Amazon at risk: 3 days left. . . . .

Amazon at risk: 3 days left

Incredible! Over 900,000 signers -- let's reach one million in time to join massive marches for forest protection across Brazil. Sign now and send to everyone. 

Dear friends, 

The Amazon is in serious danger. The Brazilian Senate is about to endorse a bill that would dangerously weaken protection of this global treasure. But in three days, indigenous people will lead marches across Brazil calling to stop the destruction.Let’s stand with them and make this a global march to save the Amazon.

The Amazon is in serious danger: Brazil is on the verge of gutting its forest protection laws -- unless we act now, vast tracts of our planet’s lungs could be opened up to clear-cutting devastation. 

This threat to the Amazon has sparked widespread anger and protests across the country and tensions are rising. In an effort to stifle criticism, armed thugs, allegedly hired by loggers, have murdered environmental advocates. But the movement is fighting back -- in three days, brave indigenous people are leading massive marches across Brazil to demand action and inside sources say President Dilma is considering vetoing the changes. 

79% of Brazilians support a veto of the forest law changes and this internal pressure is leading some in Dilma's administration to back a veto. But we need a global cry of solidarity with the Brazilian people to really force Dilma's hand. Our global petition will be boldly displayed on banners at the front of the massive marches for Amazon protection. Let's reach one million to SAVE THE AMAZON! Sign the urgent petition below and send this on to everyone:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_the_amazon_a/?vl 

People love Brazil! The sun, the music, the dancing, the football, the nature -- it’s a country that inspires millions around the world. This is why Brazil is hosting the next World Cup, why Rio has the 2016 Olympics and next year’s Earth Summit, a meeting to stop the slow death of our planet. 

Our love is not misplaced -- the Amazon is vital to life on earth -- 20% of our oxygen and one-fifth of all the world's freshwater comes from this magnificent rainforest. That’s why it’s so crucial that we all protect it. 

But Brazil is also a rapidly developing country, battling to lift tens of millions out of poverty, and the pressure on its political leaders to clear-cut and mine for profit is intense. Now, they’re dangerously close to buckling on environmental protections. Local activists are being murdered, intimidated and silenced. It’s up to Avaaz members across the world to stand with Brazilians and urge Brazil’s politicians to be strong. 

Many of us have seen in our own countries how growth often comes at the expense of our natural heritage: our waters and air get polluted, our forests die. 

For Brazil, there is an alternative. Dilma’s predecessor massively reduced deforestation and cemented the country’s international reputation as an environmental leader, while also enjoying huge economic growth. Let’s come together now, when indigenous and environmental leaders are taking their battle to the streets and urge Dilma to follow in those footsteps -- sign the petition to save the Amazon, then forward this email to everyone:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_the_amazon_a/?vl 

In the last three years, Brazilian Avaaz members have taken massive leaps towards the world we all want: They won landmark anti-corruption legislation, and have lobbied their government to play a leadership role at the UN, protect human rights and intervene to support democracy in the Middle East, and help protect human rights in Africa and beyond. Now, as brave Brazilian activists are being killed for protecting a precious global resource, let’s come together around this critical day of action to save the Amazon and herald Brazil as a true international leader once more. 

With hope, 

Emma, Ricken, Alice, Ben, Iain, Laura, Graziela, Luis and the rest of the Avaaz Team 


MORE INFORMATION

ICTSD: The Brazilian Forest Code: Exploitation and Preservation 
http://ictsd.org/i/news/biores/111187/

WWF, More voices speak out against relaxing Brazil's Forest Law
http://www.wwf.org.uk/news_feed.cfm?5142/More_voices_speak_out_against_relaxing_Brazils_Forest_Law

BBC -- Brazil passes 'retrograde' forest code:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13544000

AP -- Another Amazon activist killed in logging conflict:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gpeblqINNdOyGwLJOL2QRXInY4bA?docId=CNG.b3569aafd06fe78f58be73c5faaa97a5.71

Mongabay -- Majority of Brazilians reject changes in Amazon Forest Code:
http://news.mongabay.com/2011/0611-amazon_code_poll.html 

Science Insider -- Furor Over Proposed Brazilian Forest Law:
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/05/furor-over-proposed-brazilian.html

Guardian -- Death in the Amazon: a war being fought for us all:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2011/jun/15/amazon-rainforest-brazil-murder 

Support the Avaaz Community!
We're entirely funded by donations and receive no money from governments or corporations. Our dedicated team ensures even the smallest contributions go a long way.

Atos Doctors under investigation . . .

