Would you be interested in taking part in a qualitative study exploring experience of the ending of Cognitive Analytic Therapy (CAT)?
Peter from the University of Lancaster is conducting qualitative research as part of his clinical psychology training. The study has NHS ethics approval. He is meeting with people and asking individuals who have received CAT about their experience of the ending of therapy-things like: how it felt, what was important about it, what helped or didn’t help. he hopes this research will help us to understand more about how therapy works and how it is experienced.
So, if you : have had CAT over the last two years and had a recognised (not abrupt or unplanned) ending, for any problem or diagnosis, and would like to meet with him for an informal discussion about your experience of CAT ending, he would be really glad to hear from you. he will travel to meet you, either at a neutral place near you or your own home.
If it is of interest you can contact him:
Text/phone: 07852516812 or E:mail P.Lydon@lancaster.ac.uk
Public Interest Lawyers Limited: Court of Appeal Rules that the Government’s “Back to Work” Regulations are Unlawful and Must Be Quashed
Court of Appeal Rules that the Government’s “Back to Work” Regulations are Unlawful and Must Be Quashed
In a unanimous decision, three judges from the Court of Appeal have today ruled that the Regulations under which most of the Government’s “Back to Work” schemes have been created are unlawful and must be quashed. The ruling is a huge setback for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) whose flagship reforms have been beset with problems since their inception.
The effect of the judgment is that all those people who have been sanctioned by having their jobseeker’s allowance withdrawn for non-compliance with the Back to Work Schemes affected will be entitled to reclaim their benefits. And until new regulations are enacted with proper Parliamentary approval nobody can be compelled to participate on the schemes.
The Government initially indicated that it would seek a stay of the order quashing the Regulations “because of the ramifications of the decision.” The Government’s Counsel submitted that the effect of the decision would be immediate: “the original requirement imposed on claimants such as Mr Wilson that they participate in a programme would be unlawful and they could not be required to participate further.” People would be free to leave placements if they did not wish to continue with them, and all sanctions currently imposed would have to be immediately brought to an end.
However, after objections from the Claimants, the Government today abandoned their request for a stay of the quashing order which means that the judgment takes immediate effect.
The case was brought by our clients Cait Reilly, who was made to stack shelves in Poundland for two weeks, and Jamie Wilson, who was stripped of his Jobseeker’s allowance for 6 months after refusing to participate in a scheme which required him to work 30 hours a week for six months for free.
In a carefully reasoned judgment the Court found that the Secretary of State, Iain Duncan Smith, has acted beyond the powers given to him by Parliament by failing to provide, any detail about the various “Back to Work” schemes in the Regulations. The Government had bypassed Parliament by introducing the Back to Work schemes administratively under an “umbrella” scheme knwons as the Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme, claiming the need for “flexibility’. The Court of Appeal held that this was contrary to what Parliament had required. Stanley Burnton LJ stated:
“any scheme must be such as has been authorised by Parliament. There is a constitutional issue involved. The loss of jobseekers’ allowance may result in considerable personal hardship, and it is not surprising that Parliament should have been careful in making provision for the circumstances in which the sanction may be imposed. There are well known legislative formulae for conferring complete flexibility of decision on a Minister.” (at )
The result is that over the past two years the Government has unlawfully required tens of thousands of unemployed people to work without pay and unlawfully stripped thousands more of their subsistence benefits.
The case has revealed the chaos and confusion at the heart of the DWP who have set up a web of schemes and sanctions so complex that their own jobcentre advisers are failing to implement them correctly. It has shown that the basic requirements of fairness dictated by Parliament, such as providing people with a clear explanation of what they are being asked to do, why they are being asked to do it and what the consequences are if they fail to do it, have not been complied with by the DWP.
Tessa Gregory, solicitor, Public Interest Lawyers states:
“Today’s judgment sends Iain Duncan Smith back to the drawing board to make fresh Regulations which are fair and comply with the Court’s ruling. Until that time nobody can be lawfully forced to participate in schemes affected such as the Work Programme and the Community Action Programme. All of those who have been stripped of their benefits have a right to claim the money back that has been unlawfully taken away from them from the DWP.
The case has revealed that the Department of Work and Pensions was going behind Parliament’s back and failing to obtain Parliamentary approval for the various mandatory work schemes that it was introducing. It also reveals a lack of transparency and fairness in the implementation of these schemes. The Claimants had no information about what could be required of them under the back to work schemes. The Court of Appeal has affirmed the basic constitutional principle that everyone has a right to know and understand why sanctions are being the threatened and imposed against them”
“I am really pleased that the Court has found in our favour. I refused to participate in the Community Action Programme (CAP) because I objected to being made to clean furniture for 30 hours a week for 6 months when I knew it wouldn’t help me find employment. I was given next to no information about the programme, I was told simply that I had to do whatever the DWP’s private contractor instructed me to do and that if I didn’t I may lose my benefits. Being without jobseeker’s allowance was very difficult for me but I don’t regret taking a stand as the CAP is a poorly thought out and poorly implemented scheme which even according to the DWP’s own statistics is not helping anyone get people back to work.
