El presidente y la directora de la Asociación trasladan la labor que desempeña la entidad, y denuncian la dilación en la evaluación de personas dependientes en Canarias

El Diputado del Común, Rafael Yanes, el adjunto primero, Felipe Afonso, y la adjunta segunda, Milagros Fuentes, se reunieron con el presidente y la directora de la Asociación de Familiares de Enfermos de Alzheimer y otras demencias “Alzheimer Canarias”, José Regidor y Lorena Álvarez, para acercar a la Diputación del Común la función y labor de la entidad y presentar su proyecto a la Institución.

Alzheimer Canarias, que cuenta con un presupuesto anual de 2,3 millones de euros, dispone de una plantilla de 99 trabajadores y trabajadoras que atienden a familiares y personas con Alzheimer y otro tipo de demencias en toda la isla de Gran Canaria.

Disponen de un Centro de Día con 120 plazas y una Residencia con cabida para 26 personas. Asimismo, ofrecen un servicio de Ayuda a Domicilio que, en la actualidad, atiende alrededor de 200 pacientes. Álvarez destacó que el número de auxiliares que prestan sus servicios en la Asociación ha crecido exponencialmente y “mientras en mayo de 2020 eran 13, en la actualidad trabajan 23 auxiliares”.

Denunciaron los datos de Canarias en la evaluación de las personas con algún tipo de dependencia “ya que impide su atención en los centros y unidades terapéuticas y castiga a las familias por partida doble: primero, por no tener el reconocimiento de Dependencia y, segundo, por no poder recibir ayudas que les permitan pagar los centros”, según aseguraron los representantes.

El Diputado del Común y los adjuntos mostraron su plena disposición para colaborar con la organización, “especialmente para estudiar el problema de la Dependencia en Canarias”, tal y como afirmó Yanes.

Si la volonté du Gouvernement de lever progressivement les restrictions de libertés peut être saluée, la Défenseure des droits a alerté, dans un avis du 17 mai 2021 adressé au Parlement, sur plusieurs dispositions figurant dans le texte adopté par l’Assemblée nationale et qui sont susceptibles de porter atteinte aux droits et libertés, à l’égalité de tous devant la loi, et à l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant.

La Défenseure des droits rappelle que les atteintes portées aux droits et libertés doivent être temporaires et encadrées, strictement limitées et proportionnées à l’objectif poursuivi, à savoir la protection de la santé publique et la lutte contre la pandémie de Covid-19.

En premier lieu, la Défenseure des droits regrette vivement que le Gouvernement ait présenté par voie d'amendement, dans des délais particulièrement brefs et sans concertation, la possibilité d’instaurer un « pass sanitaire » sur le territoire national, compte tenu des restrictions des droits et des libertés fondamentales qu’il est susceptible de produire.

Le texte adopté en première lecture par l’Assemblée nationale comportait de nombreuses dispositions susceptibles de renforcer le caractère inapplicable et inégalitaire de certaines mesures et de laisser place à des interprétations divergentes et à des décisions discrétionnaires. Le renvoi au pouvoir réglementaire sur des questions aussi fondamentales constitue pour la Défenseure des droits un point d’alerte majeur.

Le projet de loi a fait l’objet de modifications par le Sénat, maintenues par la commission mixte paritaire, dont certaines vont dans le sens des recommandations de la Défenseure des droits, en particulier l’intégration 

dans le texte de garanties complémentaires concernant le « pass sanitaire », en vue de protéger les droits et libertés, notamment les données de santé.

Toutefois, la Défenseure des droits réitère ses préoccupations quant à certaines dispositions qui auraient nécessité davantage de précisions :

• Tout d’abord, le projet de « pass sanitaire » ne précise pas si celui-ci s’applique ou non aux enfants. Si le souhait est de ne pas inclure les enfants dans ce dispositif, ce que préconise la Défenseure des droits, cela supposerait d’être indiqué de manière claire, soit en exemptant explicitement les mineurs du « pass sanitaire », soit en fixant une limite d’âge raisonnable et des modalités adaptées ;
• ce texte ne précise pas non plus les obligations faites aux professionnels et aux bénévoles œuvrant dans les lieux et les établissements accueillant du public, ce qui peut soulever des risques de discrimination.
• Enfin, de nombreuses questions sont encore en suspens comme, par exemple, la durée de validité du « pass sanitaire » en cas d’immunité reconnue après une infection à la Covid-19.  

En outre, eu égard au caractère exceptionnel de ce dispositif, la Défenseure des droits recommande, à l’instar de la CNIL dans son avis du 12 mai 2021, de préciser les modalités d’évaluation de celui-ci. Ce dispositif exceptionnel appelle un renforcement du contrôle de sa mise en œuvre afin de protéger les individus de toute atteinte disproportionnée à leurs droits et libertés. Elle note à cet égard que la CNIL contrôlera les modalités concrètes de mise en œuvre du dispositif et s’assurera que les droits et libertés des personnes seront respectés, notamment en faisant usage de son pouvoir de contrôle. La Défenseure des droits exercera également son contrôle au titre de ses compétences en cas de saisine. (...)

Hampshire County Council has agreed to review the resources it has put into its Special Educational Needs team, following a complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

The Director of Children’s Services and Lead Member for Children’s Services will now carry out a review of whether the resourcing is sufficient to carry out its workload within statutory timescales, and confirm they have reviewed details of the council’s SEN recovery plan following the Ombudsman’s investigation.

