independent Monitoring mechanism of CRPD (these are the Scottish Human Rights Commission, the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission) to put to the UN Committee when it commences its examination of the UK in 2014.

Also we seek to harmonise domestic law and policy with CRPD. To give some recent examples, the Commission has intervened in several strategic judicial reviews arguing that the CRPD should be used as a tool for applying the Public Sector Equality Duty, when there may be adverse impacts on disabled people. These judicial reviews concerned the closure of the Independent Living Fund and changes to housing benefit (for example ‘the spare room subsidy’ in the case of R v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions). These cases are now subject to appeal.

We also pay regard to CRPD in our response to government consultations, most recently on Personal Independence Payments and legal aid reform and will do so in our forthcoming work on the Children and Families Bill.

We met with and discussed these issues with the Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing, as we do with all rapporteurs who visit the UK, as part of our role as a national human rights institution. It is important to stress that, as the UN clarified; she visited the UK on the basis of a standing invitation from the UK government in order to discuss a range of housing-related issues in the UK.

3. Why are you not campaigning for the UNCRPD to be incorporated into UK law in the way the ECHR is? I believe Scope will be doing just this!

The Commission is not a campaigning body but it has the responsibility to promote and, where it can, ensure the harmonization of national legislation, regulations and practices with CRPD and their effective implementation. Therefore we:

·        Make strategic legal interventions, for example in the judicial reviews referred to above.

·        Are continuing our ambitious follow up programme to the Homecare and Disability Harassment Inquiries (e.g. by putting on a major training event for Homecare providers to ensure that human rights are integrated in frontline practice and publishing guidance for providers and commissioners).

·        Respond to government consultations with evidence-based policies that reflect CRPD.

To get a better idea of the work that we continue to do, you may like to explore the following links, which touch on some of our CRPD-related activities:

·        Guidance for Homecare Commissioners: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/legal-and-policy/inquiries-and-assessments/inquiry-into-home-care-of-older-people/guidance-on-human-rights-for-commissioners-of-home-care/

·        Guidance for Older People: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/legal-and-policy/inquiries-and-assessments/inquiry-into-home-care-of-older-people/information-for-people-who-receive-home-care/

·        “Out in the Open: a Manifesto for Change”, the follow up report to the EHRC’s Disability Harassment Inquiry with revised recommendations: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/disabilityfi/out_in_the_open_dhi_manifesto.pdf

·        Bracking et al v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions re abolition of Independent Living Fund (welfare reform): http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/news/2013/march/commission-intervenes-in-judicial-review-of-abolition-of-the-independent-living-fund/

·        MA et al v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions re changes to housing benefit – now under appeal: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/news/2013/may/commission-intervenes-in-judicial-review-of-new-housing-benefit-regulations/

Case report: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/2213.html

·                    http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/legal-and-policy/consultation-responses/

You may also be interested to know that the Parliamentary Joint Commission on Human Rights discussed the legal status of the UNCRPD in their report “The Implementation of the Right of Disabled People to Independent Living” published in July 2012. The report can be found at:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201012/jtselect/jtrights/257/25705.htm#a3 paragraphs 17 - 37.

The Commission’s written evidence submitted to the Joint Committee can be found at http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/human-rights/Independent_Living_Written_Evidence_4.pdf pages 339 - 350.

4/ 10,000+ people have died within 6 weeks of being subjected to a work capability assessment. Don't you care? Surely their human rights are being abused by this government! Amnesty International agreed at their AGM this year that the human rights of disabled people in the UK are being abrogated. Do you disagree with them?

In addition to responding to Government consultation on Work Capability Assessment, we have also supported cases that address a failure to consider reasonable adjustment / access in relation to the benefits assessment process, for instance regarding the Government’s introduction of size criteria (under-occupancy) for working age Housing Benefit claimants living in the social rented sector and also the Independent Living Fund. The Commission agreed to intervene in the case of R v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the unsuccessful judicial review challenge to criteria introduced by the Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2012.

I hope this answers your questions.  If you have any further concerns or questions, please do not hesitate to consult us again.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Hammond

Chief Executive

Equality and Human Rights Commission

1. My Initial Query

From: Ian Jones <ian8jones@me.com>
Date: 2 October 2013 15:07:21 BST
To: "complaints@equalityhumanrights.com" <complaints@equalityhumanrights.com>
Cc:
Subject: Political Bias Within EHRC

Dear sirs,

I would like to make the following observations.

1/ As a severely head injured disabled person I would like to protest in the strongest terms about the continuing involvement of Lord Holmes as Disability Commissioner. I believe it totally improper for anybody with a political allegiance to be in this position. Your treatment of disabled people may well be prejudiced by any political bias your disability commissioner displays,

2/ The UNCRPD has been marginalised by not being written into UK Law. The UN have had to send in a Special Rapporteur, Raquel Rolnik to point out problems with the bedroom tax (66% of those affected by it have a disabled family member) but I haven't heard any comment from Lord Holmes or the EHRC on this subject. It appears to me the UN are having to monitor the implementation of the UNCRPD because Lord Holmes is refusing to! Do you have any comment on this?