I am now participating in the Work Programme but it doesn’t involve me working for free, I have to meet an advisor every 3 to 4 weeks who helps me look for work. I will continue to attend these sessions with my adviser regardless of whether or not I am required to attend because I want to find a job and the sessions are very helpful.”
I am delighted with today’s judgment. I brought this case because I knew it was wrong when I was prevented from doing my voluntary work in a museum and forced to work in Poundland for free for two weeks as part of a scheme known as the sector based work academy. Those two weeks were a complete waste of my time as the experience did not help me get a job, I wasn’t given any training and I was left with no time to do my voluntary work or search for other jobs. The only beneficiary was Poundland, a multi-million pound company. Later I found out that I should never have been told the placement was compulsory.
I don’t think I am above working in shops like Poundland, I now work part time at the in a supermarket, it’s just that I expect to get paid for working. I hope the Government will now take this opportunity to rethink its strategy and do something which actually builds on young unemployed peoples’ skills and tackles the causes of long-term unemployment. I agree we need to get people back to work but the best way of doing that is by helping them, not punishing them. The Government ought to understand that if they created schemes which actually helped people get back into work then they wouldn’t need to force people to attend.”
 Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise) Regulations 2011
 Paul Nicholls QC
 Community Action Programme
 under the Welfare Reform Act 2009 which amended the Jobseeker’s Allowance Act1995
The theme for this year’s World Mental Health Day is Depression: A Global Crisis.
Around 350 million people globally are already affected by depression and the World Health Organisation estimate it will be the single biggest burden of disease in the world by 2030.
- Depression is a treatable illness and recovery is possible and achievable
- Depression is not a sign of weakness – it’s a mental health disorder that prevents people from having a normal life
- It’s the most predominant and costly mental health challenge for people of working-age
- All countries should be aiming to develop resilience to depression
- More research into mental health is needed to increase the understanding of mental disorders and develop more effective responses.
We’ve developed some really useful resources for today including advice on how to manage your mental health and our Chief Executive Andrew McCulloch has written a blog about the future of Mental Health.
Thousands of people all across the UK are marking today by holding a Tea & Talk event – getting together with friends for a chat and and raising money for mental health. However you decide to mark World Mental Health Day we hope you help us to spread the message and join in to help everyone live mentally healthier lives and reduce the stigma around mental health problems.
A disability campaigner will try to give the major political parties a bloody nose by standing in a parliamentary byelection.
Adam Lotun, from Tolworth, will stand in the Corby and East Northamptonshire seat on November 15.
The independent candidate is director of a disability workplace company but is also a spokesman for Disabled People Against Cuts.
The father-of-two is also a former Neighbourhood Watch co-ordinator, safer neighbourhood ward panel chairman and member of the Kingston community police partnership.
He said: “I am standing on a number of issues, although my specialism is disability.
“I am standing because disabled people have had enough. This is no idle flash in the pan – this is serious.”
As a wheelchair user Mr Lotun said his biggest challenge will be campaigning and door knocking but he said so far the support has been extremely generous.
He said: “I never thought I would be in this position. I have done a lot of sort of political work around Kingston and online as well but I never thought I would stand as a candidate for Parliament.
“It is just fantastic the amount of support that I am being given. It’s just gone mad.”
The election is being reported as a significant test of Government policy at the polls and will see Mr Lotun go head to head with Conservative candidate Christine Emmett, Labour’s Andy Sawford and Jill Hope for the Liberal Democrats.
The election was called after Louise Mensch stood down as Conservative MP for the Northamptonshire constituency in August.
Mrs Mensch, who is moving to New York to be with her three children and husband – who is manager of rock band Metallica – won the marginal seat in 2010 with a 1,951-vote majority.
Corby has nearly always been a marginal seat.
The seat was Conservative in the 1980s and 1990s but swung to Labour in 1997, before shifting back to the Tories.
Can you help Mind improve its engagement of people with mental health problems?
Mind is improving the way we engage people to have a voice in our work. To ensure this, all our staff have received engagement training, and have
developed engagement plans for each of our projects.
Mind is looking for people with personal experience of mental health
problems and experience of leading or advising engagement work to act as
engagement coaches. This is to empower staff with confidence and the
skills to find innovative ways to engage people.
There is a payment of £230 for each full day worked.
All relevant expenses will be reimbursed. Whilst most of the work will take
place from home by email or by phone, engagement coaches will attend an
induction in London and will come together as a team on a quarterly basis.
The closing date for all applications is 14th September 2012, by noon.
police officer, but not a juror. An employee, but not a director. A voter, but not an MP. The law currently says that it’s ok to discriminate against people affected by mental illness. That’s one in four of the population being denied opportunities to contribute to these areas of society.
We don’t think this is right. We believe that changing this law will send a clear message that mental health stigma in our society is wrong and won’t be tolerated.
Gavin Barwell MP is taking forward the Mental Health (Discrimination) Bill on 14 September. We need at least 100 MP votes in support of the Bill for it to be passed. We need you to ask your MP to support the Bill – the more people who do this, the more likely that the Bill will be passed!
Take a look at our video and find out from fellow campaigners why they will be contacting their MP today.
Melanie Dupin, Senior Activism Officer