Parliamentary constituents making news

 

TheyWorkForYou website record of how our MPs voted on
Free school Meals During School Holidays

Letter to Hereford Times

Daily Mirror reports that a Lancashire shop has banned the local Tory MP after he voted against free school meals, while Yorkshire Live reports that Rishi Sunak and all Tory MPs have been banned from a North Yorkshire pub for the same stance against poor families.(1)(2)

What actions will Hereford Times readers take against Herefordshire MPs Jesse Norman and Bill Wiggin for also helping defeat the extension of free school meals, particularly as Jesse Norman is First Secretary of the Treasury and Bill Wiggin has links with offshore finance?(3)

In 2017, Bill Wiggin responded to "a front page story in the Hereford Times outlining his position as managing director of an offshore financial company by stating that the article was 'not news'."(3)

As the Daily Mirror and YorkshireLive stories emphasise, constituents can help to make the news, whereas my experience of Jesse Norman MP is that he tends to 'note' my views while voting against them, and the top-ups to Bill Wiggin's basic MP salary could pay for several school meals.

Alan Wheatley

Hereford

Notes

1. https://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?p=tory+mp+banned+for+life+free+school+meals&fr=uh3_news_web_gs&fr2=p%3Anews%2Cm%3Asb

2. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2020-10-21-154-commons

3. https://www.herefordtimes.com/news/15711401.mp-bill-wiggin-responds-to-criticism-over-off-shore-interests/

 

Consumer reviews vital in commissioning public service delivery

 

When I read this New York Times article opening paragraph

 LONDON — Inside a dormitory now known by students as H.M.P., for Her Majesty’s Prison, trash piled up in shared kitchens. Students washed their clothes in bathroom sinks. Security guards stalked the gates, keeping anyone from leaving or entering.

just now, my memory flashed back to a Wembley Matters blog post by Martin Francis from four years ago, when I was still a Londoner and Web Logging and commenting on behalf of Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group in the Internet guise of 'Dude Swheatie of Kwug':

Tuesday, 25 October 2016

Awards Panel blasts private student accommodation providers

Unite student accommodation, Olympic Way LINK

As another student accommodation block opens on Olympic Way. Wembley, readers may be interested  in the decision of a panel deciding on an Award for Student Accommodation, sponsored by Property Week.

There were due to be more than 2,500 student units around Wembley Stadium whenI last checked.

The Panel refused to nominate a winner and wrote the following to the organisers:

Awarding panel concluded: "Unless all students have access
to safe, affordable accommodation, at every institution
and the means to pay for it, there is no cause for celebration,
nor the ability for us to award a for-profit sector
failing so many of our peers."

 

I commented then at the foot of that Wembley Matters blog post:

Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group said...

Brilliant! I would say that the panel concerned were really well-educated, as evidenced by their response!

Would the Department for Work & Pensions [DWP], or, say, the 'Employment Related Services Association' venture so bold as to launch a user-led nominations award?

Perhaps if the DWP launched such an award, their way of engaging the panel's co-operation would be by fear of benefit sanctions? Centre for Crime & Justice Studies: Benefit sanctions: Britain's secret penal system

Dude Swheatie of Kwug

25 October 2016 at 13:24

 Of course, that was years before Coronavirus began to hit around the globe, but I would argue that all this emphasises the sheer stupidity of basing international economies upon the an ideology that venerates privatising public services, cutting taxation for the wealthy, and treating renters as criminals to be coerced into modern slavery.

Speaking out can be empowering

The following was originally published on February 5, 2004 in Camden New Journal (CNJ) under the heading 'Disabled are role models' — accompanied by an advert for disability-friendly adaptations! (The CNJ is a local 'freebie' newspaper and thus very dependent on advertising.)

Here, I give it my own title.

I would also suggest, with the benefits of hindsight, that while there have been different governments since the early 1990s, senior civil servants in UK government have not been subjected to re-election. Over the same time period, I would argue and as Mo Stewart has highlighted in her research, UK 'welfare reform' policies have been steered behind the scenes by a disgraced American and global health insurance firm called Unum. Unum's ethos is far from that of a publicly owned 'welfare state' for the good of all, more like, as Mo has put it, 'The Corporate Demolition of the [UK's] Welfare State'!

Along those lines, I would argue that the dynamics and ergonomics in jobcentres changed drastically around 2003, imposing the presence of G4S security guards. I would ascribe that to a perversion of 'Scientific Management' and of the 'Hawthorne Effect'. 

There was, of course, also the distortion of public perceptions via Government-funded advertising campaigns proclaiming a supposed 'need' for and existence of 'thousands of benefit fraud investigators', while Disability Employment Advisors amounted to a 'workforce' of 650 UK-wide, under-trained with frequent rule changes and an under-recorded high burnout rate.

