Under the plans, GPs would be allowed to prescribe fitness classes in an aim to cut £5bn from the NHS budget.

A Local Government Information Unit (LGIU) and Westminster Council report suggests that overweight people on benefits could have their payments cut if they don’t exercise following a doctor’s advice.

This would be monitored by smart cards which would log attendance at leisure centres and gyms, giving councils the means to encourage people to attend.

The proposals haven’t been well received from health professionals.

Dr Buckman, British Medical Association committee chairman told the BBC the proposals are “some of the silliest things I’ve heard in a long time”.

However, the acting chief executive of the LGIU, Jonathan Carr-West, believes the proposals are positive for all concerned.

He said the proposals found “innovative ways to both improve people’s lives so they don’t suffer from these conditions, while also saving money for the public purse”.

Phillippa Roe, Westminster council leader, said: “This report contains exactly the sort of bright, forward-thinking and radical ideas that need to be looked at.

“The potential improvements to the nation’s health and to the public purse could be significant.”

It is worth remembering that both Westminster council and the LGIU were responsible for the report.

Encouraging people to lead a healthy lifestyle is definitely a positive thing, but linking that healthy lifestyle to the payment of benefits seems over the top and likely to increase the problem rather than fix it.

Original story:

BBC

Additionally, according to the Telegraph, the Government has suggested the temporary relaxation of Sunday opening regulations, effective around the time of the London Olympics last summer, might be made permanent. Currently, stores larger than 280 square meters in size are allowed to open for a maximum of six hours only, under the Sunday Trading Act 1994.

However, while bishops of the Church of England are objecting to the idea for reasons connected to Sunday worship, not all major retailers have come out in favour of the proposed changes either.

As reported by the Telegraph, Justin King, Sainsbury’s chief executive, wrote: “maintaining Sunday’s special status has great merit for our customers and our colleagues, and relaxing Sunday trading laws is certainly not a magic answer to economic regeneration.”

Shop workers and betting-shop workers have special rights in this matter already, which include opting out of Sunday working even if such work is stipulated in the employment contract, provided the proper notice of three months is given by the employee.

Employers must notify their workers of the right to opt-out within two months of hiring them. The opt-out does not apply if a person has been hired to work Sundays only.

However, other employees must work on Sundays if this is included in their employment contract. Although employers may try to accommodate the preferences of Christians in this matter, the new ruling makes clear that if an organisation has compelling economic reasons, then its Christian staff cannot opt-out of Sunday working.

Celestina Mba, 57, worked at the Brightwell Children’s Home in Morden, London, for three years. She says that at first her need to have Sundays free was accommodated by her employer, Merton Council.

Nevertheless, several months later Mba was frequently allocated Sunday shifts and threatened with disciplinary measures unless she agreed to compromise regarding her religious commitments. Mba resigned and took her case for constructive dismissal to the Croydon Employment Tribunal in February.

The Tribunal found that the council had no viable alternative to requiring Mba to work on Sundays. The BBC reported that Merton Council director of children schools and families, Yvette Stanley, commented: “As a local authority, we have a duty to ensure our children with disabilities who need weekend care are supported by carers who are familiar with their specific needs.”

The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld this decision. Senior judge, Mr Justice Langstaff, said that declining to work on Sundays was not a ‘core belief’ of Christianity. He added there is evidence that many Christians work on Sundays, and this is relevant in assessing the impact of an employer requiring staff to work on that day.

The Telegraph reports that campaigners, such as Christian Concern, have criticised this decision, saying the judiciary are deciding what constitutes Christian belief, which interferes with their right to practise their religion.

It appears that some citizens may consider state-sponsored secularism as an attack on their Christian faith. It remains to be seen how the legal arguments in this area will develop in the coming New Year.
Original story:

The Telegraph | 2

BBC

Since then, there have been protests and vigils in the Republic and abroad. Campaigners have been highlighting the ambiguous nature of Irish abortion law, which appears to have contributed to the young Indian woman’s death.

According to the Independent, a 20-year-old Supreme Court ruling allows for abortion when a woman’s life is in danger, including the threat of suicide, but this has not been implemented in Irish law.

Apart from this vague qualification there is a complete ban on the medical and surgical termination of pregnancies in Ireland, which means doctors who want to save pregnant women’s lives have no legal protection. However, Irish women do have the right to go abroad for an abortion.