The recommendations were made after a mother complained to the Ombudsman her son had missed out on three months of education and special educational needs support, because the county council delayed issuing his amended Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan.

The mother said her son, who has Autism and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), had been attending mainstream primary school with 25 hours a week one-to-one support. When it became apparent the boy could no longer attend, the council did not act quickly enough to put in place alternative education. This meant he had three months of inadequate SEN provision followed by three months of missed education.

The Ombudsman’s investigation found the council delayed the statutory process at times, and wrongly told the mother the EHC Plan could be issued more quickly if she withdrew her comments.

The Ombudsman also found the council did not do enough to provide alternative education for the boy while it waited for a place to become available at a suitable school.

The mother lost chances to appeal the council’s actions at the SEND tribunal, because the council did not tell her of her right. It also did not name the type of school in the boy’s EHC Plan when it did issue the document.

Michael King, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said:

“This case, and three others I have recently issued about services for children with SEND in the county, highlight the significant impact delays can have on families when councils do not complete their duties within the statutory timescales.

“I am pleased the council has accepted my recommendations in this case and hope the review of services it has agreed to make will ensure children with SEN in Hampshire are better served in future.”

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s role is to remedy injustice and share learning from investigations to help improve public, and adult social care, services. In this case the council has agreed to apologise and pay the mother £100 for her lost opportunity to appeal the council’s decision to keep the original EHC Plan in place. It will also pay her £200 for the lost opportunity to appeal the provision made for her son in an amended EHC Plan and for her time and trouble caused by the delay.

The council has also agreed to pay the family £200 for each school month of inadequate SEN provision for the benefit of the boy’s education, and £550 for each school month of education the boy missed. This totals £2,250 for the lost provision. The council will also pay the mother a further £750 for the time and trouble of trying to get the council to fulfil its statutory duties and the distress and uncertainty caused.

The Ombudsman has the power to make recommendations to improve processes for the wider public. In this case, it will reflect on the service improvements it agreed to make following three other complaints to the Ombudsman about its provision of SEN services, in particular delays with annual reviews and amendment of EHC Plans.

It should also remind officers of statutory guidance and update the Ombudsman on the number of outstanding EHC assessments, annual reviews and draft amended plans and the timetable for finalising this work.

Article date: 20 May 2021

hu, 05/20/2021 - 12:00

Like most organisations, at the SPSO we have implemented our business continuity procedures during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.  We are continually assessing the impact of the current situation on our ability to continue to deliver high quality services and updating staff and stakeholders regularly.

We have robust business continuity plans in place for unforeseen events. However, the unprecedented circumstances we have been facing are presenting us with substantial resourcing challenges. The impacts on our service have been significant, and unfortunately there are unprecedented delays in our ability to continue delivering our services to the timescales and levels we normally do.

We continue to review the situation and are closely following the advice issued by the Scottish Government and Health Protection Scotland.

We are updating this and the web pages linked below, as well as our twitter channel, as the situation develops. 

On 19 May 2021 a hearing took place before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Grzęda v Poland. The Grand Chamber of the ECtHR considered allegations of a judge who was a member of the National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ). The judge’s term of office was prematurely terminated by legislation in 2018, contrary to an explicit guarantee in the Constitution. In bringing the case before the Strasbourg Court, the judge has raised the allegation that there was no right to a court to verify the lawfulness of the interruption of his term of office in the NCJ (Articles 6 and 13, ECHR).

In addition to the main parties: the applicant and the Government of the Republic of Poland - the hearing was also attended by the Commissioner for Human Rights (CHR). The CHR joined the case back in 2019 as amicus curiae and twice submitted written observations to the Court.

The case is of paramount importance for the Polish judiciary, as the unconstitutional formation of the current NCJ undermines all its acts, including judicial appointments. It also raises questions about the legal effectiveness of rulings issued by judges nominated by the new NCJ.

During the presentation at the hearing, the CHR argued that the judge-members of the NCJ should be guaranteed legal protection of their full term of office, at the same time safeguarding the ability of the NCJ to fulfil its role to protect judicial independence entrusted to it by the Constitution. The CHR asserted that the interruption of the term of office of the NCJ in 2018 was incompatible with both the Polish Constitution and the European Convention.

Yet, should the legislator enact a measure resulting in the premature expiry of the mandate, the judge-members of the NCJ should have the right to challenge the interruption of their term before a court. The lack of a remedy cannot be reconciled with the jurisprudence of the ECtHR.

The CHR also pointed out that the government’s argumentation indicating the necessity to interrupt the term of office of judges in the NCJ as a result of the 2017 Constitutional Tribunal ruling (case K 5/17) should be rejected. The present (partially captured) Constitutional Tribunal does not provide genuine control of the constitutionality of the law. Instead, it is used to legitimise action of the national authorities that violate the Constitution. In doing so, it deviates from previous, established constitutional jurisprudence without providing valid reasons for so doing. Moreover, the ruling cited by the government involved a person elected to a seat already properly filled. This alone – in the light of the ECHR judgment in the Xero Flor case – is reason enough to disregard the ruling.

The changes made to the NCJ have given the ruling majority the ability to freely reconstitute its composition, and thus influence the process of appointing judges. As a result, the political majority has acquired the ability to influence the content of judicial rulings in a part of the Polish judiciary. This appears to preclude any real control over the actions of the ruling majority and to shield arbitrary decisions of the government.

A total of nine third party interveners joined the case before the ECtHR, including two States: Denmark and the Netherlands. They all submitted written observations to the Court.

VII.511.51.2019