Mo's research has been highly illuminating. Speaking out and researching from experience can help illuminate what is really happening and has happened, so that the electorate can make wiser decisions. Likewise for Kate Belgrave's research that focuses on post-2010 Government.

Alan Wheatley

 

Screen capture of original publication in Camden New Journal, accompanied by 'Elderly/Disabled Facilities' advert

Speaking out can be empowering and helps keep me going

Some readers might find your publication of Christine Brody’s letter, ‘Hobson’s choice for our disabled pupils’ (January 8) depressing reading. I didn’t. It helped to put me in mind of a network of human survival rather than a league-table of suffering.

In the year when the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act becomes fully law, her letter can be viewed as expert witness testimony to room for improvement; your publication of it an act of empowerment.

While I have heard that the amount of teacher-training time allocated to addressing ‘special needs’ issues is derisory, I draw attention to statutory under-provision of Disability Employment Advisors.

As a disabled job-seeker, I commended Lib Dem work and pensions spokesperson Steve Webb’s denunciation of Alistair Darling’s 2001 call for Work Test interviews for claimants of Incapacity Allowance.

Further, I suggested a parliamentary question on provision of Disability Employment Advisors. (DEAs). That there are just 650 DEAs for the whole of the UK partially explains why the Acting DEA for Kentish Town Jobcentre has been based at Marylebone Jobcentre since October and burnout seems to be an occupational hazard among DEAs.

(Meanwhile, adverts on commercial radio celebrate the existence of “thousands of benefit fraud investigators,”)

A letter from Camden Financial Services dated January 12 and received January 18 urges me to re-apply for Housing Benefit asap. (My ‘entitlement’ expires of February 8, and the new form calls for ever more proofs of ‘entitlement’ to help prevent benefit fraud. My last housing benefit claim was made in October!)

Administrative stigmatisation coupled with mounting interest on 1997 graduation debt can be very dispiriting for the over-50s.

I commend Christine Brody’s aversion to ‘Maximising Disabilities’. Too often, news stories talk of a person’s life being ‘ruined’ by an incident that left them with an impairment. A more helpful focus would be the social construction of enablement.

Children and adults need a healthy self-concept in order to give of their best, and I would argue that a greater threat to society than ‘benefit fraud’ comes from the denial or diminution of disabled people’s potential to share their potential with the world around them.

I can be, and am, a role model, and that thought helps keep me going.

Alan Raymond Wheatley, BA in Interdisicplinary Studies (Major: Sociology)
Writing in early 2004
 

Planning White Paper ignores accessible housing, Disability News Service reports

 "Government's 'contempt' for disabled people, as planing white paper ignores accessible housing" is top story at Disability News Service weekly uploads for Thursday, 13 August 2020

John Pring writes:

The government has been accused of “showing contempt” for disabled people after publishing an “utterly shameful” 84-page white paper on the future of the planning system without including a single mention of disabled people, disability or accessible housing.

The Planning for the Future document makes repeated references to the need for “beautiful new homes”, “beautiful places” and “beautiful buildings”, while ignoring the accessible housing crisis.

There is also no mention of wheelchair-users in the white paper, which looks only at England, even though successive Tory ministers have been repeatedly warned of the dire shortage of suitable wheelchair-accessible housing.

“A lack of accessible and adaptable housing
is one factor in unnecessary moves
to costly care homes.” — Fleur Perry

Robert Jenrick, the housing secretary, says in the white paper that the government wants to see “environmentally friendly homes that will not need to be expensively retrofitted in the future, homes with green spaces and new parks at close hand, where tree lined streets are the norm and where neighbours are not strangers”.

The document talks about “tackling head on the shortage of beautiful, high quality homes and places where people want to live and work” and even highlights the importance of “our capacity to house the homeless and provide security and dignity”.

But nowhere does it mention disabled people and the need for accessible housing, and when it asks those taking part in a consultation* on the white paper for their “top three priorities for planning in your local area”, accessible housing is not included as one of the options.

Perhaps the Housing Secretary is a total stranger to the requirements of disabled people?

The closest the white paper comes to mentioning disabled people’s housing needs is in question 26 of the consultation, when it asks for “views on the potential impact of the proposals raised in this consultation on people with protected characteristics” under the Equality Act. [Alan notes: Question 26 is the final question in the 'consultation'!]

