HOMEABOUT NIF |
|
||||
Please note; the following document can be downloaded as a .PDF file by clicking here National Information Forum Newsletter No. 25. (September 2010)
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS ON ASSISTED DYING In the same issue Campaign directly takes issue with the views of Baroness Jane Campbell. Jane, the convenor of ‘Not Dead Yet UK’, is quoted as saying “Disabled and terminally ill people need help and support to live, not to die. We cannot allow others to speak for us; especially those who seek to offer us the choice of a premature death. It is not a choice – it is to abandon us.” This is emotive stuff. As ‘Dignity in Dying’ points out, the reality is that opinion polls consistently show that many disabled people support assisted dying legislation. A British Social Attitudes survey from 2007 found that 75% of them support assisted dying for terminally ill people, while a Disability Rights Commission poll in 2003 found 60% of disabled respondents to be in favour of a change in the law. More recently, a YouGov poll found that disabled people were equally likely to support assisted dying as non-disabled people. Ann, herself disabled, who was awarded an OBE in 2002 for services to disabled people, opposes resistance to assisted dying legislation and has signed up in support of Dignity in Dying’s case. Two episodes of the BBC’s hospital ‘soap’ Casualty (July 31 and August 7) dealt with this issue in what we thought was a balanced and sensitive way, emphasising the significance of choice. A CHARTER FOR EYE CARE More information at www.vision2020uk.org.uk/UKVisionstrategy or by calling 0303 123 9999. LIBERATING THE NHS? LISTEN UP! Available from the Care Leavers’ Association, www.careleavers.org; tel: 0845 308 2755; e.mail: info@careleavers.org. 40 YEARS ON Full debate at www.publications.parliament.uk TRANSLATING PRECEPTS INTO PRACTICE • Why you think that the Convention is important for disabled people? We hope that in determining priorities the ODI will hearken to the work of ADD International. This respected charity uses its 2009 Annual Review to focus specifically on the Convention. Its mission is to translate those rights into practice. It points out that disability and poverty remain inextricably linked, and that despite the UN Charter over 80% of the 650 million disabled people worldwide live below the poverty threshold. Here in Britain, a recent survey conducted by the Spinal Injuries Association (SIA) revealed that 58% of respondents regarded themselves as being in fuel poverty. The SIA magazine, Forward, suggests that if taken across the whole spinal cord injured community this could mean that around 24,000 people with spinal injuries are in fuel poverty. We are concerned that the Coalition’s focus appears to be on cutting back support for disabled people. As winter approaches there is surely a legitimate need, despite our financial difficulties, to consider positive action to improve the lives of those affected by chronic disadvantages. The message must surely go out that help for disabled people needs to be enhanced, not eroded. Perhaps the new Minister for Disabled People, Maria Miller, MP for Basingstoke, could find time to respond. If you have views on the ODI’s questions, or other Convention-related issues, please email: odi.international@dwp.gsi.gov.uk. More at www.officefordisability.gov.uk. CHILD ABUSE: A RISING CAUSE FOR CONCERN Vigilance is the order of the day. The NSPCC helpline can always be contacted on 0808 800 500 (voice), 0800 056 0566 (text), e.mail: help@nspcc.org. THE WHEELCHAIR SERVICE: STILL NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE 22 years later we are dismayed to tell a similar story. But rather than take our word for it, we give you verbatim extracts from criticisms aired by the Care Services Minister, Paul Burstow, during a debate in the Commons (28 June). The Wheelchair Service, he said, is “an area that really does require improvement: real improvement in how wheelchair services are commissioned and delivered, and real improvement in extending personalisation to wheelchair services, where there is still far too much off-the-shelf of ‘like it or lump it’ provision…the experience for many people is a poor one. The service is characterised by long waiting times…[and] by considerable regional variation – in assessment, procurement, and choice for the individual. Quite simply that is unacceptable…in preparing for this debate, my jaw nearly hit the floor when I read that 57% of wheelchair budgets currently go on back-office costs. Fifty-seven pence in every pound that the taxpayer puts into these services fails to reach the front line at the moment. That is not acceptable; it is not a good way to use our taxpayer-funded resources for the health service.” On the positive side an advisory group chaired by David Colin-Thomé is looking at the wheelchair service, and the coalition government (Burstow is a Lib-Dem) will be pursuing a pilot programme specifically to examine the commissioning of wheelchairs and seating services. Of course, you can read the whole debate at www.parliament.uk SOURCING LEGAL INFORMATION DETENTION OF IMMIGRANT CHILDREN Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) and the Children’s Society are also prominent in the campaign to end the immigration detention of children. More at www.biduk.org. GYPSIES AND TRAVELLERS TO BE RECOGNISED AS AN ETHNIC GROUP PAINKILLERS MAY PROLONG LIFE Researchers found that the use of these drugs, also called non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), was also associated with a lower risk of death although they are not sure why. Their findings, which appear