Day 9: Twelve Days of Christmas #LBBill

Day 9 of the #LBBill Twelve Days of Christmas and we’re back to the detail of the Bill’s first draft with Clause 6.

Clause 6 makes absolutely sure that disabled people are not simply left in living arrangements made by the state without anyone checking up on how the arrangements are working.

Arrangements must be working well for the disabled person and recent coverage has revealed instances of abuse and neglect, so Clause 6 attempts to protect against that.

This would be done by requiring the state body to report to the Secretary of State each year about what is happening in cases where arrangements have been made which take disabled people away from their homes.

This is explained further in today’s audio introduction film with easy-read images:

The Secretary of State would have to report to Parliament on what progress is being made to help disabled people stay in their communities, in particular how state bodies are being assisted to comply with the duty in Clause 3 of the Bill to increase the availability of community support.

It is also important that Clause 4(5) of the Bill requires a review of whether the living arrangements remain the ‘most appropriate’ available for the disabled person at least every 12 months. This supports Clause 6 by making sure that the state body has the necessary information to make this report.

Do you think Clause 6 will be effective? Is there anything else we could do to make sure people are not ‘out of sight and out of mind’?

We have transferred the email comments onto the feedback pages yesterday and have been blown away with the attention to detail and feedback on each clause. Please keep it up, we’ve only three clauses left now and really appreciate the input. Let us know what you think, on the feedback pages of the blog, on facebook, twitter, or by email. Thank you.

4 thoughts on “Day 9: Twelve Days of Christmas #LBBill

  1. This clause does nothing to avoid the autistic being removed from their family, and placed in independent living.

    In fact, it endorses independent living, as necessary, and the norm, with merely a rubber stamping exercise by the people who decided it was approriate in the first place, every year.

    As already stated by me, what is meant by community ? – not necessarily, the place where the autistics family and friends live, and only supervised access to certain prearranged venues, would satisfy the clauses in the Bill.

    It creates mere rubber stamping of the adequacy of independent living, with no independence or accountability, of those reviewing, so no accountability pf provision..

    Who, will decide if provision inadequate?, how, on what basis? and what will happen to the provider ??

    And who will feed into the review, the autistics cannot per se, or, if they can, will be too frightened of repercussions, and their families, will be in the same position, if not already cut out.

    So who can, or will complain. ? And how will the whitewashing of complaints be avoided, and what is the sanction of inadequate provision ? And why are they not being provided for at home ?

    This looks like, all that is needed from the state, is more rubber stamping bureaucracy, and everything will be OK.


  2. I think we need a provision as to what will happen if targets are not bring met. So, if the Secretary of State reports to Parliament that little or no progress has been made, then there must be a sequence of events that kicks in to enforce this. It will otherwise come down to the usual argument whereby councils say they do not have the money to enact national legislation and end up not doing what they should be doing. What if we had an independent body of experts in disability, admin and finance who have the power to go into a Local Authority to address such issues, assess what the LA is doing wrong and advise/support them into getting it right within a set time frame.


    • This party of experts will inevitably become part of the rubber stamping, whitewashing cabal.

      We need, as they have in the USA, a legal right for the autistic persons family, to sue the provider for damages, for the inadequate provision, just as the providers can sue the LA for their fees, even though provision inadequate.

      We need contractually, directly enforceble rights against the provider, by some one, who is truly independent, and we need a right non- means tested to legal aid, so that this right, can be properly enforced by lawyers, otherwise we just have the state policing itself.

      And will be in the mess we are today ie 3 a day dying,

      4 in 8 month in St Andrews private hospital, paid 4,500 per week. We would not even know about their painful, unnecessary deaths from the affects of medication, had a family not instructed a lawyer to force a second inquest and CQC involvement.


  3. It is so vitally important that timescales are very tight & sanctions perhaps put on CCGs and LA for non- compliance. It has become common practice for people to be told they need 6 months settling in periods – totally unacceptable & recipe for Institutionalisation & dangerous. If it is not a statutory requirement that a discharge plan is compiled as part of the admission process and implemented from day one of admission – with perhaps a requirement of independent reporting on reasons why people are not ready for discharge after 4 weeks as per perhaps the MHA timescale for s2 then I fear these places will continue to be used wrongly and people will still be incarcerated & there will be no change.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s