Nuovi dati dal monitoraggio effettuato dal Garante Giancarlo Giulianelli. Il numero più alto a Villa Fastiggi con 12 positivi. Oltre il 90% dei detenuti ha completato, o si accinge a farlo, il ciclo vaccinale. L’Autorità di garanzia per la prima volta all’incontro dell’Osservatorio regionale sulla sanità penitenziaria

Si va normalizzando anche negli istituti penitenziari marchigiani la situazione legata all’emergenza pandemica, dopo i focolai riscontrati nei mesi scorsi in alcune strutture. “In base ai dati del nostro monitoraggio – fa presente il Garante regionale, Giancarlo Giulianelli – i casi di positività sono in calo, il numero maggiore a Villa Fastiggi di Pesaro, e oltre il 90% dei detenuti ha completato, o si accinge a farlo, l’intero ciclo vaccinale. Pochi quelli che l’hanno rifiutato. Tutti gli istituti hanno attivato i protocolli richiesti dalla normativa vigente”.

Al momento risultano 12 positivi a Villa Fastiggi (nessuno nel reparto femminile), 6 a Montacuto e 3 a Marino del Tronto di Ascoli Piceno, tutti asintomatici. Nessun caso a Fermo, Barcaglione e Fossombrone.

“E’ ovvio – precisa Giulianelli – che la guardia va tenuta sempre alta, ma i segnali della normalizzazione sono evidenti. La nostra speranza è di riprendere quanto prima le visite in presenza per avere un quadro ancor più definito della situazione non solo per quanto riguarda la diffusione del Covid”.

Il riferimento del Garante è rivolto all’area sanitaria nel suo complesso, anche alla luce delle criticità più volte segnalate negli ultimi mesi. “Criticità e problemi – aggiunge – che non mancheremo di sottoporre all’attenzione dell’Osservatorio regionale sulla sanità penitenziaria, già convocato per il prossimo 23 febbraio ed al quale questa Autorità di garanzia è stata chiamata a partecipare, per la prima volta, dietro nostra esplicita richiesta”.

Considera que la ley implanta un modelo de control administrativo que prioriza la presunción de veracidad de las fuerzas y cuerpos de seguridad del Estado e impone excesivas restricciones a derechos fundamentales como la libertad de expresión

La comisaria de Derechos Humanos del Consejo de Europa también ha pedido que se revise la ley para adaptarla plenamente a los estándares europeos de derechos humanos 

El Síndic de Greuges de Cataluña ha tenido conocimiento por los medios de comunicación de que el Departamento de Interior de la Generalitat de Cataluña cambiará los criterios en la aplicación de la Ley Orgánica 4/2015, de protección de la seguridad ciudadana, conocida como Ley mordaza, avalándose en un informe jurídico interno que contiene la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea y del Tribunal Constitucional.
 

De la información publicada se desprende que el Departamento de Interior no sancionará a los manifestantes que protesten pacíficamente ni a los periodistas que informen de estas movilizaciones. Y para garantizarlo, los Mossos seguirán levantando acta, cuando lo consideren oportuno, pero el proceso de instrucción dependerá de la Dirección General de Administración de Seguridad, que no forma parte de la estructura interna de la policía catalana. De esta forma, el proceso de denuncia y el de instrucción de los expedientes se separan y tienen una dependencia orgánica diferenciada.

Para conocer mejor estos cambios, el Síndic se ha dirigido a la Dirección General de la Policía y a la Dirección General de Administración de Seguridad. En concreto, les pide que aporten el informe jurídico del Departamento de Interior que da fundamento jurídico a este cambio, que se informe sobre la opinión, en caso de que la haya, de los sindicatos de los Mossos en relación con esta novedad, sobre las implicaciones que tendrá en la estructura de la Dirección General de Administración de Seguridad y cómo se ha previsto adaptar la estructura de este órgano.

El pasado 8 de febrero, la comisaria de Derechos Humanos del Consejo de Europa, Dunja Mijatovic, enviaba una carta al Congreso y al Senado español en la que les pedía que la revisión de la Ley de seguridad ciudadana de 2015 que se está llevando a cabo se aproveche como una oportunidad para adaptarla plenamente a los estándares europeos e internacionales de derechos humanos, en particular en cuanto a las disposiciones que afectan a los derechos a la libertad de expresión y de reunión pacífica y al derecho de los refugiados a pedir asilo.

En varias reuniones mantenidas con la comisaria anteriormente, el Síndic ya le trasladó su preocupación por la precariedad democrática en el Estado español durante los últimos años, y especialmente en relación con la aplicación de la Ley de protección de la Seguridad Ciudadana. El Síndic ha denunciado reiteradamente que la Ley de protección de la seguridad ciudadana implanta un modelo de control administrativo que prioriza la presunción de veracidad de las fuerzas y cuerpos de seguridad del Estado ante la presunción de inocencia, fundamento de cualquier régimen democrático, cuya redacción vaga e imprecisa permite un excesivo margen de actuación al poder ejecutivo en la restricción de las libertades individuales, incluida la libertad de expresión 

A teenager on the autism spectrum was left without a significant proportion of his agreed special educational needs support for up to three years by Hertfordshire County Council, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has found.

