Skip to main content

Perversonalisation

You Have to Laugh.

After posting my piece highlighting the House of Lords’ debate on the “Right to Control” part of the Welfare Reform Bill, I received a circular e mail (from Debbie Roberts, one of the goodies, and Programme Manager from the Eastern Development Centre) about a consultation document (title below - comical in itself) on the “Right to Control” from the Office for Disability Issues.

“MAKING CHOICE AND CONTROL A REALITY FOR DISABLED PEOPLE.”



You have to laugh because this document is all about the government, the Office for Disability Issues and all the public authorities it addresses CONTROLLING the “Right to Control.” As is the fashion these days the pertinent government department has solidly decided the direction the consultation is to go in and which particular aspects of consultation it wants control of, so it herds the consultees into its predetermined framework, lulled by the waves-on-the-shore swish swish of its oceans of sweet nothing words.

It then goes further and offers a ‘toolkit’ for those public authorities, worded as “Service providers could use the toolkit to engage with service users.” telling them this is the way to control the prescription of the “Right to Control” to those helpless disabled people down there.

And the laugh reaches the belly when we see that one of those predetermined aspects of consultation, “Consultation question 8,” in the main document is “Is there any legislation or are there any rules about how support if provided which might get in the way of the Right to Control,...”

Uhhhmmm. Well yes there is. Its called the Welfare Reform Bill, which is the legislation setting up the “Right to Control” and Baroness Jane Campbell has been trying to amend the bill to stop it getting in the way. This particular clause 31, inexplicably, excludes community care services from the “Right to Control.” Jane Cambell says: “ I am naturally disappointed that health and social care funding was actively excluded from the legal framework for a right to control in the Bill.” (Hansard 2nd July 09) and in this last debate of the committee stage in the Lords her amendment failed.

The government explains the exclusion of health and social care from the legislation for the “Right to Control” by saying health and social care has much other legislation. Jane Campbell is trying to put the point that none of this other legislation provides the “Right to Control” but it seems to be bouncing off chipboard eardrums.

I think this is yet another instance of the government’s determination to retain control of the “Right to Control” chimera. What about you?


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

SURVIVOR HISTORY NEWSLETTER

>From Andrew Roberts Secretary Survivors History Group http://studymore.org.uk/ studymore@studymore.org.uk telephone: 020 8 986 5251 home address: 177 Glenarm Road, London, E5 ONB Survivor History Group Summer 2012 Newsletter The July London meeting of the Survivors History Group will be held on Wednesday 25.7.2012 from 1pm to 5pm at Together, 12 Old Street, London. Everybody is welcome and refreshments will be provided. The September meeting has had to be moved from a Wednesday to Thursday 27.9.2012 (subject to approval by this Wednesday's meeting) because of the availability of a room at Together.   -------------------------------------------------------------------- The agenda for the July meeting will be drawn up at the beginning of the meeting, but it will include Peter Campbell's regular report back on the research he is leading on the history of Survivors Speak Out and discussion of material received from other people about Survivors Speak Out.  Rick Hennelly has se...

The DLA and Workfare Scandals.

This ConDem Coalition is exploiting the apparent helplessness of disabled people by taking essential money away from them and forcing vulnerable people, for example, people with mental health difficulties. I remember, when I was a practising social worker, the horror experienced by service users when they received a letter summoning them to undergo a medical examination (25 miles away in Norwich). Some became absolutely terrified at the prospect and the stress of having to get to and face the appointment led to one or two relapses and hospital admissions. Against local authority policy, I always took them to the appointment, went in with them and supported them through the interview acting as advocate. The doctors at these reviews were employed by the Benefits Agency and usually retired from practice. They were also usually empathic with the service user and mostly helped to reduce the terror of the interview. The new 'Workfare' reviews which every DLA claimant will have to und...

Mental Health Labels?

I read this valuable little report yesterday. It presents issues and dichotomies around disability labels, models of disability and rejections of the disability label by mental health service users/survivors. The report makes positive recommendations about furthering the debate but, in my opinion, the user contributions muddy rather than clarify matters. The subjects are seminal to the work being carried out to integrate physically, sensory, mental health and intellectual disabilities - essential if we are to progress further in our strivings for human and statutory rights. For me, the report is enormously helpful in providing a foundation for discussions of what are important questions and perhaps, if properly distributed, it could bring a better focus towards some resolution. Heddwch. Mike.