Date: 16 March 2021 at 11:41
Subject: Replace the Coronavirus Act – Disabled and older people’s rights (Case Ref: FC7433)
FAO The Rt. Hon. Feryal Clark
Thank you for your letter.
I am disappointed to note that you did not vote against the replacement of the Coronavirus Act.
I am apalled by what you say “care workers must be provided with the pay and training they deserve but what about the weak and vulnerable and their human rights being abused by care workers who dish out brutal treatment and are totally oblivious to human rights backed by those at the top of the Trust.
I think Enfield comes rock bottom of human rights in my opinion.
How many deaths have there been to people like my daughter who is now obese and a size 24 and force injected with clopixol depot at max level? What is being done about this in Enfield and why are patients on Suffolk Ward still being denied basic human rights of fresh air and exercise. Surely that is draconian? Is that in line with Human Rights?
There is clearly no proportionality, rationality, fairness and total discrimination in Enfield, an area rife with bullying.
There is no respect for someone’s sexuality – and no accountability in this area. There is no decent care and provision in the community yet so much money to be spent on wrong facilities out of area whilst a vulnerable person’s human right to a fair assessment and humane care is abused yet you declined to vote against the Government and their extraordinary powers of abusing the weak and vulnerable. There is nothing necessary about this whatsoever.
There are also different rules for different hospitals within Enfield which need scrutiny North Mid Hospital for instance allows visiting to dementia sufferers and for people with learning disability so why doesn’t this apply to Chase Farm Hospital Enfield? My daughter would come into this category. Why it is OK for a nurse not to wear a mask come in close contact with the likes of my daughter when I am being punished and discriminated against? There are different visiting rules applying to other parents who are allowed greater contact as i have witnessed first hand.
So my daughter was multiply abused in the community and now is being further abused under the mental health d) and has had brutal treatment. It was dreadful to hear details of administering of a depot injection by four male nurses – Do you think that is good care? I suppose you feel this is justified? No fresh air/exercise, no contact with family and discrimination re visiting rights?
When you talk about training perhaps – what training! What they need is training in human rights and perhaps the BIHR should be contacted with regard to this. There is clearly no training or human rights. If there were human rights then patients like my daughter would be able to get the humane care THEY deserve if everyone in this Borough was educated in this way, none of this abuse would be going on to the weak and vulnerable. SHAME ON ENFIELD.
How can you hold the Government to account if you do not vote against such draconian measures?
I once heard in church a very interesting speech “silence is consent”. How very true this is. Here are examples of complete breach in rationality, fairness and discrimination under Enfield where nobody cares:
———- Original Message ———-
From: Feryal Clark MP <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 16 March 2021 at 09:39
Subject: Re: Replace the Coronavirus Act – Disabled and older people’s rights (Case Ref: FC7433)
Dear Susan Bevis,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Coronavirus Act.
The first six-month review of the Act took place on 30 September 2020 when the renewal of the temporary provisions within the Act was approved.
This legislation contains some of the most draconian powers ever seen in peacetime Britain. I worked closely with my colleagues in Parliament to scrutinise this legislation when it was introduced in March to ensure that any exercise of executive power or administrative action is measured against human rights and common-law standards. These include necessity, proportionality, rationality, fairness, and non-discrimination.
We have seen over 125,000 deaths in the UK, lives altered in ways unimaginable a year ago, and our economy facing one of the worst recessions on record. I accept the challenge that presents, and I recognise that in a pandemic any government needs extraordinary powers available. With a heavy heart, facing the highly unsatisfactory situation of an all-or-nothing motion brought before the House of Commons on 30 September, I did not vote to block its passage.
Nevertheless, I understand the concerns you raise about the effect this has had on social care provisions. I believe that there must be greater parliamentary scrutiny and accountability for the Act.
With such strong powers available, the need for accountability is even more important than in ordinary times. I am therefore pleased that in response to pressure, the Government announced that, where possible, Parliament will be consulted on any future significant measures that take effect across the whole of England or the UK.
The Government must, in my view, commit to publishing a monthly review of any disproportionate impact of the Act on individuals or groups and give Parliament the time to debate and hold votes on regulatory changes.
More widely regarding social care, we need a long-term plan of far-reaching reform to establish a properly funded social care system that works for older people and working age-adults. This is vital to increase access to care and to protect people from high care costs. Care workers must also be provided with the pay and training they deserve, which is essential to addressing widespread vacancies across the sector.
Thank you once again for contacting me about this important issue. I assure you I will continue to hold the Government to account and ensure that this emergency legislation is kept under regular review and I will bear in mind the points you have raised
Feryal Clark MP
Member of Parliament for Enfield North
From: Susan Bevis
Sent: 10 March 2021 15:26
To: CLARK, Feryal
Subject: Replace the Coronavirus Act – Disabled and older people’s rights
Dear Ms Clark,
I am writing to urge you to vote to repeal the draconian powers in the Coronavirus Act and replace them with measures that support everyone to stay safe.
The Government has attempted to police its way out of a pandemic. While the roadmap out of lockdown is positive, it does nothing to help the people who have been left behind by the Government’s harmful approach. It’s time to change course.
Voting to repeal the Coronavirus Act does not automatically leave us without laws and regulations – it creates a three-week window to devise a replacement. That hard work has already been done. Expert charities, NGOs and lawyers have come together to create the Coronavirus (Rights and Support) Bill, also known as the Protect Everyone Bill – https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/fundamental/coronavirus/https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/fundamental/coronavirus
The Bill replaces the dangerous powers in the Coronavirus Act with measures that provide support for everyone to safely follow public health guidance.
The Coronavirus Act allows local authorities to strip back social care, disproportionately impacting disabled and older people. In the first national lockdown, research from Mencap showed that almost 70 per cent of people with a learning disability reported having their care cut.
The Protect Everyone Bill scraps the parts of the Coronavirus Act that allow local councils to strip back social care provision for adults, and education, health and care (EHC) provision for children and young people.
And it makes sure public coronavirus broadcasts are fully accessible to disabled people, including by requiring sign language interpretation. News updates and regulations must be published with Easy Read versions.
The Government has said it wants to build back better. We can do so by repealing the Coronavirus Act and replacing it with the positive measures of the Protect Everyone Bill.