The teenager, who attends a mainstream secondary school, should have received a range of support according to his Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. This included four hours of academic support every half term. However between September 2020 and July 2021 he received less than three hours in total.

The boy also needed help with his social skills but this was not provided at all over the same time, or during an earlier period between September 2018 and April 2019.

The council also failed to provide the assessed support for his emotional wellbeing, resulting in nothing being in place between May 2019 and March 2020, and it not being fully provided until March 2021.

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

“For many children and young people with autism spectrum conditions, emotional and social help can be just as important to their wellbeing as the academic assistance they should receive.

“In this case, the boy’s mother has told us this loss of support has left her son distressed, with low self-esteem and feeling socially isolated. He struggles to access learning in the classroom as he approaches a key point in his education.

“I am pleased the council has accepted the faults I have found during my investigation, and hope the lengthy recommendations it will comply with should help this boy and others like him in the county.”

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 to the boy and his family and pay them £500 to recognise their frustration and distress. It will also pay the teenager £2,900 for the special education provision he lost and a further £250 for the uncertainty of what provision he might have further been entitled to between May and July 2020.

The council has also agreed to arrange for the boy to receive an extra 24 hours of one-to-one support with a subject specialist in each of his four core subject areas to account for the time he missed, and arrange for a senior officer to review the provision now in place for the boy to ensure it continues to be delivered properly.

The Ombudsman has the power to make recommendations to improve processes for the wider public. In this case the council has agreed to remind officers of their duties and the requirements placed upon them when working with children and young people who have EHC Plans.

Cathaoirleach and members of the Committee, thank you for the invitation to come here today to discuss this very important matter.

As you may recall I attended this Committee, just a few weeks ago in December as part of the nomination process for my appointment as Ombudsman.  At that time, I spoke of my intention to use the power vested in me, as Ombudsman, in a targeted and effective manner with a view to ensuring that the voices of those who are more vulnerable in our society, who might otherwise be missed, are heard and responded to.

I also outlined my commitment to continuing to shine a spotlight on the issue of access to transport supports for people living with a disability.  This is an issue which has been of ongoing concern to the Office of the Ombudsman for many years, and which was championed by my predecessors in this Office, both Emily O’Reilly and Peter Tyndall.  Therefore, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to be here with you in person to discuss the Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passengers Scheme.

Access to personal transport supports

I would like to start by recapping on our commitments as a country in relation to access to personal transport supports.  In 2017, Ireland ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which commits all signatories to promoting, protecting and ensuring the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities.  Persons with disabilities, as defined in the Convention, include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments, which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.

Lack of access to transport is one of the key barriers stopping the realisation of these fundamental rights and can lead to the economic, social, and personal isolation of people living with a disability. By contrast, access to transport for many people can be an extremely important equaliser and enabler, providing independence and can change the lives of people living with a disability in a positive way.

It is within this context that in November 2021, my predecessor, Peter Tyndall, published a report entitled “Grounded: unequal access for people with disabilities to personal transport schemes”.  This report was the culmination of a number of investigations over a number of years into the following transport schemes - the Motorised Transport Grant, Mobility Allowance and the Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passengers Scheme. It is the latter scheme that you have invited me here today to discuss. However, I would also like to briefly mention the other schemes.

The Motorised Transport Grant was put in place in 1979 and Mobility Allowance was put in place as far back as 1968. They were operated by the Health Service Executive (HSE), and its predecessors, to support people living with a disability to access their own personal transport needs. The Motorised Transport Grant was a means-tested grant to assist persons with severe disabilities with the purchase or adaptation of a car, where that car was essential to retain employment. The Mobility Allowance was a payment to people living with a disability who are unable to walk or use public transport and who would benefit from being mobile by for example, using the services of a taxi occasionally.

In 2012 my predecessor Emily O’Reilly, published separate investigations into the Motorised Transport Scheme and Mobility Allowance Scheme.  The investigation into the Motorised Transport Scheme found that the manner in which the HSE interpreted the medical criteria for eligibility was unacceptably restrictive and contrary to the Equal Status legislation. The investigation into the Mobility Allowance Scheme found that this scheme was in breach of the Equal Status Act 2000 because it included an upper age limit. In both cases the Department of Health and HSE accepted the recommendations of the investigations and committed to reviewing both schemes in light of their findings.

However, in 2013, following these investigations the then Government decided to close both of these schemes to new applicants. At the time, this was announced as an interim measure and a replacement scheme was promised. However, nearly nine years later, a replacement scheme is still awaited. I raise this matter within this context of our discussion today to highlight the length of time successive Governments have been looking at this issue.

The closure of these schemes is also significant for our discussion today as without such schemes in place since 2013, the Disabled Drivers and Passengers Scheme has taken on more significance for people living with a disability because it is the only potential support available to them.