For more on this story, go to

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/governments-contempt-for-disabled-people-as-planning-white-paper-ignores-accessible-housing/

The 'consultation' deadline is 29 October, and is sure to have input from paid staff of the profiteers. I append a list of the questions

See also 

Book exposes harassment, abuse and neglect of benefit claimants in austerity years 

which is also a new upload to Disability News Service reports from Thursday, 13 August 2020, and features the work of Kate Belgrave who — unlike the Housing Secretary — actually does listen to marginalised people severely affected by Government policies that advance profiteering over human rights.

Appendix: Questions in the 'Planning the Future' White Paper 'consultation'

Pillar One: Planning for Development

Questions 

1. What three words do you associate most with the planning system in England? 

2. Do you get involved with planning decisions in your local area? 

[Yes / No] 

2(a). If no, why not? 

[Don’t know how to / It takes too long / It’s too complicated / I don’t care / Other – please specify]  

3. Our proposals will make it much easier to access plans and contribute your views to planning decisions. How would you like to find out about plans and planning proposals in the future?

 [Social media / Online news / Newspaper / By post / Other – please specify] 

4. What are your top three priorities for planning in your local area? 

[Building homes for young people / building homes for the homeless / Protection of green spaces / The environment, biodiversity and action on climate change / Increasing the affordability of housing / The design of new homes and places / Supporting the high street/ Supporting the local economy / More or better local infrastructure / Protection of existing heritage buildings or areas / Other – please specify]

Questions7(a). 

Do you agree with our proposals to replace existing legal and policy tests for Local Plans with a consolidated test of “sustainable development”, which would include consideration of environmental impact? 

[Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]7(b). How could strategic, cross-boundary issues be best planned for in the absence of a formal Duty to Cooperate? 

Questions8(a). Do you agree that a standard method for establishing housing requirements (that takes into account constraints) should be introduced?[Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.] 

8(b). Do you agree that affordability and the extent of existing urban areas are appropriate indicators of the quantity of development to be accommodated?

 [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

Questions

9(a). Do you agree that there should be automatic outline permission for areas for substantial development (Growth areas) with faster routes for detailed consent?[Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.] 

9(b). Do you agree with our proposals above for the consent arrangements for Renewaland Protectedareas? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.] 

9(c). Do you think there is a case for allowing new settlements to be brought forward under the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects regime? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

Question10. Do you agree with our proposals to make decision-making faster and more certain?

 [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

Question11. Do you agree with our proposals for accessible, web -based Local Plans?

 [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

Question12. Do you agree with our proposals for a 30 month statutory timescale for the production of Local Plans? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

Questions13(a). Do you agree that Neighbourhood Plans should be retained in the reformed planning system? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.] 

13(b). How can the neighbourhood planning process be developed to meet our objectives, such as in the use of digital tools and reflecting community preferences about design?

Question14 . Do you agree there should be a stronger emphasis on the build out of developments? And if so, what further measures would you support? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

Pillar Two: Planning for beautiful and sustainable places

Questions15. What do you think about the design of new development that has happened recently in your area?[Not sure or indifferent / Beautiful and/or well-designed / Ugly and/or poorly-designed / There hasn’t been any / Other – please specify]16. Sustainability is at the heart of our proposals. What is your priority for sustainability in your area?[Less reliance on cars / More green and open spaces / Energy efficiency of new buildings / More trees / Other – please specify]

Question17 . Do you agree with our proposals for improving the production and use of design guides and codes?[Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

Question18 . Do you agree that we should establish a new body to support design coding and building better places, and that each authority should have a chief officer for design and place- making?[Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

Question19 . Do you agree with our proposal to consider how design might be given greater emphasis in the strategic objectives for Homes England?[Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

Question20. Do you agree with our proposals for implementing a fast-track for beauty?[Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

Pillar Three: Planning for infrastructure and connected spaces

Question 21. When new development happens in your area, what is your priority for what comes with it?[More affordable housing / More or better infrastructure (such as transport, schools,health provision) / Design of new buildings / More shops and/or employment space / Green space / Don’t know / Other – please specify] 

Questions 22(a). Should the Government replace the Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 planning obligations with a new consolidated Infrastructure Levy, which is charged as a fixed proportion of development value above a set threshold? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]  

22(b). Should the Infrastructure Levy rates be set nationally at a single rate, set nationally at an area-specific rate, or set locally?[Nationally at a single rate / Nationally at an area-specific rate / Locally]  

22(c). Should the Infrastructure Levy aim to capture the same amount of value overall, or more value, to support greater i nvestment in infrastructure, affordable housing and local communities? [Same amount overall / More value / Less value / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]  

22(d). Should we allow local authorities to borrow against the Infrastructure Levy, to support infrastructure delivery in their area? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.] 

Question 23. Do you agree that the scope of the reformed Infrastructure Levy should capture changes of use through permitt ed development rights?