3/ Why are you not campaigning for the UNCRPD to be incorporated into UK law in the way the ECHR is? I believe Scope will be doing just this !

4/ 10,000+ people have died within 6 weeks of being subjected to a work capability assessment. Don't you care? Surely their human rights are being abused by this government! Amnesty International agreed at their AGM this year that the human rights of disabled people in the UK are being abrogated. Do you disagree with them?

I believe it likely that possible political influence being exerted over the EHRC will lead to you becoming nothing more than a lapdog of the government.

Please answer my queries above and explain whether your organisation has the political will to resist being shut up and controlled by the government like the UKDPC and DRUK have been!

Yours sincerely,

Ian M Jones

Bridging the Divide - Integrating National Equality and Human Rights Bodies

INTRODUCTION

As WOWpetition enters the home straight my thoughts have turned to things other than how do we get people to sign our e-petition nbr 43154  http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/43154 and onto how best can we deliver on phases 2 & 3 of the strategy. 

To remind you, the 3 phase WOW strategy is:

Phase One: Gain 100,000 signatures to give our demands democratic legitimacy in seeking parliamentary redress.

Phase Two: With a caucus of supportive MP’s gain as much as possible in the democratic & parliamentary process to stop the human rights abuses against us and restore our health and social security systems. Including debate, free votes, Cumulative Impact Assessment and independent inquiry.

Phase Three: Where parliament and inquiries fail us we will pursue justice through the courts both national and international for the human rights abuse perpetrated by the UK government and its associated corporate allies.

As you can see, phases 2 and 3 both rely in part on highlighting the alleged Human Rights Abuses being perpetrated on disabled people in the name of fairness.

At Amnesty International UK's AGM this year a consortium of grass roots disabled peoples organisations, I think it fair to say led by WOWpetition, presented a resolution as follows which was overwhelmingly passed.

Amnesty International UK: Resolution A5 as passed overwhelmingly 14/4/13

Proposer: Rick Burgess

Seconder: Nancy Farrell

This AGM:

Calls for urgent action by AIUK to halt the abrogation of the Human Rights of sick & disabled people by working with grassroots human rights campaigns by and for sick and disabled people, carers and their families.

And to set up a specialist Disability Human Rights network akin to the already existing-

• Children's Human Rights network

• Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender network

• Teach Rights

• Trade Union network

• Women's Action network

To protect the human rights of People with disabilities, ill people and carers to halt this regressive & lethal assault on our rights

I personally am disappointed by the lack of urgency in taking this resolution forward by Amnesty UK, who I believe intimated that they did not have the skills, experience or funding to pursue this vigorously.

Finally, you may have heard of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, which has been ratified as "soft law" in the UK. Not being a lawyer my understanding of this is that this allows the courts to consider the UNCRPD but they are free to ignore it.

UN Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities
Article 3 - General principles

The principles of the present Convention shall be:

1. Respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make one’s own choices, and independence of persons;
2. Non-discrimination;
3. Full and effective participation and inclusion in society;
4. Respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity;
5. Equality of opportunity;
6. Accessibility;
7. Equality between men and women;
8. Respect for the evolving capacities of children with disabilities and respect for the right of children with disabilities to preserve their identities.

The UK's compliance with this Convention is monitored by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). Do you think the UK complies with its obligations under this Convention? Do you even know what Equality of Opportunity is and how it differs from Equality of Treatment? Who should be informing the public of the difference:  The Politicians who refer to us as "Disabled Benefit Scroungers"? The EHRC? The UN? Finally, other than "we've always done it this way" can somebody please explain to me why the UNCRPD wasn't written into UK law and what we lose by it not being written in?

With all this in my mind I went last night to a Seminar on the Integration of National Equality and Human Rights Bodies hoping to become better informed.

BRIDGING THE DIVIDE

This seminar was concerned with a report (Bridging the Divide) produced by Neil Crowther (Independent Consultant) and Colm O'Cinneide (Reader in Law, UCL) into how National Equality Bodies and National Human Rights Institutions in the EU could be integrated. This discussion focused on how Integration had been done in certain jurisdictions and how it was being approached in other jurisdictions. It was also stated that there is a common desire to improve protection across Europe. In my personal opinion the case for why we should integrate these bodies was not made and even though I am a Change Management Consultant I will leave my reservations about their methodology to one side at the moment until I have read the full report and not just the Executive Summary. Instead, I will focus on some of the comments made by the attendees.  