DPAC

---

1. Atos Doctors under Investigation
2. Iain Duncan Smith: UK hatchet man
3. Disabled Protesters in Sofia Fighting against Personal Assistance Reductions confronted by Government backed Disability Groups: call for action

Atos Doctors under Investigation Posted: 15 Aug 2011 06:28 PM PDT DPAC were pleased to read that twelve doctors employed by Atos Healthcare are under investigation by the General Medical Council over allegations concerning failure to put the care of patients first when carrying out “work capability assessments”. Atos have ruthlessly gone about getting disabled people off benefits regardless of the consequences for individuals unable to otherwise financially support themselves. Common Atos practice involves serious inaccuracies in medical reports, assessments conducted by medical professionals with specialisms irrelevant to the condition of the person being assessed, and doctors not even registered to practice in Britain. The high numbers of decisions overturned on appeal reflect a system wholly focused on targets at the expense of the welfare of the poorest and most oppressed members of our society. This is the truth covered by persistent government and media propaganda which contends that the majority of claimants for Employment and Support Allowance are actually fit for work and therefore fraudulently applying. The fact that medical professionals have allegedly been complicit in upholding this lie and committing injustice is saddening. Read the article at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/aug/13/atos-doctors-improper-conduct-disability —-Ellen Clifford

Iain Duncan Smith: UK hatchet man Posted: 15 Aug 2011 05:28 PM PDT Iain Duncan Smith was reported today at The Broken of Britain blog as having used the accessible loo at a Covent Garden studio causing a disabled person to have to wait in some pain. While that was undoubtedly an embarrassing moment for him it looks  that he was not overly welcomed when he was down under either. Iain Duncan Smith photo supplied Simon Collins from NZ Herald called him “UK hatchet man: Iain Duncan Smith, a former Tory leader and now a Cabinet minister, is speaking at the Maxim Institute’s annual Sir John Graham Lecture at the Heritage Hotel. Ms Bradford, a former Green MP, said Mr Duncan Smith’s “horrendously damaging” welfare reforms in Britain, which include cutting housing benefits for thousands of low-income families, inspired many of the proposals by economist Paula Rebstock’s Welfare Working Group in NZ. Government decisions on the Rebstock report are expected before this year’s election. Hilary Stace asked : Why is he visiting and why should New Zealanders to be vigilant about his message? The answer is that the New Zealand government is about to drive through similar welfare ‘reforms’, otherwise known as cuts, following the work of its Welfare Working Group which was appointed in 2010. The WWG reported on 22 February 2011, an hour before the destructive Christchurch earthquake. The signs weren’t good. Many of us have been watching with horror as the welfare ‘reforms’ have been rolled out in Britain. The  justification is that there is something evil called ‘welfare dependency’ that many poor and disabled people and single parents suffer from, and which can only be cured by paid work, preferably fulltime. Mr Duncan Smith expressed his underlying assumption for this policy – that welfare dependency leads to ‘worklessness’ (not the other way around). But I suggest there are two basic things missing in this equation: the role of the government to create jobs; and the role of the state in ensuring the dignity of all its citizens. He did not apologise for, or even acknowledge, the role of neoliberal policies under Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher which destroyed industries and millions of jobs. Yet he claimed that one million people will be lifted out of poverty by these reforms. These assumptions are underpinned by an absolute belief in the moral good of paid work and the lack of value of any other kind of work including voluntary work or child rearing. The Tory minister said that it is very important for the child of a single mother to see his/her mother go off to paid work every day as that would normalise ‘work’ for the child. The only unresolved question, he suggested, is what age that should happen. In New Zealand proposals the child could be as young as 14 months. In Britain it is five years old. When a member of the audience asked about creating work he replied with a sigh that he thought we had moved beyond that question. He said it is the private sector’s job to make jobs and the state’s only role is to make things easy for the private sector to do that. He claimed that the private sector had created half a million jobs in the last year but – wait for it – British people didn’t want them so they had gone to ‘immigrants’. So if the hundreds of thousands of unemployed British people are ungrateful and lazy, what does that say about disabled people? For disabled people in Britain currently on welfare the first step out of ‘dependency’ is an assessment for ‘workfitness’ (a term that harks back to eugenics). To assess the ‘workfitness’ of disabled people, a private multinational company, Atos,  has been contracted to do a tick box computerised assessment without any contextual information such as mental health or disability history.  Depending on what an individual scores they can be placed in three categories: work fit and ineligible for even basic employment support, work fit with employment support, and not work fit (ie unfit).  It is easy to imagine how aspects of a condition such as autism are overlooked by medical questionnaires which ask questions such as can you walk, or dress yourself. There are incentives such as rewards of additional contracts for the company to push people off the welfare system, and its profits are currently at record levels.  