 [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

Questions 24(a). Do you agree that we should aim to secure at least the same amount of affordable housing under t he Infrastructure Levy, and as much on-site affordable provision, as at present? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.] 

24(b). Should affordable housing be secured as in-kind payment towards the Infrastructure Levy, or as a ‘right to purchase’ at discounted rates for local authorities? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

24(c). If an in-kind delivery approach is taken, should we mitigate against local authority overpayment risk? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.] 24(d). If an in-kind delivery approach is taken, are there additional steps that would need to be taken to support affordable housing quality? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

Question 25. Should local authorities have fewer restrictions over how they spend the Infrastructure Levy?[Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.] 25(a). If yes, should an affordable housing ‘ring-fence’ be developed? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.] 

Question

26. Do you have any views on the potential impact of the proposals raised in this consultati on on people with protected characteristics as defined in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010?

             

Liberty petition against the Coronavirus Act

From: Martha Spurrier, Liberty <comms@liberty-human-rights.org.uk>Sent: 03 July 2020 14:53To: Subject: Scrap the Coronavirus Act
Dear _______
This weekend the lockdown is easing in most of England.
But while the end might appear to be in sight, the lockdown of our rights and freedoms has no firm time limit.
Exactly 100 days ago, the Government passed legislation – the Coronavirus Act – that was the most drastic reimagining of our civil liberties ever seen.
Since the start of the coronavirus outbreak people everywhere have shown they are willing to adapt to protect one another.
Liberty has always supported proportionate action to protect lives. But the Coronavirus Act has failed to uphold people’s rights while leaving the most marginalised worst affected.
This law harms human rights and puts our civil liberties in danger because the Act has no firm end date.
When this pandemic passes this law will still be on the statute books and some of its powers can be triggered at any time.
This means your civil liberties are in danger unless this law is scrapped.
Sign the petition to get rid of the Coronavirus Act and force the Government to instead focus on a response to the pandemic which protects human rights.
The Coronavirus Act was central to the Government’s pandemic response and was rushed through Parliament in just one day.
Some facts about the Act – and why it must be repealed:

• It gives the police broad new powers to detain anyone who could be infectious. But the Crown Prosecution Service has said that every single charge made under the Act has been wrong. 

• Our investigative journalism unit, Liberty Investigates, found that under regulations accompanying the Act, people of colour are 54 per cent more likely to be fined than white people. 

• It makes it legal for local councils to strip back social care. At least seven councils stopped providing even the most basic care services for disabled people in their areas.

• It threatens our right to protest.

• It failed to protect the most marginalised and the hostile environment has remained operational, even in the pandemic. 

• It allows the Government to suspend some elections. 

Remember, the Act has no firm end date. These powers could remain in place well beyond the pandemic.
But there is some hope. Thanks to Liberty and others, MPs can vote on whether to keep the Act or repeal it entirely. The Government will be reluctant to do this. But we must use this review as an opportunity to show how poor the Government’s response has been and why the Act must be repealed.
It is dangerous legislation that should never have been passed. The stranglehold on our civil liberties will remain until it’s scrapped.
Sign the petition to ask Government to get rid of the Coronavirus Act and focus on a response to the pandemic that protects our rights and freedoms.
Stay safe and stay well.

https://liberty.e-activist.com/page/63721/petition/1

Martha Spurrier
Director

See also
Liberty’s submission to the Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry: The Government’s response to Covid-19: Human rights implications  – June 2020



Alan notes: Unjust laws go hand in glove with racist policing, etc. Would those responsible for the publication of the murder victims in the Fryent Country Park murders really be able to say to the families of the victims: "We are sorry for your loss"?

Criminal Charges

Jacqueline Henry started this petition to Cressida Dick / IOPC

Formal criminal charges should be brought against the two Metropolitan police officers who allegedly took and distributed photographs of the two Fryent Country Park murder victims, Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman

As a family we were assured that every respect would be shown to our beloved girls, and this disgraceful breach of their duty cannot be punished with just a disciplinary or the loss of a job.

These police officers have allegedly fallen woefully short of the high standards of integrity and behaviour that the public should be able to expect from the police service. They should face formal criminal charges of Misconduct in Public Office and under the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. It is an offence for a police officer to exercise power or privileges improperly. Distributing photographic material of murder victims outside of the confidentiality of the formal murder investigation is a clear abuse of power amounting to criminal misconduct.

The family are struggling to come to terms with the loss of the two beautiful bright lights  that have been taken from us, and we have to pray and believe that we will receive justice for their murders....

Continue reading at

https://www.change.org/p/cressida-dick-criminal-charges-6a88b520-e872-4b7e-ae32-cb81f4c2cb80