• The point was made over and over again that where Equality and Human Rights had been integrated the budgets allocated were not sufficient to allow it to carry out a full and comprehensive service and choices had to be made. I had visions of John Cleese saying "Pregnant women step forward - you can have your human rights now. Terminally ill step forward - yes, no time to waste. Disabled people - sorry, maybe next year". Surely the point is that human rights are universal and anybody involved in the rationing of them to "deserving" cases could be interpreted as committing a human rights abuse by denying those rights to others. I was not personally aware there was such a crisis of funding in these bodies although on reflection it does not surprise me. Why wasn't I aware? The UK Disabled Peoples Council also lost their funding this year. Is there a pattern emerging? 
• Following on from this, it was suggested that the EHRC was severely underfunded and was having to make operational choices about who it supports. You will remember that the EHRC is responsible for monitoring Government compliance with the UNCRPD. Has the EHRC the money to do its monitoring job properly? I have been told not expect the EHRC to be 'shouting' about these issues as being a publicly funded body and cannot be seen as politically partisan or as attacking the government in such a way. Whilst appreciating the politics and diplomacy called for, at some point if you are not being provided with sufficient resources to deliver the minimum acceptable service you either choose to accept you will be delivering a sub-optimal service or you lobby for a change or you try to publicise what is happening or you resign. Why don't they just say we haven't got enough money to do this job properly? The situation is so bad and it can only get worse. I think we have reached a tipping point.
• Raquel Rolnik, the UN Special Rapporteur visited the UK in September and was critical of the impact of the bedroom tax. Also, 2/3 of the families affected by the bedroom tax have a disabled member. She drew the fire of the Conservative Party who called her a "loopy Brazilian leftie". Grant Shapps also asked the UN, "Were representations received from the British Labour Party, and from groups actively campaigning against the introduction of the policy?".  Does that mean the policing of Human Rights, Equality or the UNCRPD can only be carried out by people sympathetic to the Tory Party?
• I referred to a decision by Worcestershire County Council who "adopted a policy (on 8 November 2012) under which – absent exceptional circumstances – the maximum weekly expenditure on care in the community for an adult under 65 years of age would be “no more than the net weekly cost…of a care home placement that could be commissioned to meet the individual’s assessed eligible needs”. This is in my opinion, in breach of the UNCRPD's right of autonomy. I was told that the EHRC had been involved in fighting this case alongside WeAreSpartacus and whilst the Judicial Review was lost (a judicial review only looks at the procedure followed, not the legal validity of the legislation) the Judge commented on Worcester Council's obligations, stating  “It will also be required to take into account its assurances during the consultation period – and in the course of this claim – that no individual will be forced into living in residential care, as a result of this policy alone.” That's OK then, as long as you remember that the law is still on the statute book, could still be used and is a continual worry to the people of both Worcester and the UK. How can such a law exist? The strain on disabled people when threatened with life in a care home could be such as to lead to them taking the decision that life is not worth living. 
• I was honoured to speak at the 10,000 Cuts and Counting Service of remembrance in Parliament Square on the 28th September 2013. Also speaking were the Dean of St Paul's Cathedral The Very Reverend David Ison, Michael Meacher MP, John McDonnell MP, and other Campaigners for Disability Rights. More than 10,000 people have died within 6 weeks of being forced to submit to a Work Capability Assessment. Did it kill them? In some cases that is likely and has been mentioned in Coroners reports as a causal factor. Even in cases where it wasn't identified as a causal factor, is it right that in the last weeks of your life you are made to submit to an obtrusive vile test. The has to be a better fairer way! Not just Campaigners for Disability Rights, not just MPs but the Dean of St Paul's is connecting these deaths with this ConDem and the previous Government's Welfare reforms. Why can't the EHRC speak up about the Human Rights of potentially 10,000 people being abused. How many more have to die?  

There lies the problem. From my understanding the role of the EHRC in the main is to advise on pertinent issues & Bills in front of the house and then to enforce the law as it is written. Sometimes it is successful in this. Last night, during a debate on a successful amendment to the Care Bill, which saw the provisions of the Human Rights Act extended to all regulated care providers, several Peers referred to EHRC's briefing. However, once law is written the EHRC's job is to interpret policy and act to promote full compliance with the law. I feel taking the Govt to court after the event is too late. By then people may have had their life's blighted and their human rights infringed. Whose job is it to say these policies are dangerous and badly thought out?

Our system of democracy has 2 houses, the Commons and the Lords. Simply put, any law passed in the Commons has to be confirmed by the Lords. Following its passage through the Commons, The Welfare Reform Act 2012 was substantially amended by the Lords but these amendments did not make it into the statute book? This Government asserted that as it was so vital to their financial strategy to deal with the 0.5% of fraudulent claims for disability benefit they were entitled to use the Parliamentary device of "Financial Privilege" to force this bill through without the approval of the Upper House. So the Lords said the Welfare Reform Bill was flawed and got ignored. Whose job is it to say the policies are dangerous and badly thought out?