But it seems there have been so many challenges to the insensitive and inaccurate assessments that the system can’t cope. As well as workfit tests, there are also cuts to other aspects of the welfare system such as allowances for housing, programmes, and disability support including such things as continence supplies. There have been reported suicides, and regular reports of disabled people suffering because, for example, they can’t afford adequate housing and families unable to get supplies for their disabled children. Mr Duncan Smith has also distorted the concept of social justice, with its implications of equity, inclusion and bottom up social policy, by using it for the name for his own right wing think tank, the Centre for Social Justice, whose purpose appears to be championing policies to inflict social injustice on the poor and powerless. It is rare for us here to have the chance to get up so close with someone so powerful, so I listened carefully. After all, there is the equivalent of the population of NZ on welfare in Britain, out of a population of 62 million. He is a very smooth and persuasive talker, obviously clever, and had the look of someone who has been well nurtured with a comfortable life; I suppose you don’t get to be head of the Conservative Party without these attributes. So how can he justify the misery and pain his policies are so clearly causing? He is not evil and is clearly genuine concerned. One of my interests is ethical public policy*; I think that the only way powerful people can inflict such policies on other people is by seeing them as ‘other’ not fully human, or objects of scorn or laziness. Interestingly, in Britain the opponents of these policies have adopted the black triangle  – the Nazi symbol used to classify the  ’workshy’, one of their ‘othering’ labels – as their campaign symbol. So at question time I asked Mr Duncan Smith whether it worried him that his policies might be hurting real people. He initially didn’t agree, blaming misinformation campaigns and claiming disability groups had asked for these changes, but it clearly needled him. I think this is the way to challenge those whose policies risk hurting and harming other people – as human to human. And we need to keep doing it otherwise inequality and suffering will only increase. Alternatively,  we can always hope that politicians will actually ask real people for input into policy, and listen to the wisdom that comes from their  lived experience. But not much sign of that happening. From: http://humans.org.nz/2011/08/02/politician-does-it-worry-you-that-your-policies-hurt-real-people/ We send this to New Zealand campaigners in support of their protest: Disabled People Against Cuts stands in solidarity with New Zealand campaigners against poverty. As British Government Secretary for Work and Pensions Iain Duncan Smith prepares to speak, disabled people in Britain want you to know the dangers of following a British approach to welfare reform and the threat that it represents to your equality, human and civil rights. The Coalition government which came into power in Britain in May 2010 made rapid and sweeping changes under a welfare to work programme that targets the poorest and the most oppressed in British society. This programme is underpinned by a deliberate ideological policy of removing support from those in the greatest need. Meanwhile so-called austerity measures are disproportionately affecting disabled people. At the same time that local governments are removing support from disabled people, central government is re-assessing the benefits disabled people rely on to survive while imposing arbitrary targets set to reduce the numbers of claimants. The Condem’s Welfare to Work vision has already costs lives. In June 2010 Paul Reekie, the Scottish author, took his own life. Laid out on the table next to him were 2 letters, one telling him his housing benefit had been stopped and the other telling him his incapacity benefit had been stopped. This is just one example of what is becoming an all too common issue. Senior government officials have acknowledged that the welfare reform programme will cost lives but they see it as an unavoidable consequence of a direction they are determined to pursue. In 2005 the previous government set a target of 2025 by which time disabled people should have equality. Without income, without housing, without support to leave the house or even to use the toilet, this target is completely unreachable. Moreover, government propaganda that paints all benefit claimants as scroungers contributes to existing discrimination against disabled people at a time when hate crime against disabled people is an extremely serious issue and the names and numbers of those killed through prejudice mount up. Duncan Smith’s Welfare to Work programme does not represent value for money and cannot be excused as a necessary austerity measure. At the same time as a recent report commissioned by the government, found that the Access to Work programme makes a profit for the government of 48p for every £1 spent, the Department for Work and Pensions which runs the programme continued its policy of cutting resources to Access to Work, with the effect of denying support to disabled people trying to get in and stay in mainstream employment. The proposals for removing Disability Living Allowance and replacing it with a system which requires continual review for people with lifelong impairments will require investment at a level which can only be sustained by removing benefits from genuine claimants. ATOS, a profit-making healthcare company, has been given a 300 million pound contract by the government to carry out work capability assessments on disabled people to review their eligibility for employment and support allowance (previously called incapacity benefit). ATOS works to a target of finding disabled people fit for work and ineligible for the benefit. In order to meet their targets they disregard information from medical professionals, GP’s, consultants and psychiatrists. The advisors look for any reason to remove support. In one example a man with a mobility impairment lived in a flat which was too small for his wheelchair. When at home he uses furniture to get himself around. His ATOS assessment used this as proof that he could manage without a wheelchair. ATOS assessments are notoriously inaccurate. 40% are overturned on appeal and, with representation, that level raises to 70%. In other examples soldiers returning from Afghanistan with post-traumatic stress disorder and people with terminal cancer have been declared fit for work. Money is being spent paying private companies to find ways to declare people fit for work when they are not and to take away benefits from the poorest and most powerless members of society. Rather than being an effective use of money, this is ideological, it is about pushing those people already on the margins of society even further into poverty and obscurity. In Britain disabled people have not stood by and let this happen. We have mobilised and protested to defend our rights to the support we need to live an equal life. We urge campaigners in New Zealand to resist any attempt by their government to erode fairness and social justice the way ours has. –Ellen Clifford