in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, were based on a study which looked at a nationwide hospital and pharmacy prescription database of 320,000 Australian veterans. Researchers looked at anti-inflammatory drugs that, with the exception of Ibuprofen, generally require a prescription. Despite the findings, Professor Arduino Mangoni, who led the study, would not advise people to take painkillers regularly unless they are necessary. “Further prospective studies are urgently required to investigate the impact of NSAID use on these outcomes and the mechanisms involved.” Edited from All Together Now, August-September 2010 OPEN DATA Refer is free to members of the Information Services Group. Otherwise go to www.cilip.org.uk, and search for Refer. THE DEATH OF OSMAN RASUL WE HATE NO. 33: MISOGYNY Misogyny goes back a long way. A contributor to Radio 5 Live recently explained that the reason women should not be ordained as Anglican bishops can be found in “the inspired word of God”. The first book ascribed to Moses, called Genesis, tells the familiar story. How, having formed a man from the dust of the ground, God planted a garden eastward in Eden and put the man (Adam) there to look after it. God then decided that it was not good that the man should be alone and that he would make a “help meet” for him. Thus, having caused Adam to fall into a deep sleep, he took one of his ribs and made a woman (Eve) and brought her to Adam. After Eve’s deception by a serpent, and both having eaten forbidden fruit, we come to the reckoning: God tells the woman “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (Ch.3/16). Surah IV/34 of the Koran, similarly inspired, asserts that “Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other” (Pickthall’s translation, 1977). It may be that such reasoning is nowadays restricted to religious fundamentalists, but it has shaped attitudes to women for centuries and is by no means dead. In our own country, through history, there has been a wide acceptance that the role of women is subservient to that of men, tied up with childbirth, mothering and domesticity, with an implication of inferiority. They have commonly been seen to excel – and that only in youth – in being more decorative and in a capacity to attract. We chose the opening quotation because it captures part of the problem. The libidinous Duke of Mantua (in Victor Hugo’s book on which the opera is based it was King Francis I of France), having had his way with Rigoletto’s daughter, reflects that woman is fickle, blown in any direction, simple in speech and simpler in mind. And this notwithstanding his own admitted inconstancy. To the misogynist male there is often a dichotomy between desiring women as sexual objects, while lacking respect for their wider endowments, and not otherwise enjoying their company or discourse. Perhaps uncertain of their own masculinity, or fearful that the patriarchal society is under threat, they seek reinforcement in being with other men. The word ‘misogyny’ derives from Grecian sources, and Wikipedia is strong on literary and philosophical allusions to misogynistic characteristics. Euripides (480-406 BC) is among those so identified, but Sophocles is quoted as saying: “He may be so in his tragedies, but in his bed he is very fond of women.” There is no such reservation about Menander (342-291 BC), who asserted: “there are many wild beasts on land and in the sea, but the beastliest of all is woman”. Similarly, the dissolute Roman Petronius (27- 66AD) saw women as “one and all a set of vultures”. Absolution from the paradox of desiring women while hating them is not uncommonly sought by casting females as temptresses. Do they not go out of the way to exhibit and enhance their charms? Can men then be blamed for succumbing to their irresistible allure? Are women then, at heart, merely harlots, impure and defiled? Is it not, therefore, understandable that men should hate them? In this construct men are seen as hapless and innocent victims, open to the wiles and manipulation of feminine seduction. An unfaithful wife is a whore; the unfaithful husband merely a philanderer. The frequently quoted Otto Weininger, in his Geschlecht und Charakter (1903) argued: “No men who really think deeply about women retain a high opinion of them; men either despise women or they have never thought seriously about them”. Somewhat, we suggest, a sweeping statement. By the same measure we might think deeply about men and conclude that they are shallow and so obsessed with football as to be seen, even when full grown, in replica shirts bearing the names and numbers of their heroes, displaying beer-bellies and emitting primordial cries. Nevertheless, even in relatively enlightened countries, there is a persistent view that women as a group are intellectually inferior to men. Photographs of ‘summit’ meetings of world leaders show almost wall-to-wall men. Angela Merkel is usually the exception that proves who rules. In Britain it required a monumental struggle to secure votes and educational opportunities for women, and even today they are underrepresented in business and politics. There are some cracks in the glass ceiling, but by and large it remains intact. Yet the climate is changing. Until recently, there has been little opportunity for women to step outside their role as procreators and mothers. But now they are increasingly able to take control of their lives and to limit their families. Julianna Margulies as Alicia Florrick in The Good Wife epitomises the new woman. Forced by circumstances out of a conventional role as a wife and mother she takes a position in a high-powered law firm, emerging as a powerful, yet entirely