Campaigners like me are questioning policy. Our reward is for  Paul Maynard MP to label us "extremists" whilst hiding behind Parliamentary privilege. Don't be fooled. He hasn't apologised publicly to all he, but for Parliamentary Privilege, slandered. Whose job is it to say the policies are dangerous and badly thought out?

I would welcome Raquel Rolnik back to the UK with open arms as she is questioning not whether something is legal in the UK but whether it is right. Whose job is it to say the policies are dangerous and badly thought out?

The question is who do we allow to protect our human rights. The Government? Aren't they suggesting leaving the European Convention on Human Rights? The EHRC's main focus appears to be is advising before a Bill is passed, implementing after a Bill is passed into Law and taking legal action to endure compliance with the bill. Amnesty are in the midst of a funding crisis. I can't as I'm an "extremist". Whose job is it to say the policies are dangerous and badly thought out? 

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that our Government gives us Human Rights. Those Human Rights are ours to start with. All the Government does is take them away, although they would argue that is done for the common good! Whose job is it to say the policies are dangerous and badly thought out?

Talking about how you Protect and Deliver Human Rights and Equality is a very valid discussion. However, the aim is not to produce a process but to Protect and Deliver Human Rights and Equality. Whose job is it to say the policies are dangerous and badly thought out?

Human Rights and Equality bodies are seeing considerable reductions in their funding at precisely the time that Human Rights and Equality are under severe attack. Whose job is it to say the policies are dangerous and badly thought out?

What Should Disability Equality Really Mean?

Why disability equality need not be the price of defending the welfare state

Neil Crowther, who is a member of Labour's Disability Taskforce posted a Blog with the above title. To see his blog go to http://makingrightsmakesense.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/why-disability-equality-need-not-be-the-price-of-defending-the-welfare-state/#comment-35 but my response to his viewpoint is below. Enjoy it!

Ian Jones (@edwinmandella) on October 11, 2013 at 2:35 pm said:

When Lord Freud made the case for the Welfare Reform Act 2012 it wasn’t the science that sold it to the Politicians and the electorate. It was the implication that disability was psychosomatic which allowed politicians like Osborne, IDS & Cameron to sell the electorate the idea that “We all know someone down the pub”, ripping off the welfare state for the generous “something for nothing” benefits. Thus the myth of the “Disabled Benefit Scrounger” was born.
Neil’s campaign phrase of “dignity and opportunities for all’ is something I believe we can all unite around and is not far away from the plea for “a better, fairer way to support and give opportunities to disabled people” which WOW pleaded for at the recent Service of Remembrance in Parliament Square, for the 10,000 plus people that have died within 6 weeks of being forced to do a WCA. Let us not forget that some prominent campaigners for the Rights of Disabled People have shepherded disabled people towards the Government’s Work Programme in the past and that all major Political parties have supported this approach.

Before I continue, there is a point to be made here that not all sick and disabled people can work and the causal impairments that cause this are much much more than those accepted by the WCA at the moment. My view is that every member of society should be provided with a basic level of state funded income but that people should be encouraged to work if possible through the “carrot” rather than the current “stick” approach. My points below are therefore directed at sick and disabled people that are both able and willing to work, stressing that being willing to work is not always a conscious decision. I am also basing my comments on the integration of sick and disabled people into society through employment opportunities.

I believe that the message we give should not be based on whatever fashionable model of disability is in vogue at the moment. It should be based on what is RIGHT!
Did Martin Luther King base his emotive speeches on a fashionable model of why race discrimination is wrong? Is our fight a million miles away from his? Are disabled people discriminated against because they are less than non-disabled people or because they are different?
Disability is not a model to me. It is a way of life.
Asking for more Training, Education and Skills to be transferred to sick and disabled people is to me a no-brainer, as in my opinion everybody needs to improve their skills and ability to add value – sick people, disabled people, yet to be disabled people , young, old, men, women, Africans, Asians, Europeans, Americans I could go on! However, will being better qualified/ experienced really solve all of the barriers to work we encounter? I hope we are not suggesting that sick and disabled people have to be more qualified and experienced in order to secure employment as in my personal experience being over qualified is a major barrier to empoyment?
Trust me when I say lack of qualifications, experience, skills or ability is not a barrier to working for me personally. People liking me or relating to me or being scared of me or not understanding me or assuming things about me or using office politics to highlight why I am less than them ARE the barriers. The Equality Act 2010 addresses removing many of the barriers to Disabled People fully participating in Society but hasn’t addressed the “hearts and minds question”.
As long as society gives us “Equality of Treatment” Society will expect us to react to things in exactly the same way as them, because we argued to be treated in the same way as them. We have to re-frame the argument so that we are demanding Equality of Opportunity. No matter how educated, qualified and experienced you are, if people don’t want any of “those disabled people” working with them you won’t be working with them, unless they are convinced differently (be it by legislation or public opinion etc). Supply side measures are welcome but in my opinion won’t help generate opportunities for talented disabled people.
Just as I think equality of treatment was the wrong target I passionately believe that by focusing on supply/ push side measures to get more of us in employment, both if we can or want to, we are promoting a model that is doomed to failure. Why work hard to improve yourself if the opportunities don’t follow the effort! My belief is that you should “Build it and they will come”. (With apologies to Kevin Costner).