Disabled Protesters in Sofia Fighting against Personal Assistance Reductions confronted by Government backed Disability Groups: call for action Posted: 15 Aug 2011 09:50 AM PDT Disabled People against Cuts (DPAC) were shocked to learn of the events of 28th July in Sofia, Bulgaria in which members of the Sofia Centre for Independent Living (CIL) were abused by another group of disabled people while protesting against  reductions in the PA scheme for disabled people. Disabled people in Sofia were told by the government that it was ‘not fair’ to allow the same disabled people use the limited funds for employing personal assistants to live independently. Provision for Personal Assistance Reduced Unfortunately the system of Personal Assistance (P.A.) Provision in Sofia is not promoting independent living and a better quality of life. An inquiry among PA users proved that most of them ‘improved their social contacts’, ‘INCREASED THE FAMILY INCOME’ and only 3. 7% found a job. In Sofia the PA salaries are most likely to go to family members while the situation of disabled people remains unchanged. The PA scheme budget has doubled over the last 4 years whereas the number of users has grown by a factor of four.  As a result people are receiving fewer and fewer hours to allow for more users. Disabled people get their PAs for one year and have to be assessed on yearly basis regardless of their situation. The new assessment system involves two stages: a) points based on the individual situation, which determine access to funds; and b) transfer of points into hours (by a panel of experts who will not see the applicant at all), which determine the size of individual funding. Reductions in PA lead to Confrontation The issue of reduced support for disabled people to live independently is, sadly, no longer news: it is something that is happening all over Europe. It is no surprise that there have been protests all over Europe by disabled people. What is a surprise is when those protesting for their rights are confronted and mistreated by another disabled peoples’ group. In this case CIL – Sofia, an organisation highly respected throughout the European Independent Living Movement were confronted by other disabled people from the National Disability Council: an umbrella organisation of well subsidised Disabled Peoples’ Groups. On one of the hottest days of the year supporters of CIL – Sofia were left reeling from the opposition demonstrated by the National Disability Council (NDC) members against them. In addition, Sofia CIL were left waiting outside the government building from 9:00am to 5:00pm in intense heat while the NCD were invited inside by the local government officials to see the results of the Metropolitan Council voting. Kapka Panayotova, the founder and CEO of CIL – Sofia, said “Police officers who were providing the security measures for our protest were shocked… They couldn’t believe it was happening!” NCD supported the key notion of the local politicians in Sofia: each year different disabled people should enjoy PA support; access to the scheme with the number of hours awarded dependent on the employment/schooling status of the applicant for PA not on the daily needs alone. In fact, the PA scheme in Sofia will become a tool for employment, not for better quality of life or independent living. A couple of weeks before the action a monitoring report on the performance of the National Council on the Integration of Disabled People (NCIDP) dominated by national Groups was made public. It was conducted by a consortium of advocacy NGOs – Institute for Modern Politics (IMP), Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (BHC) and Bulgarian Centre for Non-Profit Law (BCNL), it showed that: (1)  The NCIDP does not operate in line with the ‘good governance’ principles; (2)  Six out of its nine functions are not performed at all; the remaining 3 are partially performed; (3)  The NCIDP and its member groups are being subsidised in a non-transparent and unaccountable way, which takes them away from the status of ‘independent’ organisations; (4)  Despite the consultative process between the government and NCIDP, Bulgarian policies are not inclusive and far behind European human rights standards. NDC the umbrella of the impairment based Groups and the European Disability Forum This is not the kind of group most would want representing their interests. It seems that they may not be representing the interests of disabled people at all, but those of the government in agreeing with cuts in return for continued subsidies. What is even more shocking is that NDC are the spokespeople for Bulgaria at the European Disability Forum (EDF): a large organisation set up to be ‘The Representative Organisation of Persons with Disabilities in Europe’ and ‘the frontrunners for Disability Rights’. We are not sure if EDF are aware of the behaviour of their member organisation or their activities, but would like to draw it to their attention and ask them if they agree with it. DPAC condemns all cuts to funds to help disabled people live independently according to the framework of the European Convention of Human Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. DPAC also condemns disabled peoples’ groups that abuse other disabled people fighting for independent living and disabled peoples’ rights. We welcome comments from both NDC and the EDF on this issue. We urge all to help them and Sofia Metropolitan Council understand that independent living rights extend beyond education and employment to day to day living as recognised by article 19 in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Call for Action Contact the Sofia Metropolitan Council on why the PA scheme should be used as a tool for independent living rather than exclusively supporting employment and study and on their behaviour towards Sofia CIL http://sofiacouncil.bg/ (Bulgarian only) or debbie@dpac.uk.net Contact EDF to register your thoughts on the actions of the Bulgarian NDC at Face book http://www.facebook.com/EuropeanDisabilityForumEDF Twitter @MyEDF Email info@edf-feph.org ——-Debbie Jolly

The Cost of ‘Social Care’: eight things disabled people should know about the Dilnot report.