Now, the Irish Government intends to bring in a change to the law that will allow an abortion as a last resort if there is a ‘real and substantial risk’ to a woman’s life.

This proposal follows three debates in the Irish parliament on issues arising from the tragedy, including the matter of complying with the country’s obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights. Additionally the move follows the report of an expert group set up to advise the Government on clarifying Irish law.

The Independent reports that the Irish Health Minister, James Reilly, said: “The government is committed to ensuring that the safety of pregnant women in Ireland is maintained and strengthened.

“For that purpose, we will clarify in legislation and regulation what is available by way of treatment to a woman when a pregnancy gives rise to a threat to a woman’s life.

“We will also clarify what is legal for the professionals who must provide that care, while at all times taking full account of the equal right to life of the unborn child.”

Irish Prime Minister, Enda Kenny, has said that the Government whip will be applied to ensure members in the ruling Fine Gael party back the legislation.

However, the BBC reports that the four Catholic Archbishops of Ireland, including Cardinal Sean Brady, have criticised this intention on the part of the Irish Government. They issued a joint statement saying: “If what is being proposed were to become law, the careful balance between the equal right to life of a mother and her unborn child in current law and medical practice in Ireland would be fundamentally changed.

“It would pave the way for the direct and intentional killing of unborn children. This can never be morally justified in any circumstances.”
The BBC reports that Ailbhe Smyth of the Irish Choice Network voiced the opinion that the Catholic Church should have no role in the affairs of the Irish Government.

She said: “The bishops are of course entitled to hold their view like any other citizen but they do not have, to my mind, the right to interfere in the political affairs of a secular state”.

This move by the Irish Government might be seen as a hopeful step toward alleviating the legal difficulties for women who need an abortion on medical grounds. However, it remains to be seen whether any further legal change can come to fruition in Ireland, such as providing abortions for women who have been raped, given the implacable opposition of the Catholic Church.

Original story:

The Independent

BBC | 2

Related story:

Legal limbo regarding abortion in Eire highlights strength of UK abortion law

BBC News reports that over 200 women’s rights groups, led by EWL, are campaigning for new laws to make paying for sex a crime throughout the European Union.

Pierrette Pape, a spokesperson for EWL, told the Today programme on Radio 4: “The most important thing to understand about prostitution is that imposing sexual intercourse with money is a form of violence that shouldn’t be accepted.

“If we understand that, we can then put comprehensive policies into place that will change mentalities and respect gender equality between women and men.”

EWL says that Sweden is a good example of the policies they wish to see throughout Europe. In that country, prostitution was made illegal a decade ago and figures suggest street prostitution has halved as a result.

The organisation also argues against the legalisation of prostitution in Europe, citing the Netherlands as an example of a situation where decriminalisation has not improved working conditions for prostitutes. For example, they claim a large proportion of women working in Dutch brothels are victims of human trafficking.

Pape said: “There is a legal base in the treaties to address the transnational crime of the sexual exploitation of women and children.” She added that EU policies on human trafficking would be ineffective unless they also addressed prostitution.

The opposite view is taken by the UK Network of Sex Work Projects (UNSWP), which offers support initiatives for sex workers. They argue for legal changes that would improve the social status and safety of sex workers, thereby allowing the criminal justice system to focus on violent crimes committed against prostitutes.

UNSWP cites the experience of New Zealand, where the Prostitution Reform Act was introduced in 2003. Under this law, for example, prostitutes are covered by occupational health and safety regulations, and brothel operators who fail to promote safe sex face criminal charges.

In the UK prostitution is not illegal but there are a number of offences closely linked to the activity of exchanging sexual services for money. For example it is an offence to control a prostitute for monetary gain or to keep a brothel.

Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, it is an offence for a person in a street, a public place or in a car to solicit another for the purpose of obtaining a sexual service. Additionally, under the same Act, it is already a crime to traffic human beings for the purposes of sexual exploitation.

According to the BBC, EU officials say a report on the different approaches to prostitution within Europe will be published in 2016. Meanwhile, new laws designed to address the widespread problem of human trafficking are set to come into force next year; undoubtedly, both issues are closely linked.

Although the problem of prostitution in European societies raises difficult issues, debate about how the law should deal with the ‘oldest profession’ should prioritise the future welfare of sex workers. Prostitutes, particularly those who have been trafficked, often suffer from conditions such as post-traumatic stress syndrome, according to EWL.