Finally, I am different from most of you. I did not choose to be different but I expect society to make reasonable adjustments to account for my differences and give me Equality of Opportunity..

Disability Confident my arse!!!

To The Right Honourable Theresa May MP

 

Dear Theresa,

 

Following Esther McVey's triumphal announcement of the Disability Confident Scheme I have contacted employers that are obviously very keen to be associated with it and applied for jobs with them. As a highly qualified and experienced accountant/ consultant, I have contacted KPMG and Ernst and Young.

 

My experiences of this have been disappointing as it appears to be treated similarly to "Positive About Disabilties" as companies appear to be happy to sign up to it for the PR gain associated whilst offering no obvious benefit to disabled jobseekers. I find it difficult to comprehend why intelligent people in Government and Industry are failing to grasp the fact that Disabled People are different to their current workforce and that it is not enough to offer equality of treatment but they must offer equality of opportunity. Below this e-mail is one I have sent to KPMG outlining my concerns with their process.

 

With this in mind would you please ask or arrange to be asked on behalf of your constituent to David Cameron MP at the next available Prime Ministers question Time.

 

"Does the Prime Minister agree that had his son, Ivan, survived the future for him would be very bleak as, for example,  companies that sign up to his flagship Disability Confident scheme appear to have no intention of honouring their commitment to enable talented disabled people. Can he also please explain how disabled people thrown off benefits, after being judged fit for work, are meant to thrive and survive when so many of the available job paths are not available to them, presumably because the companies believe the "Disabled Benefit Scrounger" rhetoric peddled by the Minister for Work and Pensions?"

 

I trust you are able to do this for me but await your affirmative response keenly.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Ian M Jones

 

 

 

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Ian Jones" 

Date: September 26, 2013 3:41:02 PM
To: "Gardner, Angela"
Subject: Re: Application Update

Dear Angela,

 

It gives me no pleasure to contact you like this but as you are by now aware I was told via a message left on my mobile phone that I would not be taken forward for this role because I had no Consulting or Blue Chip experience. If you look at my cv you will plainly see this is not the case and I suspect that the recruiter did not look past the section that explained I was disabled.

 

I have just spoken to Gemma who had changed her reasoning from that left on my mobile phone, which I have saved to my computer. Her new reasoning is that although I had the required experience it was not current. I refer you to the job advertisement which I have saved and attached. Please note nowhere does it say current experience required nor define what it means by "current experience". How can you hope to have an open, fair and transparent recruitment process if you change the rules mid-process and I would be interested to know how this decision was being implemented to ensure it does not discriminate against any group with a protected characteristic.

 

Also, can you please let me know what the Business Requirement for experience to be current is and why it is felt necessary enough to allow protected characteristics to be ignored? 

 

I request again to be contacted by the Partner responsible for Diversity and Inclusion within KPMG. The phone conversations I have just had imply to me that KPMG did not take Diversity and Inclusion seriously enough for a partner to be in overall charge of this policy. Perhaps you would like to comment!

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Ian M Jones

 

 

On Sep 24, 2013, at 09:42 AM, "Gardner, Angela"  wrote:

Dear Ian

I just wanted you to know that I am following up with our Recruitment team in the first instance and will respond to you as soon as possible.

Kind regards
Angela

Angela Gardner
Senior Manager, KPMG LLP
Diversity & Inclusion

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Jones
Sent: 23 September 2013 11:22
To: Gardner, Angela
Subject: Re: Application Update

Dear Angela,

I hope you don't mind me contacting you again but I would have thought the point of being disability confident would be to be open and transparent about hiring decisions.

I contend that is not apparent in this case and request you send me full details if how all applications for this position were ranked.

Being disability confident is about more than treating disabled people equally in my opinion. It us about giving them equal opportunities?

I would be grateful if you could put me in touch with the partner responsible for this initiative to allow me to understand how KPMG has interpreted this scheme as it seems to me it is not addressing the barriers to work faced by mentally impaired people such as myself! Perhaps you might like to tell me what jobs you feel I would be suitable for.

Apologies for any confusion but I accidentally sent this communication before it was completed so I am re-sending this as a complete version!

With kind regards

Ian M Jones

WOW - a nearly 6 month progress report

I thought it might be useful to detail my current feelings about the WOWpetition campaign.

As part of my travels I have spoken to fellow WOWers, MPs, Political Activists and other campaigners for disabled people. I have formulated some views.