DPAC

---

The Cost of ‘Social Care’: eight things disabled people should know about the Dilnot report Posted: 14 Aug 2011 01:47 PM PDT The Dilnot report on the Future of Social Care was released in early July. The Dilnot report is the outcome of the Dilnot Commissions’ inquiry into the future of social care: a system that many of us agree needs urgent change to address the flaws in a system that increasingly looks as if it doesn’t care at all. A factor highlighted by issues that have been raised recently. For example the case of Elaine McDonald and the withdrawal of night time assistance by Kensington and Chelsea council; the cuts in funding for adult social care of up to 40% in some areas, and the loss of key local services; all are just the tip of the iceberg in the coalition’s titanic austerity measures. In addition we had the closure of the Independent Living Fund to new applicants, no clear direction for existing claimants and a host of other cuts to support for disabled people. The much repeated mantra of Miller on ‘supporting those in the greatest need’ is constantly being proved false and no more than a euphemism for a serious of ideologically driven ‘cuts’ by a government intent on removing the fabric of a post-war welfare state. All provide the reality and misery of a system in crisis, a system that constantly denies individuals and families the support and investment that a relatively wealthy country is capable of providing. A crisis matched by the erosion of disability rights and supports fought for by disabled people over the past 20 years in a regime  that is severely impacting on the lives of disabled people now, and that will impact negatively on  generations in the future. Cameron argued in 2010 that ‘those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest load’ who’d have thought our shoulders were so broad? Key proposals in the Dilnot Report include: ●At age 65 people will pay a proposed £35,000 for their ‘care’ costs ●Private insurance is being mooted as the solution for individuals to pay for their ‘social care’ in later years ●A national eligibility framework is proposed starting at ‘substantial’ ●Portability of assessments rather than ‘care packages’ from one local authority to another ●Means testing remains but the threshold is set to increase to £100, 000 ●Extra payments from those entering residential care of up to £10,000 per year proposed ●Deferred payments encouraged but local authorities to charge interest 1. Private insurance and a £35,000 payment for ‘social’ care. At the age of 65 the individual pays a sum of money for their ‘care’ until they reach the ‘cap’ of £35,000. The ‘cap’ is a suggested amount by the Dilnot commission. This is where the suggestion of a partnership with private insurance companies comes in- those of us on low incomes can apparently protect ourselves through paying an insurance company, and unsurprisingly some were involved in discussions with the Dilnot commission, so Dilnot and co may be able to provide us with a list. Once the ‘cap’ is reached the state takes over and pays any additional costs. So in brief the suggestion is that individuals will pay the first £35,000 of their care costs. But…. a) The ‘cap’ may be £35,000 at this stage, but as we know governments could increase this on a regular basis. The figure of £35,000 was arrived at on calculations of the cost of care for a 65 year old person and the costs over an average further 20 year life span; eighty-five is the predicted life expectancy. The Dilnot report has suggested a figure at which they hope we will pay our own costs and then die, allowing the state to appear overtly helpful, but avoid any cost-More a solution for government than disabled people or those with long term health issues. b) Am I alone in wondering why throughout our working lives we pay a chunk of our salaries out in National Insurance set up to provide all those things beloved of what used to be the welfare state? Other questions are raised: What happens if an individual who hasn’t opted for private insurance becomes disabled or encounters long term health issues before the age of 65? What happens to those of us already disabled or with long term health problems? 2. Increased Poverty of Disabled People and the Dilnot Solution As we know becoming disabled impacts negatively on ongoing income levels, with disabled people experiencing significantly greater levels of poverty compared to their non-disabled counterparts. Figures show that 75% of disabled women and 70% of disabled men are already at the bottom end of Britain’s income distribution scale living in poverty, the median level of total wealth for households headed by an employee is £217,500 compared to only £21,100 for households headed by someone who is sick or disabled [i], the average gross hourly pay for disabled employees is £11.08 compared to £12.30 for non disabled employees[ii]. In addition, the Demos report found that 170,830 families where both parents care for a disabled child will lose £520m 516,450 disabled adults whose partner is a full time carer will lose £1.258bn 98,170 single disabled people will lose £127m By 2015, this does not include losses due to the downgrading of incapacity Support to Employment Support Allowance or Job Seekers Allowance, nor the change from Disability Living Allowance to Personal Independence Payments which the coalition claims is set to knock at least  20% of current recipients off the system. So what’s the Dilnot solution? 3. Prove Eligible need and get no Cost support The Dilnot report proposes that those who are disabled or encounter long term health issues before or at the age of forty will be entitled to no cost support. This appears promising and a recognition of the limitations on building up savings and assets. Yet this will require proof of ‘eligible need’. So it will be on the basis of what different local authorities identify as ‘eligible need’ an increasing difficult thing to reach. As we know this is currently framed by a postcode lottery based on where you happen to live rather than need. As the majority of authorities have now raised their eligibility criteria to ‘substantial’ and ‘critical’ then what counts as disabled may be something very different to current common-sense views of what it really means to be disabled . It is flawed and promotes greater inequalities rather than promoting a solution. The proposal is that after the age a forty a sliding scale of cost will be applied rising to the full proposed £35,000 at age 65. The Dilnot report offers a solution to the postcode eligibility issue in the form of a national eligibility framework but this is set at ‘substantial’ following from this it becomes clearer that qualifying for ‘no cost’ support may become increasingly difficult if not impossible for most. 4. National Eligibility Framework The Dilnot report proposes that all authorities should be offering exactly the same eligibility levels to avoid the postcode lottery, something that the strangely titled Fair Access to Care or FACs was set up to address and clearly failed to do. The report suggests starting the national eligibility level for assessments at ‘substantial’ ensuring that those rare local authorities with eligibility starting at ‘moderate’ join the majority of authorities to set the level at ‘substantial’ and ‘critical’ only.