feminine, litigator. The transformation has high profile parallels in the real world. Our present Home Secretary, Theresa May, and the current leader of the Labour Party, Harriet Harman, exude authority without the usual macho overtones. Even Australia, famous by reputation for misogyny, now has a woman, Julia Gillard, as prime minister (at least at the time of writing). And one, according to the Daily Mail, who is proudly feminist, agnostic, unmarried and childless. Misogyny is now inextricably linked to equality issues and, in England and Wales, we have an Equality Act that outlaws discrimination, harassment and victimisation. To redress long-standing political imbalance it is here now legally acceptable to have all-women short lists. And the visible evidence of brilliant young women from South Korea in the British Open Golf Championship shows that even that bastion of male domination is yielding to the reality of female emancipation. The pin-striped Taliban of the City and Westminster had better watch out. This information sheet has been compiled by Ann Darnbrough and Derek Kinrade. The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of the National Information Forum. Earlier News Briefings and the ‘We Hate’ series are available on the Forum’s website: www.nif.org.uk. Please note; the following document can be downloaded as a .PDF file by clicking here National Information Forum Newsletter No. 24. (August 2010) THE DWP ANNUAL FORUM Just what did Lord Freud have to say? To begin with (we interpret rather than quote) that the reform agenda is designed to simplify and make the system more coherent, with the emphasis on the road to work. In this objective the third sector has an important role and it is recognised that there must be differential rewards [for those placing people into work] to acknowledge differences in the difficulties faced. In the past the emphasis had been on simply getting people a job [any kind of job], but experience had shown that there is a need for employment to be sustainable and secure, allowing skills to be developed. The broad aim is to get a substantial proportion of Incapacity Benefit claimants into fulfilling work, rather than simply remaining as recipients of ‘charity’. The assessment of capability is to be seen as a progressive strategy, empowering individuals currently abandoned to dependency. There is a need for a ‘culture shift’ that rewards work. The present arrangements act as a disincentive and introduce a fear factor that discourages people from taking a financial risk by entering the world of work. A key aim, therefore, is to provide assurance and encouragement, a strategy that will need the support of the third sector. We hope that this is a fair summary of a decidedly low-key presentation. A sharper message followed in a workshop devoted to the reassessment of Incapacity Benefits customers for entitlement to Employment and Support Allowance, with a pack setting out the specific procedures for change (can the smiling faces on the cover be those of claimants?) The key points are that from October 2010 some one and a half million people will be reassessed over a three year period (equating to 9,730 a week). The reassessment is intended to focus on what an individual can do despite their health condition, rather than what they can’t do. Those who are most disabled or terminally ill will be moved onto Employment and Support Allowance without any reduction in the level of their benefit entitlement. But those who are found to be capable of work will be moved onto Jobseeker’s Allowance (if they satisfy the conditions of entitlement for that benefit). This is based on the Government’s belief that for most people appropriate work is good for their health and well-being. The DWP estimates that around 23% of the people reassessed will be found fit for work and about half of these will be moved onto Jobseeker’s Allowance. The work capability assessments will be carried out by Atos Healthcare, the DWP’s health services contractor (www.atoshealthcare.com), and will inform a decision to be made by Jobcentre Plus. There will be a right of appeal to an independent tribunal, but this must be made in writing. We would not wish to criticise the DWP’s role in this process, in that the Department must put into effect the strategies of its political masters. We are glad that Roger Pugh, a team leader in the DWP Communications Directorate, always reads this News Briefing. But as representatives of the third sector we have to say that we felt as if we were being invited to sharpen the executioner’s axe. Time will tell. COME OFF IT ENGLAND FAITH ADVISERS We would like to know what has become, post election, of advice based on diverse, unsubstantiated beliefs. THE POVERTY TSAR An indication of Field’s thinking emerged in a lecture to the Attlee Foundation later in the month when he commented on the need to move the social agenda away from the drive to get young mothers into work, regardless of whether this would be consistent with the needs of their children. In his view, the primary malaise lies with men who will not [or cannot?] shoulder the responsibility of caring for their families. He went so far as to suggest that men who refuse to accept work when it is offered by government should face total loss of benefits. Just how this would serve to relieve family poverty is unclear to us. FIGHTING YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT More at www.europarl.europa.eu/news DISABILITY ADVICE FOR WALES DISABLED PEOPLE IN BRITAIN EMPLOYMENT AND SUPPORT ALLOWANCE ESA The arrangements having been operative for more than a year, Citizens Advice has produced two papers based on its clients’ experiences. These