1. I don't think the campaign can possibly succeed if we focus on benefits/ welfare and what we need to live. The reason I think this is opinion poll after opinion poll shows that "The Public" want benefit payments cut and believe that disabled people are mainly scroungers off the welfare state. Every-time you engage with a politician their stock answer is "but this is what my constituents want". We therefore need to re-market disabled people to the British Public.
2. Can someone explain why disabled people are given motability cars. My stock answer would be that without giving disabled people accessible personal transport they would be housebound because access to public transport might involve a long walk (longer than 200m) and buses, trains etc are not completely accessible (and the general public resents the space made available to disabled people preferring to park their pushchairs in spaces reserved for disabled people). This is important because a long held myth is that if you go on the sick you get lots of money and a free car. Unless we demolish this belief we stand no chance of influencing things because all politicians will have to do is say "my constituents believe disabled people are treated too generously by the welfare state"
3. At my sister in laws party at the weekend I had a discussion with a BBC Radio Producer. Despite being editorial neutral there was a sense that he was supportive of the government's realignment of support for disabled people. If we can't present a compelling case to opinion former's then we are shafted and despite the statistics flowing off my tongue I couldn't. The only point I made that resonated was that disabled people need to know where they fit into modern society.
4. LBC this morning was advertising a fundraising event for "Help for Heroes  and had all the spiel about heroes being deserving of support because they were injured in the course of fighting for their country. Armed forces disabled people are no more and no less deserving than people disabled during the course of their life's but that is not the picture being presented to the general public, which is one of the deserving and the undeserving disabled. We need to present to them an alternative view!
5. I have been to 2 Benefit Justice Rallies. I am not sure whether the left/ far left are our friends and how committed they are to our issues.
6. We have an Amnesty resolution but how useful is that? I don't know and the jury is out.

In conclusion it is my opinion that we need to find a way to take our message to the general public. Unfortunately, what is our message? Initially the idea of formulating a WOW strategy was dismissed as WOW was seen as a loose confederation of guerrilla type combat groups able to act independently. In order to achieve the 100k signatures required we might need to target groups not normally seen as our friends and convince them with our analysis rather than our emotion.

A constituency meeting with my MP

I have always believed that in order to convince people you have to be inclusive, or as inclusive as possible. I have taken that approach to work and I try to bring it to campaigning. My MP is Theresa May and whilst I do not believe I will persuade her to vote against Tory Party policy I do believe that there is a small chance (OK very small chance) that something I say may in someway influence policy.

I saw her last Friday and before I saw her I sent her this e-mail (below) detailing the issue I wished to draw to her attention.

Each appointment is only 15 minutes so we didn't cover everything but she undertook to respond to my letter in full.

We did discuss some aspects: She didn't accept or deny that Esther McVey had lied but was going to look into it; I asked her how a moral person such as her could go into the lobbies to support individual elements of the Welfare Reform Bill when it is obvious from the DWP's response to the WOW petition that they have no idea of the cumulative, or even the combined, effect the governments policies are having on sick, disabled, vulnerable and working class people - she undertook to read the DWP's response to the WOWpetition and Pat's Petition; I pointed out that using their language I am a "striver" so asked her why a disabled "striver" was unable to find and keep a job in her "strivers" Britain (I am not seeking to differentiate myself from other disabled/ sick people here - in my opinion people with impairments are strivers just by getting on with life!). She would look into that!

My case is my case. I am different from everyone else. We all have stories. Doesn't matter who they are - go and tell your MP your story. Please. If you talk to them they know we're here!!

To the Right Honorable Theresa May MP,

Dear Theresa,

Before our Constituency Meeting on Friday 22nd March at 5pm I want to outline the issues I wish to discuss with you. They are as follows:

1. I am concerned about how easy it is for your government to announce facts or policies that could be interpreted as deliberately lying. Examples are :

• Esther McVey announcing the Govt follows the Social model of disability in her reponse to e-petition 20968 "Pat's Petition" when Lord Freud stated in Hansard (17th Jan 2012 Column 498)  that the welfare reform bill is based on the BioPsychoSocial model of disability - does she not realise they are different? Is she mistaken or lying?
• Before the Last Election you personally promoted "A Contract for Equality". Perhaps you might be able to give me a detailed review of how many of your aspirational policies contained within this document have been implemented and how many ignored.  I believe you "promised" to preserve DLA as a cash benefit on Page 11 of that document. Do you believe you have done so? 
• I know it is in vogue to blame Labour for the countries economic woes but I personally believe it stretches back to the Big Bang in 1986 and is primarily the fault of bankers and Hedge Fund managers compounded by poor regulation of the Financial Services by both Conservative and Labour Government's. I would be happy to debate this with you?
• David Cameron claimed in Parliament on the 13th March 2013 that there have been 1m new Private sector jobs created since the General Election. Can you please let me know the source for that claim please?