5. Portability

There is some optimism that the option of ‘portability of care packages’ has appeared in the report, unfortunately this a play on words and doesn’t mean what we want it to mean: which is that if a person moves house to another local authority area they keep their ‘care package’ avoid waiting times and reassessment in the new local authority area. The Dilnot report does not suggest the ‘portability of care packages’ from one location to another called for by many disability groups. Instead, it suggests the portability of assessments which is something entirely different.

6. Proposal to Increase Means Testing Threshold

The most likely outcome is that an individual presents their assessment and is reassessed by their new local authority. It is not clear to me how this can be considered an advance on the present system. It is no surprise that ‘means testing’ will remain.

7. Residential Care: extra Costs Proposed

The increase threshold of imposing means testing to those with assets of £100,000 instead of the current £23,250 appears at first glance an improvement; however, this may also point to home owners having their assets counted for services other than just for residential care, as at present. This would mean that home owners may in future be financially assessed not only on their savings but also on the value of their homes and be forced to release equity to pay for any local services they might need.

8. Loans with interest to pay for ‘care’

Those in residential care would be expected to pay what the Dilnot report implies is a ‘hotel charge’ (clearly they have not been to many residential homes). The extra charge will be for accommodation and food. This is slightly confusing as I wonder what those currently in residential homes are paying for through either the sale of their own homes or their family’s sale of their homes to pay costs. Local authorities should offer loans to pay for care to those who could later sell their homes to pay the costs with interest to the local authority. What happens to those without homes to sell is unclear. All the proposals set out in the Dilnot report are just that: proposals. Proposals can be rejected, amended or accepted by the government. It is clear that the crisis in ‘social care’ needs addressing as a matter of urgency. Yet the government have suggested that they will not respond to the crisis or the proposals until mid April 2012 at the earliest. The Dilnot Report can be downloaded in full from: http://www.dilnotcommission.dh.gov.uk/2011/07/04/commission-report/ [i] Data from Family Resources Survey and the National Equalities Panel Research (2010) [ii] Office for National Statistics Labour Force Survey, Jan – March 2009 ——-Debbie Jolly

DWP admits disability reform based on dodgy figures, as reported by Left Foot Forward Posted: 14 Aug 2011 01:00 PM PDT

 

Left Foot Forward reported that:

The Department for Work and Pensions has acknowledged that one of the key statistics it has used to justify radical change to disability benefits ‘gives a distorted picture’. One of the main ‘stylised facts’ that the DWP has used to make the case for aggressive reform of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) has been that the caseload increased by 30% over the last eight years- a phenomenon which a DWP source described as ‘inexplicable’. Read the figures at Left Foot Forward Further on While it is welcome that the Department now recognises the inadequacies of its earlier statements on DLA caseload growth, the publication of this analysis at this late stage is a matter of concern, for two reasons. The first is the stress the government has placed on the 30% figure as evidence of major flaws in the system requiring radical reform:  the consultation document on DLA reform stated: “In just eight years the numbers receiving DLA has [sic] increased by 30%. The complexity and subjectivity of the benefit has led to a wider application than was originally intended.” With the Welfare Reform Bill having already passed its report stage in the Commons and due to go to the Lords in September, government surely needs to explain how the downward revision from 30% to 16% affects the case for its proposals. The second reason for disquiet is this: government is engaged in radical cuts and reforms to disability benefits, including a reduction in caseload and expenditure by 20% against projections for 2016 and the abolition of DLA and its replacement with a new system, Personal Independence Payment. Yet it now appears that prior to deciding on these ambitious projects, DWP failed to carry out the most rudimentary analysis of the changes in DLA caseload which reform was supposed to address. And finally The government would appear to have launched itself into a radical programme of change affecting millions of disabled people without troubling to understand the first thing about the benefit it claims to be reforming. One has to ask whether this sort of amateurishness would be tolerated in any other major area of government spending. We would say very probably not. But at the rate this government is going, we might say that the amateurishness starts at the highest echelon. Read the full article at Left Foot Forward

DPAC: The riots - a disability perspective.