are Limited Capability (November 2009) and Not Working (March 2010). Both are available in print or via www.citizensadvice.org.uk. The first, we feel, is not too disturbing. There have been some problems inherent in a telephone-based system, particularly for claimants solely reliant on mobile phones. There have also been a lot of complaints about delays in processing claims, particular difficulties in applying special rules criteria to ESA for terminally ill people, and a lack of clarity in award letters. But on the whole “the technical roll out of the new benefit went fairly smoothly”. It is the second paper that causes grave concern, particularly given the huge impending ‘migration’ of IB claimants. This concerns the Work Capability Assessments and finds that: The fear is that people with substantial barriers to work are nevertheless being deemed fit for work. One eminent welfare adviser told us that he anticipates an overwhelming recourse to appeal. YOUR READING CHOICES The project is a joint endeavour by the RNIB National Library Service, Share the Vision and the Society of Chief Librarians, and is supported by the Ulverscroft Foundation. Based on an article in the Library and Information Gazette, 1-14 July 2010. For further details go to www.readingsight.org.uk. INDEPENDENT LIVING FUND: ANOTHER RETROGADE STEP PERSONAL CARE AT HOME NO SEX PLEASE, WE’RE BRITISH The Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph gave thanks, but a number of leading children’s, health and educational organisations, including the British Humanist Association, signed a joint statement expressing deep dismay at the removal of the proposed sex and relationships education from the national curriculum. Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of the BHA, commented “Good sex and relationships education is known to reduce unwanted pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmitted infections, as well as equip young people with the language and tools to be clear about personal boundaries, understand appropriate and inappropriate behaviour and know who to talk to when they need help. For older children it helps them resist pressure, make safe choices and challenge misleading and inappropriate messages about sex in the media. It makes a hugely significant contribution to young people’s health and well-being. There was massive support for its implementation from health professionals, teachers, parents and young people themselves. The loss of these subjects as core parts of the curriculum is catastrophic.” Well said, Andrew, but for the time being we must exclude those religious parents who have an agenda in favour of ignorance and obfuscation, not to mention those parents – like mine – simply not up to the job. Incidentally, we would like to see sex education that includes how to make love well and satisfying: at present this seems to be left to the pornographers. DON’T PUSH ME AROUND More at www.barnardos.org.uk STOP AND SEARCH Comment at www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk. IMMIGRATION BAN THE BURKA? HIGH-PRICED LENDING Comment at www.oft.gov.uk (press release 15 June). WE HATE NO. 32: POVERTY Some years ago (it may be better now) Ann invited me to join her in a visit to India. She had previously been involved in a number of projects there and was fascinated by the country. I hated it. I hated the heat, the squalor, the crowds, but above all the poverty. I couldn’t cope with the beggars: men who solicited sympathy by flaunting open wounds; a child led on a chain to exhibit his penury; another infant on whom flies were settling. In parts of Mumbai crude tents lined the pavements, and in the early morning the concourse of the railway station was virtually taken over by the sleeping bodies of the destitute. We were told (but did not see) that there was one place where prostitutes, some of them children, were kept in cages. We visited a leper colony and were told that not all of the residents had leprosy: some people chose to live there because conditions were better ordered than on the outside. From the roof of a local health centre, as far as the eye could see and in every direction, the land was occupied by rough wooden shacks, home to thousands of the city’s slightly better-off masses. There was also wealth in plenty, but not much of it appeared to ‘trickle down’. My impression was that the sheer scale of abject poverty, fuelled by unconfined population growth, was such that very few affluent people, if they cared at all, saw any practical hope of addressing it. Yet I was conscious that it was not so long ago that similar conditions – and similar resigned indifference – existed in the major cities of Britain; that cesspits of fetid degradation were everyday features of the industrial landscape under Queen Victoria, alongside an elite blessed with rank and privilege. Recently, my younger brother had occasion to examine the records of Liverpool’s Toxteth Park Cemetery, searching for the grave of a Confederate agent of the American Civil War. He was shocked to find that then most adult men in the area died in their 40s, and that their most common address was the local workhouse. And, of course, hundreds failed to make it beyond infancy. In my own childhood (which coincided with the Depression of the 1930s), I made my daily way to school from my home in Liverpool 8 through the slums of Windsor Street where ragged children played barefoot. My family was one or two points above this rock-bottom poverty line, but I recall that I was among those who qualified for free school dinners (such as they were during the second world war) and that my parents could not afford to provide me with a school