Access to public transport

Before moving onto the Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passengers scheme itself, I want to deal briefly with access to public transport for people living with a disability. I very much welcome all of the work undertaken under the auspices of the National Disability Inclusion Strategy 2017-2021 designed to improve accessibility of public transport.  However, for some people living with a disability, public transport may not be the most appropriate or even a possible mode of daily transport. For example, the inadequacy of access to some public transport facilities such as the DART, is a matter of great concern to people with disabilities who endeavour to use the service.  Many journeys on public transport also require the use of other transport services, which means that any problem occurring with one of the services makes the whole journey impossible. For example, if it is not possible to get to a train station or bus stop, then clearly such train or bus services are not accessible.

Therefore, while improving access to public transport is an important issue in its own right, I believe it is unreasonable to suggest that simply improving public transport can address the transport needs of all people with disabilities. I am thinking particularly of people who live in rural areas, or those who cannot get to bus stops or train stations.  In such circumstances, a car provides optimum, and often the only, mobility for many people living with a disability for whom it is the key to their quality of life. However, often they may need to be supported to acquire or access their own personal transport whether that be through a vehicle adapted for them to drive themselves or utilise as a passenger.

Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passengers scheme

While access to a car can be life changing for many people living with a disability, adapting a car can be very costly. The Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passengers scheme provides a range of tax reliefs linked to the purchase and adaptation of vehicles by drivers and passengers with a disability. They include reliefs in relation to VRT and VAT as well as exemptions from motor tax and tolls and refunds on duty paid on fuel. In order to qualify for tax relief under the scheme, the person with a disability must have a Primary Medical Certificate from the HSE.

A person must meet one of six medical criteria to be eligible for a Primary Medical Certificate. Since as far back as 2001 the Office of the Ombudsman has been receiving complaints about the excessively restrictive nature of these six criteria. The medical criteria are that a person must:

1. Be wholly or almost wholly without the use of both legs; or
2. Be wholly without the use of one of their legs and almost wholly without the use of the other leg such that they are severely restricted as to movement of their lower limbs or
3. Be without both hands or without both arms; or
4. Be without one or both legs; or
5. Be wholly or almost wholly without the use of both hands or arms and wholly or almost wholly without the use of one leg:  or
6. Have the medical condition of "dwarfism" and serious difficulties of movement of the lower limbs.

There is no doubt in my mind that these criteria are excessively restrictive. It is clear that, the administration of this scheme, based on these restrictive criteria, has resulted in people who do not meet the criteria, but who are equally as immobile as those who do, being excluded from the scheme.

The complaints my Office receives are against the Disabled Drivers Medical Board of Appeal (DDMBA), an independent body set up on a statutory basis by the Department of Finance in 1990 to review applications from individuals who were unsuccessful in applying for the Primary Medical Certificate at local HSE level. Since 2016, 335 complaints have been received by my Office against the DDMBA.

My Office investigated each of these complaints.  However, in most cases, we were unable to uphold the complaint against the DDMBA as it had acted in accordance with the very restrictive legislation governing its activities. However, my Office clearly communicated our concern at the overly restrictive nature of the criteria by which the DDMBA are bound to make a decision

In 2020 the Supreme Court quashed a refusal of the DDMBA to grant primary medical certificates allowing the parents of two disabled children to avail of tax relief under this scheme and noted in its judgement that the problem was with the “under inclusive nature” of the regulations.  In essence, this meant that the HSE and DDMBA could not continue with their work for a time.

The Government, in response to this judgement, introduced an amendment to the Finance Act 2020 to enshrine the existing very restrictive medical criteria in primary legislation. This was most disappointing.  I believe a far more appropriate response would have been to revise the criteria for the scheme to take into account an individual’s level of mobility.

I understand from officials in the Department of Finance that this was intended to be an interim measure.  However, past experience has shown that such “interim” measures often remain in place for far too long. I have already cited one interim measure that has lasted for almost nine years. I am very concerned about this and the negative impact that this has on the daily lives of people with disabilities and their families.  I note the recent resignation of the members of the DDMBA and that their concerns mirror some of the concerns I have expressed here today.

It very worrying that each time a problem is identified with a scheme designed to assist people with disabilities, the response by Government has been to either discontinue the scheme without replacement, or in the case of the scheme we are discussing today to enshrine the inequitable eligibility criteria in primary legislation.

Conclusion

I was pleased to see from the recent announcement in January 2022 by Minister Rabbitte that she intends to Chair an inter-departmental group to examine the issues of accessible transport for persons with disabilities and to progress a review of the Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passengers Scheme as a matter of priority.

However, what we need now is action. We need to see real progress and a system of access to personal transport supports put in place that is fair and inclusive to all people living with a disability.  Another working group or action plan is not sufficient. People who are adversely affected by this lack of access to transport need and deserve immediate and decisive action.

It is simply not acceptable that a person is confined to their home, unable to participate equally and actively in their community or at work because they are unable to access transport.

I can assure you Chair and Members that I will continue to highlight this unfair and inequitable situation. I would also ask this Committee to continue to raise this issue with the Department of Finance, and across Government, to ensure that action is taken as a priority to resolve this very serious and unfair situation.

Tomás Quintana ha mantenido este miércoles un encuentro institucional con el Defensor del Pueblo, Ángel Gabilondo. En dicha reunión se han comprometido a reforzar las relaciones de colaboración entre ambas instituciones.