2/ I am concerned about how you can claim to be fair to disabled people and reward "strivers". I was disabled in 1991 and despite medical opinion being I should not try to work again I did. My eccentricities caused by my disabilities meant that I reached a glass ceiling in the UK so I went overseas to Abu Dhabi to progress and was CFO of a billion dollar business. When I returned from "striving" (the Abu Dhabi government Racially discriminated against me and the other European ex-pats by implementing a policy to replace us with Local Arab staff)  I have been unable to find a job with no help from Govt and despite paying National INSURANCE for 25 years working overseas for 2 years wiped my eligibility and I am deemed not to have contributed! How is that fair?

3/ I was responsible at age 24 and was in a company pension scheme. When BG finally decided that I was unfit to work they pensioned me off on an ill-health pension. It is a small pension but stops me getting any income based benefits. It is a pension. If it stops me getting benefits why can older people receive large pensions and still get state benefits. That suggests age and disability discrimination to me? How is that fair? I was responsible when younger but am not allowed to benefit from what I presume is a characteristic you would encourage?

4/ When I was disabled there were no Insurance policies widely marketed to protect me in the event of such an incident. National INSURANCE benefits have since been scaled back and I have been cut adrift. Why are there no transitionary arrangements to make the changes fair to people like me? After my accident in 1991 I was refused access to any Insurance policies marketed subsequently due to my pre-existing condition. How is this fair? Now you've dismantled the Welfare Safety Net what help do I get?

5/ The tax system gives benefits to certain types of disability; i.e. Blind Persons Allowance. Why do my disabilities not count? Yet again, invisible disabilities do not seem to be recognised - DLA, PIP, ESA etc.

6/ I am aware that Welfare Reform started under New Labour. You are aware that I resigned my Labour Party Membership over it. However, purely as an example are you aware that one Remploy worker has killed himself over the effect of your Governments' Policy on disabled people and I believe this is but the tip of the iceberg. The WOWpetition will be at Amnesty International's AGM having put forward a motion alleging Human Rights Abuses against disabled people and I personally have debated similarities between what your government is doing and Germany in the 1930's with Tim Farron on Twitter. You have not even allowed disabled people to choose who represents them and imposed Liz Sayce on us. It is believed by many knowledgeable people that the policies of your Government are in breach of their Human Rights Obligations. History will judge this Government. It will even judge the amazing decision of an Oxford magistrate to find a protester guilty of causing harassment, alarm and distress for stating that Cameron has Blood on his hands. Have the ConDem's banned "fair comment" in this country. History will judge you.

7/ I am currently not signed on the dole as there is a major disincentive to do so. I would be put in the situation of endless interviews with no hope of a job and the burden of failure hanging around my neck, no tangible help from Government/ Jobcentre, no benefit payments because I get a small ill health pension with the possibility of being forced to do Workfare slave-labour for no payment. I thought work was supposed to pay? 

8/ Other minority groups work differently to the way it was accepted you should work and laws have been brought in to protect them. I have not lost jobs because I can't do them. I have lost jobs because I am different. Why do I get no protection? Why do I get no hope? The last reasonable suggestion from the DWP was to apply for a job at LOCOG. As you are aware, LOCOG admitted at Tribunal that they failed to make reasonable adjustments for my interview with no consequences.

9/ Do you have any comment on Scope announcing yesterday following the budget that there is no place for the disabled in the chancellors aspiration society?

10/ David Cameron claimed in Parliament on the 13th March 2013 that there have been 1m new Private sector jobs created since the General Election. Can you please let me know the source for that claim please?

11/ Surely it is reasonable to expect that any Government in a civilised society would be aware of the combined and cumulative effects of its policies on a very vulnerable section of its electorate. Why do you feel it is ethical to pass through the lobbies when the authors of the policies on which you are voting have not taken the time to understand the effects of those policies on the most vulnerable in society? The DWP's response to the WOWpetition  achieving 10,000 signatures said as much!

Your Government is overseeing what I believe to be a deliberate policy to marginalise what is a large resource of very able but different people and are responsible for what I judge as a complete withdrawal of hope for disabled people. Rather than giving us equality of opportunity we are demonised by Government ministers and made to feel a burden. Do you agree that is wrong?

I look forward to discussing this with you on Friday at 5pm.

Yours sincerely,

Ian M Jones

Sent from my iPhone

When WOW met the Campaign for Benefit Justice

I have thought long and hard about this. I can either say it exactly how it happened or make it interesting by shortening some of the sequences, leaving others out and telling a story that relays the facts rather than just give the facts (Sounds like a bad advert for some computer software!!). I'm in story telling mode!!!

On Sunday of last week a link did the rounds among the WOWpetition Activists. (Activist makes me sound more heroic than fat middle aged man sitting at his computer sending Tweets, e-mails, Skyping and walking my dog (with housework and cooking thrown in!!)). Someone had come across details of a Campaign for Benefit Justice that was meeting at Birkbeck College in London on Saturday 9th March and there was a general call out for WOWers to go. There was also a steering committee event last Monday evening to help organise this event.