DPAC

---

• The riots – a disability perspective.
• To all Lib Dem MPs: Amendment to ESA motion
• Mental Health Resistance Network meeting: Friday 19th August

The riots – a disability perspective. Posted: 13 Aug 2011 03:06 PM PDT The unrest and violence we have seen across England over the past week is upsetting on many levels: there is upset for the innocent victims of criminality and those hurt and traumatised by events, upset over the prevalence of a lack of morality and empathy within our society, and upset that once again the violation of disabled people’s rights has been eclipsed. In justification of the welfare to work programme, government and right wing media have played up the existence of a benefit scrounging element bent on fraud and deceit without regard for the consequences of their actions on the rest of the community who pick up the bill for their irresponsible lives. Disabled people have argued that so-called welfare reform is actually targeting the powerless and the oppressed in society and denying basic rights and freedoms. Just as we were being listened to, as the Work and Pensions Select Committee issued their report raising concerns over the Work Capability Assessment Process, just as the Lib Dems announced a vote on 10th September on their position over Employment and Support Allowance, a vision of the disaffected and feckless has been hurled into the lives of the nation, bringing to life the worst Daily Mail stereo-types in a fashion more dramatic and immediate than even shows such as Saints and Scroungers, have managed. It is too early to say how recent events will impact upon the campaign against the government’s disability policies but our ability to protest is likely to be adversely affected. Last Saturday Disabled People Against Cuts stood with the anti cuts campaigners handing out leaflets in Birmingham City Centre publicising the protest against the Lib Dems on 18th September. It was intended to be the beginning of a mobilisation process to build support ahead of the march. To stand in the same spot this Saturday after the violence and murders that have occurred in the city since, would be insensitive and inappropriate. We had been planning how to oppose Birmingham City Council over the restrictions they are placing on the route for the march. We were hopeful there was room to negotiate. The chance to march down the main high street through the commercial area of the city is very slim, even more unlikely now.  At the time of the TUC-organised March For the Alternative earlier this year there was some criticism of the demonstration by unsympathetic press and public, accusing protesters of wasting resources and police time. The association between violent disorder and dissent is now firmly etched into the public consciousness and it is reasonable to anticipate greater hostility towards plans for future demonstrations, however peacefully intended. Without the option of protest, how are we then to raise awareness of the issues faced by an overlooked minority in whom neither the public nor the press nor politicians are interested?  Government cuts are hauling disabled people through fear and distress and robbing them of their dignity and in some cases their lives. The scenes of disorder and violence which the country has witnessed are symptomatic of a bigger picture, a picture where the rich can behave with impunity in the pursuit of material gain, whereas the poor are punished and demonised for the same.   Disabled people are part of that bigger picture but our voices just got smaller as attention is turned to more immediate issues and fears. Moreover there is a danger that government injustices against disabled people will now be justified as unfortunate but unavoidable consequences of necessary measures to deal with the disaffected in society and those dismissed as undeserving.  As emotions run high it is too much to hope that perspective will prevail and it is sadly inevitable that recent events will be exploited to discredit future dissent and protest. –-Ellen Clifford Many of us have been glued to news listening with disbelief to riot details as they were spelled out in different cities across the country from London to Birmingham to Manchester etc. For disabled people, there is the extra fear of not having access and added stress and anxiety of being unable to get essentials from local shops in the affected areas. The Broken of Britain set out a hastag #disabledriothelp for disabled people in Twitter who felt the need to communicate about worries about the riots. We joke amongst ourselves as mobility impaired disabled people that our disability gives us an alibi by default because we are not able to loot, break windows and disguise ourselves with hoodies. It’s too soon to write about the impact of the riots on disabled people and our ability to protest. We can probably assume that the TUC March of the Alternative, Birmingham will definitely not be allowed to march pass the ICC where the Lib Dem annual conference is held this year.  But will the demo be curtailed further? What about peaceful anti protests against Atos – will these be jeopardised given the mood of the police and rhetoric from the Con Dem government?

Do we see the same type of punitive and swift reaction for the perpetrators? Today (12^th August) there was the ‘first’ Battersea riot-related eviction notice served by Wandsworth Council as a result of Monday night’s rioting and looting in St John’s Road and Lavender Hill. In fact we read that David Cameron has said there will be ‘no “phoney human rights concerns” (about publishing CCTV images of suspects involved in rioting) would be allowed to “get in the way of bringing these criminals to justice”. Is it not because of the same disregard of human rights – the shooting of Mark Duggan – that started the whole spiral of violence? Does he care equally about the woman in wheelchair who was stoned in Sittingbourne by ‘yobs’? What about violence against disabled people?

And for those of us disabled people who use the social media to communicate, politicise, campaign and yes, to rant and vent – we will also be affected by David Cameron’s diatribe against social media. A 14 year old schoolboy in Leamington Spa was arrested by police ‘on suspicion of encouraging or assisting criminal disorder. The mind boggles about the reality of the implications that postings to “ incite criminal activity of any kind will be arrested and dealt with accordingly.” Another report of Jason Ulett ‘s arrest adds to my disquiet that the effect of the riot is to descend into some kind of witch hunt.