tie. Beveridge (much assisted by Lord Longford, Alf Morris tells me) changed all that. Despite its imperfections, the welfare state has brought about a state of affairs in which absolute, fundamental destitution is now unusual; instead attention is now focused on the concept of relative poverty. But, as everyone knows, that relativity is growing ever wider. Another Queen, born with and sustained in enormous privilege and able to spend £125,000 on a holiday, reigns over a divided nation. The top hats and finery of Royal Ascot contrast starkly with the hopeless homelessness of our most distressed citizens. And with this increasing social divide we are in danger of seeing a return to the philosophy of Samuel Smiles, with its implication that the poor are to blame for their own condition and that we should rely on our own efforts in life, rather than depend on the help or patronage of others: that the path of virtue demands a dedication to work, service and the acceptance of responsibility; and that conversely idleness leads to ruin. There is no place for scroungers in this ideology. Yet a defect in such thinking is the fact that scrounging, idleness and financial manipulation are by no means confined to the poor. Moreover, it is surely unrealistic to urge welfare to work reform in the midst of a recession, when well-paid work is so scarce. A recent National Audit Office report highlights the plight of the poor, reflected in a widening gap in life expectancy. Despite the fact that we are generally living longer, the gap in life expectancy between the national average and those ‘spearhead’ areas with the worst health and deprivation has continued to widen. It is evident that the Labour government’s aspirational targets to narrow the gap, set for 2010, will not be met. Indeed the new Coalition is already planning to abandon targets that have no clinical justification. The reasons for this fundamental inequality are complex, but the fact that the lower figures are based on areas of deprivation makes it obvious that socio-economic factors play a major part, reflected in The Guardian headline ‘Poor in the UK dying 10 years earlier than rich’. Child poverty is a major sorrow. Nearly four million children are living in poverty in the UK, a higher proportion than in other rich countries. The Labour government had some success in reducing numbers, but failed to meet its targets. Now, while you can find detailed statistics at www. poverty.org.uk, you will be hard put to discover any agreed government policy to address the problem. It does not feature as a subject on the Coalition’s ‘Programme for Government’. The DWP website on policy in this area is under review and Frank Field (see earlier in this Briefing) is not expected to report until the end of the year. We accept that the problems cannot be solved simply by throwing more money at them, even if this was possible. There is a growing recognition that to alleviate poverty one must find a way to address its many causes. Equally, however, we would argue that poverty should not be made worse by making those reliant on benefits even poorer, and the genuinely vulnerable made to suffer because there is a rash of spongers. While there is general agreement on the need to reduce the national financial deficit, there is widespread concern that this should not be at the expense of those most disadvantaged in our society. Disabled people are at particular risk. The Disability Alliance points out that they are twice as likely to live in poverty, with a third living below the poverty line across their life course. Currently, 53% of working age disabled adults are not in work. The Alliance says that the budget and previous announcements from the Coalition “have sparked fears over the future of some support and raise the spectre of grinding poverty and increased social isolation for disabled people and their families…These measures together risk a significant assault on support for disabled people who are being hit fastest, hardest and will suffer longest from the impact of the new Government’s reaction to the nation’s finances.” But poverty is not limited to economic deprivation. There can be poverty of spirit, of ambition, of skills, of drive and of hope. This is sometimes compounded by the lack of a fundamental foundation of ethical values. We do well to fear the polarisation of a burgeoning underclass which feels put down, mistrusts authority and positively detests the police. We are seeing an inversion of moral values which finds heroic qualities in the behaviour of Raoul Moat and casts him as a hero. Perhaps before we struggle to impose democracy in Afghanistan we should ensure that it finds proper expression in our own country. Let us be blunt in fearing that Liberal Democrats may come to regret compromise in this key area of social justice. This information sheet has been compiled by Ann Darnbrough and Derek Kinrade. The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of the National Information Forum. Earlier News Briefings and the ‘We Hate’ series are available on the Forum’s website: www.nif.org.uk. Earlier electronic versions of the National Information Forum's Newsletters can be downloaded as .PDF files from the Electronic Publications Page Unless you advise to the contrary we will continue occasionally to send you information of this kind. Conversely, we want to give you the opportunity to network with other member organisations through our information sheets. Please let us know if there is a more personal e.mail address by which we can reach you. Membership is now free. National Information Forum
33 Highshore Road, London SE15 5AF, Tel: 020 7708 5943 UPDATED September 2010 |
|||||