Us at WOW (!!) have always realised that in order to be successful we need to break out of the confines of Twitter, although it is a very comfortable environment. To me this seemed to be an opportunity to take WOW into the real world. Others are doing that already, including our sponsor and all round good egg Francesca Martinez, so I volunteered, contacted the organisers and set out for the steering committee meeting.

At this point, I want to restate that one of the overriding principles behind WOW was that it was to be a democratic inclusive process, to include disabled people, their families, carers, friends and anyone else that supported us. Got that? You sure? OK!

So I walked into the steering committee meeting introduced myself and sat back. I am not going to go through the other people there as this post isn't about the wonderful job they did. The meeting began and as they were talking about the organisation of the event which they had already done without me I didn't really contribute. I think I made some comment about what a good job had been done.

Poked my head above the parapet!

Having included myself in the discussion I was "fair game".

I was asked......

"So, have you managed to change the wording of the WOWpetition yet?"

(It wasn't this brutal or aggressive but I'm telling a story!!)

I replied......

"Hello, my name is Ian. What?!?!"

It transpired that the meeting generally felt that the WOWpetition was a little bit "closed" when it asked for the end of sanctions against disabled people.

"Wouldn't it have been easier to ask for an end to sanctions against all?"

I slipped straight back into exec at a meeting mode. I pointed out that we were unable to change the wording of the petition (we've already considered that - hands up all of you that have noticed the the wording of the petition doesn't include the word "WOWpetition"!!!) and that WOW as a movement is against sanctions against all benefit claimants and vulnerable people. I was not going to try to justify the wording - much too dangerous!!

Good answer I thought.

Although that wasn't exactly the answer I gave. KISS - Keep it simple stupid, are the rules by which I try to live. But my mouth sometimes gets ahead of my brain. I had to add...

"and of course we were working against the 1,000 character limit so had to be focused."

I sat back, happy, thought I'd deflected it.

The offending section was:

Consultation between the Depts of Health & Education to improve support into work for sick & disabled people, and an end to forced work under threat of sanctions for people on disability benefits.

KISS?

Somebody at the meeting dared to say something.

SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT....

'Hold on! If you "change sanctions for people on disability benefits" to "sanctions for people on benefits" that's fewer characters?'

SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT

KISS KISS KISS KISS KISS KISS KISS KISS

Here goes....

"The WOWpetition was crowd-sourced amongst sick and disabled people and their stakeholders (thought I'd try some Consultant speak!!) and went through a democratic selection process and a vote. It was never our intention to be non inclusive, in fact we made every effort to be as inclusive as possible, and if we failed or excluded some other group that was not intended and an error of drafting."

Yes, that killed the discussion. Good old "stakeholders"!

The meeting continued and we organised meeting up on Saturday.

I reported back to my WOW colleagues and we had a lengthy exchange about what we could do.

Saturday came.

I got up, packed the car and set off into London. Got to the University of London campus. Suddenly I  realised the plan wasn't completely thought out!

Where to park?

I drove & drove & drove and came across a side road with "Parking regulations suspended" signs everywhere.

"Result".

Apart from it being very narrow parking spaces, nearly full and our elite students and academics being unable to park between the lines.

Got into one space, but it was so tight I couldn't even wind the windows down! Then someone left so as quick as I could (didn't lose any wing mirrors) jumped into it. Success.

Went over to Birkbeck College and saw familiar faces. Found my desk (tucked away under the stairs!!) but as if by magic it moved to a prime location on the entrance to the meeting room. Put the stuff out on my desk, put some posters up, tried to connect my ipad to BT wifi.

Shit shit shit shit shit shit shit shit shit shit shit

We were underground. No signal. How could people sign the petition?

I read somewhere that technology is disabling us. Without SatNavs people can't find their way. That sort of thing.

Went to the shop. Bought an A4 pad, a ruler, some pens. Made a paper petition for people to sign.

Simples.

The first part of the Benefit Justice Meet was in Birkbeck college. In order to get into the meeting they had to file past my desk. If they got too close they were told about WOW. If they wanted to go to the meeting after that they were encouraged to sign or I kept talking. The meeting started. My audience disappeared.


After about an hour and a bit the meeting finished and potential signees reappeared. They had to some past my desk to escape!! Some signed; some took our Cards; Some talked to me about who was WOW. I talked about how Welfare Reform wasn't fair and we'd had enough.Some promised to promote our message elsewhere.


Then they were gone. I packed up to move to the second part of the meeting, the workshops at ULU. However, by the time I got there they had started and there was a bigger prize.

Sitting there in ULU was the TUC rep and one of the organisers. I sat down. Made small talk. Then....

"so is there anything WOW can do to rehabilitate itself in the eyes of this movement?"

It turns out there is a Workfare protest coming up and they would like WOW to organise it for them. We did nothing to organise the rally last saturday so that seems fair to me. I will let you know what when I find out.

Remember, this version would differ slightly from a CCTV record of what happened but I trust you were all sitting comfortably.