But we would want to question the reaction to the riots, undoubtedly disruptive and hard on those who have lost property and work, in comparison to the carnage wracked on disabled people’s lives as a result the result of the cuts. How many will give (media)attention and mourn for those who gave up in despair and committed suicides (eleven at last count)? Who counts the stress and worry the real cost of the havoc on disabled people’s lives – those who have to submit to Atos assessments? There was some uproar over the abuse handed out to disabled people in care homes after the Panorama programme but people in care homes are still systematically neglected and left unattended for hours in end.

• —Eleanor Lisney

  To all Lib Dem MPs: Amendment to ESA motion Posted: 13 Aug 2011 02:19 PM PDT Disabled People Against Cuts are writing to all Lib Dem MPs to urge you to vote in favour of a motion at the Lib Dem annual conference in September calling for fundamental changes to the Employment and Support Allowance assessment system. The Lib Dem motion, to be proposed by Liberal Youth, will make five key demands including calling for a clearer and less stressful assessment process, greater accuracy in assessment, particularly for those with fluctuating conditions, ensuring disabled people get the support they need and all claimants on appeal to be given access to adequate representation. It is essential for the rights and welfare of disabled people that this motion is passed. The current system causes undue distress and trauma for those going through it while wasting resources through an inefficient and inaccurate process. Ministers have admitted that the Work Capability Assessment was poorly designed at the outset and in July the Work and Pensions Select Committee issued a report which cited serious failings in the service provided by Atos Healthcare, the company  hold the contract for carrying out the assessments.

40% of decisions where a claimant has been found fit for work are over-turned on appeal, and for appeals with representation, that figure rises to 70%. This is a highly inefficient system which removes income from genuine claimants placing it instead in the hands of the profit-making company paid by the government in return for getting sick and disabled people off benefits. It also has critical consequences for people in genuine need, including those who require 24 hour personal assistance, people with terminal illness, soldiers returning from war with severe mental illness. Disabled People Against Cuts have examples of disabled people who have taken their own lives in despair after being assessed as ineligible for Employment and Support Allowance yet knowing they were realistically unable to work. At the same time as forcing disabled people off benefits, the government has cut funds to Access to Work, the programme designed to help meet the support needs of disabled people going into employment. Without income, ill and disabled people are being forced into increasing levels of poverty. We would also like to ask you to support George Potter’s amendment to the motion as disabled people placed in the Work Related Activity Group many of whom have fluctuating conditions which may vary widely from day to day further face the ongoing  threat of having their benefits sanctioned if they fail to fully comply with conditions imposed on them regardless of how difficult this may be for them. We therfore urge you to support the removal of this terrifying threat of sanctions and instead simply provide disabled people with adequate support to try to enter the labour market if and when they feel able to. It is wrong to take the view that disabled people prefer a life on benefits and that this is in some way a life-style choice. Disabled people should be entitled to live in society as equal citizens and with the same life chances as other people. In calling for this motion on Employment and Support Allowance to be passed we are merely asking to be allowed to survive without having to live in constant fear. We would be very willing to discuss these matters further with you either before or at your forthcoming conference. For contact: mail@dpac.uk.net

Mental Health Resistance Network meeting: Friday 19th August Posted: 13 Aug 2011 01:25 PM PDT Don't Get Mad Get Political! The new Mental Health Resistance Network is hosting a half day meet for us to get more organized. The Public Law Project has been supporting the Network in trying to get a Judicial Review of the Work Capability Assessment which is designed to get sick and distressed people off benefits.

Friday 19th August 2011 from 12.00pm to 4.00pmat Goldsmiths Student Union (Student Union Bar) Goldsmiths, University of London,Dixon Road, London SE14 6NW(Near New Cross Gate and New Cross Rail stations)

All Survivors, Disabled People and Allies welcome on:

The Network's solicitor, Ravi Low-Beer, will be speaking about Judicial Reviews.

A Half Day conference Facing enormous cuts to benefits and services, we mental health Survivors are stressed out bigtime. We find ourselves demonised by the right wing press (again) and the ConDem government. How stupid and cruel politicians of all parties are being beggars belief. Or do they believe we should all be beggars? The Mental Health Resistance Network invites you to... 12.00 - 12.30 Tea and Coffee (50p donation appreciated) 12.30Introduction by Denise McKenna History - What we have been involved in - Where to now by Stefano Peria 12.45 Judicial Review of a the Government policy on changes to benefits, by Ravi Low-Beer (of the Public Law Project). Questions. 1.45-2.00pm - Refreshment Break 2.00-3.00 Workshops. Organizing and going to Demos and Direct Action. Campaigning and Lobbying. A new Arts Project themed How We Feel About the Cuts? Networking and Personal Support. 3.15-3.45 - Feedback4.00pm - Close join the email list at https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/mentalhealthresistanceweb http://mentalhealthresistance.org