At the star of all this bacterial malarkey there were fears regarding the emergency legislation and how it would impact the disabled, particularly with regard to the provision of care packages from the authority. Could local/nation government take them away? I wrote to my MP, the man of the moment: John Penrose. Man-wife of the incompetence jodhpur enthusiast and test-averse Baroness, Dido Harding. A certified failure in all regards.
It's taken 6 months for a response to come from Helen Whately, the care minister. I would say the minister for caring but she's a Tory. Worse, she's one of the really dim ones! Let's go through it, though to be honest it's mostly just bullshit and not terribly interesting.
"This Government hugely values people with disabilities and is committed to ensuring tha they are supported during this challenging and worrying time. It will do everything in its power to ensure their needs are addressed."
Well we know that's bollocks. Usual introductory spiel though.
"There was cross-party support to pass emergency legislation to allow the Government to respond to the coronavirus. This included vital measures to make sure front line services and support are maintained, particularly for the vulnerable and for people with disabilities."
I don't care about cross-party stuff. I'm not partisan and this point is just the usual deflection. "Labour supported it as well, it's all Jeremy Corbyn's fualt!". Problem is frontline and support services have been withdrawn/curtailed. I'm not going to argue the necessity, but my own appointment for an Aspergers diagnosis was indefinitely postponed. I'm not angry about it, but it is what it is.
"The provisions int he Coronoavirus Act are time-limited, to come into force when absolutely necessary and to be terminated as soon as circumstances allow. The Government will ensure that once the crisis is over, the Care Act will again apply."
That's why I'll be keeping this letter. To hold them to this. It may well be the case, I don't want to gainsay the Government, but it's possible the calamity that follows Brexit will cause them to continue with this, or similar measures. Who knows. At least this is on the record. For all the good that will do.
"Local authorities re expected to do everything they can to maintain existing services and to meet the needs of as many as possible, particular for those with the most acute needs."
Which shows the double think and cognitive dissonance baked into modern Tory politics. Does she not realise that local authorities have had provision cut? In Weston Super Mare, John Penrose's own constituency, mental health services (as well as addiction) have been savagely cut. Only recently (before the pandemic) a high profile support service called 1in4 was cut. How can they be expected to do anything when you cut their budget - but then 'everything they can' allows them to do just that, its a clever statement that both shifts burden away from central government while acknowledging local councils can't do anymore than what the Tories' pitiful funding permits.
"In the coming period there will be more need for care services, but sickness and the need to isolate is likely to reduce the number of dedicated social workers and care staff available to support those in need."
No mention of doing anything to increase this, now or in the future. No mention of how crap many private services are (not paying staff for their expenses like petrol). Acknowledging the problems caused by covid doesn't help address them.
"The Government has been very clear that it is prioritising support for vulnerable children during this pandemic and has issued guidance to local authorities and schools to help them work with parents to ensure that children with Education, Health and Care (EHC) plans have the help they need at this worrying time."
But again, funding? I don't know anything about this since I don't have kids, vulnerable or otherwise.
"The powers in the Bill will provide temporary flexibility over how the EHC plan process works, to help frontline workers focus on direct support for those with the most complex needs, including people with disabilities, and on the response to Covid 19".
There is a recurring them of ignoring the reality of ideologically driven consciously chosen austerity. It's essentially saying local councils have to cut their cloth accordingly. What is not recognised is that this is an entirely unnecessary situation. Government could be providing adequate funding to facility services for all who need them. But instead the tenor of this letter is to endorse triage.
"These emergency powers will allow for the relaxation of certain legal requirements on local authorities, health bodies and education settings over EHC plans. For example. if the Secretary of State for Education issues a notice where a local authority is unable to put in place the provision stated in an EHC plan it will need to use its 'reasonable endeavours' to do this but will not be penalised for failing to meet the existing duty in the 2014 Act. These emergency powers will only be exercised for the shortest period and where necessary and will be regularly reviewed."
I have her word on that, for what it's worth. Time will tell.
So it seems that councils are meant to do their best, but if they can't there's no penalty. I don't know what' reasonable endeavours' are, but you have it right there. Sounds like an official term. I guess it means it must do what it can be reasonably expected (as adjudicated by the state, no doubt). But again given cuts what can reasonably be expected might well be very minimal.
So essentially the letter, which I've not quoted in full (I may try and screen grab it if people are interested), says that the government is going to facilitate what it can (austerity notwithstanding) and will only use these powers where and for as long as necessary.
Whether that's actually how it works is another matter.
"I hope this reply is helpful"
Yes, so do I
No comments:
Post a Comment