PPlog

To continue from my last entry below, we found, this morning, that: “The eligibility criteria, which governs all older and disabled people's right to receive care services, is to be fundamentally reviewed. Care Services Minister, Ivan Lewis, has asked the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) to undertake the review and report back to him with recommendations this autumn. The review will focus on national definitions of need and their application at a local level by councils.” (DoH 29.01.08.) Now I wonder if Ivan Lewis is aware of the Disability Equality Duty?

Let me explain: The Commission for Equality and Human Rights has chosen to re-arrange its name the the Equality and Human Rights Commission - which results in the homophone acronym ERK. You will see, from November 2007, I have been having minor running communications with this new body which took over from the Disability Rights Commission in October 2007. In my opinion the DRC did an excellent job and I never had any difficulty getting advice and information from them. My own first contact with the DRC was in February 2004 when I had experienced discrimination at the hands of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement and Health which led to my resignation from PPI Forums. The advice then was that, as a volunteer I had no rights under the existing Disability Discrimination Act - a measure of just how much the DDA 2005 has changed things. One of the most far reaching changes in that latter Act was to institute the DISABILITY EQUALITY DUTY (DED) which imposes a legal duty on all p...

Ruth Marsden has written a letter in response to Ann Cryer’s rather dismissive letter to her in December last year. Ruth’s letter makes important points and it is copied here: Dear Ann, Thank you for your letter of 19 th December in reply to mine of 12 th December in which I was at pains to point out that there had been no ownership at Ministerial level of the shape and powers of LINks. Your reply seems to fail to recognise this. The change from PPI Forums to LINks was not asked for by the people but imposed by the government, and as such, you have a responsibility for this imposition. However, you say, “I am asking my officials to ensure that your views are taken fully into account”, and from this it seems you intend the final content of these vital Regulations to be simply an aggregate of whatever responses received, as assembled by civil servants. This will not serve. . I made but passing and oblique reference to “responses to the Draft Regulations” but your reply seems wholly ...

Early in 2007 I responded to the PCT consultation on “Intermediate Treatment” (see ppeyes ). That summer, with the PCT dragging their heels publishing the final report I had further correspondence with them (see pplog archives for July 2007) including notice of a formal complaint that their consultation document was in breach of the Disability Equality Duty. By 27th October, still having heard nothing about the final report I sent this as a Freedom of Information Act request: “Can you please tell me what has happened/is happening to the Our Health, Our Care - Have Your Say (Intermediate Treatment Services) final report, of which those of us who responded to the consultation were promised a copy?” On 30th October I received this: “The document to which you are referring is now complete and after being sent to the printers for production, was received at the PCT last Wednesday.  We are in the process of pulling together labels lists of all those who expressed an interest in receiving...

In addition to PPLOG I also write a monthly blog on the NHS Centre for Involvement Patient - Citizen Exchange (PCX) website: http://www.pcx.nhs.uk But as that site is membership access only (registration is free) and some people don’t want to take the trouble to register, I am, from now on, copying my PCX blog to PPLOG. Here is my January PCX blog: PCX Poll The Poll says: Have you been offered any support to get ready for LINks? Now where’s that response button that says “YES and NO”? Let me explain. On Tuesday 15.01.08. I found this in my in-box: “Dear Mike, I understand that you are interested in LINks. We are having a briefing and workshop session at Sprowston Manor on Friday 18 Jan 08 to which you would be very welcome.” I replied: “Hello David. Your strong bow arm is unerringly accurate. Smack in the centre of the gold that is one of the major challenges in `What will the host have to do to enable this?` I am unable to get to the briefing and workshop session at Sprowston Manor o...

An ordinary, everyday event can turn into a major problem for disabled people if there is social disregard which turns a manageable impairment into a disability. Here’s a clear example. I sent this complaint to M&S today: “I was in Lowestoft M&S this afternoon about 4pm. I collected my purchases and took them to the cash out. There was one cashier at the desk (which has three or four tills) who was dealing with a customer who obviously had a shipping order and was taking along time to serve. There was no-one else waiting. I am disabled and while I can walk with a stick, standing for even a short time causes pain. After waiting for some minutes in increasing pain, I moved to the vacant till next to the cashier who was still serving the same person in order to put my purchases on the counter so to use both hands to support myself. At that point the cashier turned to me and said "the queue is the other side sir". When I looked where she was indicating, there was a le...

I’ve still heard nothing form the Commission for Equality and Human Rights in response to my FoI request (see pplog 22.11.07.) so I’ve sent the letter copied below today. Dear Sir. I sent you the following Freedom of Information Act request on 22nd November 2007. “On 11.11.07. I sent you the following enquiry: 1. The Norfolk and Waveney Mental Heath NHS Trust has a practice which excludes service users not in receipt of secondary mental health services from membership of its Service User Council and from the Service User Section of its prospective foundation trust membership. I think this is discriminatory and a breach of the Disability Equality Duty. Can you please advise. 2. Similarly, I am of the opinion that the use of eligibility criteria for the provision of services may also be a breach of the Disability Equality Duty. Can you also please advise on this.” A few weeks before that I enquired if the new Commission will pursue prosecution of public bodies in breach of the DED as ...