Original story:

BBC

The figures were obtained under a Freedom of Information request to the police forces of England and Wales, and 35 out of the 42 that provided data revealed they had detained children in this way. Two forces had each detained one under 18-year-old for more than 24 hours. Additionally, some of the children detained were as young as 11.

Sections 135 and 136 of the MHA provide powers for the police to temporarily remove and accommodate children and young people in emergency situations. This can occur if the young person is suffering from an acute mental disorder and could harm themselves or other people.

A place of safety for a child in these circumstances should be a psychiatric hospital that can provide age-appropriate mental health services or children’s home, but a police station may be used as a last resort.

The procedure for such detentions is covered by Chapter 10 of the Mental Health Act Code of Practice for England and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). Children remain in the cells until a specialist psychiatric team can be found to assess them.

However, the Act provides that no child may be locked up in this way for more than 72 hours.

Lucie Russell, of mental health charity Young Minds, commented on the findings, saying: “We’re almost treating [these children] like criminals and punishing them for their distress and vulnerability.

“Putting them in police cells is really only going to make them worse – it will exacerbate feelings of paranoia, delusions and extreme fear and distress.”

However, the police appear to be picking up the pieces when emergency child psychiatric services fall short.

Simon Cole, of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) said: “It’s quite clear that, in some places, police officers who are finding vulnerable young people at a point of crisis have no realistic option other than to take them to cells”.

He added that arranging out-of-hours support for young people could take “quite some time”.

The Health Minister, Norman Lamb, was questioned by the BBC programme and gave his opinion that placing youngsters in police cells was completely unacceptable in all but the most exceptional circumstances. He added that £54m was going to be spent over the next four years, to provide better mental health care for children and young people.

It remains to be seen exactly how this money will be spent.

No doubt the Government is appalled at the lack of immediate services for mentally distressed young people that this investigation uncovered; at the same time, Ministers are constantly imposing budget cuts, and asking for ‘efficiency savings’ from all health departments. Now this matter has been brought to the Minister’s attention by the BBC, it is to be hoped something will be done to deal more appropriately with vulnerable children in crisis.
Original story:

BBC

According to the Daily Mail, the husband was told by hospital staff that Ireland is a ‘Catholic country’ and birth cannot be induced while there is still a foetal heart-beat, even though his wife was in difficulties.

The trouble started on Sunday October 21st this year, as reported by the Mail, when Savita, who was 17 weeks pregnant, was told her persistent back-pain was the start of a miscarriage, and unfortunately the baby could not be saved.

By the 23rd October Savita’s pain had increased significantly and she was taken into the hospital’s intensive care unit. The next day the foetus’ remains were surgically removed, but the mother’s condition worsened.

Savita died in the early morning of Sunday, October 28th. An autopsy carried out two days after her death found she had died from septicaemia. Three investigations into the matter have been launched in Eire.

The Mail reports that Halappanavar said he believed his wife, a Hindu and an Indian National, would have survived if she had been given the abortion she asked for. However, due to the strong influence of the teachings of the Catholic Church, the law on abortion in Eire could be described as existing in a state of limbo.

Abortion remains illegal in Ireland even though the Irish Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that the procedure should be legalised for situations when the woman’s life is at risk from continuing the pregnancy.

This landmark ruling was occasioned by the case of ‘X’, a suicidal 14-year-old rape victim, who was initially denied the right to leave Eire and seek an abortion in England.

Thus, Irish doctors have no legal guidelines regarding when termination can be considered lawful.

The Government in Dublin has not acted, even though a unanimous judgment by the European Court of Human Rights in 2010 said that when a woman’s life is at risk, Ireland’s failure to effect her constitutional right to a lawful abortion violates Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

However, the Irish government did establish a 14-member expert group in January 2012, to make recommendations based on the ruling from the European Court. The group is due to report back to the Minister for Health within weeks.

Approximately 4,000 Irish women travel to the UK for abortions each year, although such a journey is not feasible if the woman is gravely ill. In future, women who want an abortion, because their life is at risk or their health could be permanently affected, may not have to travel so far, as the first private abortion clinic has recently opened in Northern Ireland.

The Marie Stopes clinic in the province, which has stricter abortion laws than the rest of the UK, operates under the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945, which means an abortion can be permitted in exceptional circumstances.

Should abortion policy in Ireland concern the women of England, Wales and Scotland, whose rights to virtual abortion on demand are covered by the Abortion Act 1967?

Firstly, because the UK can provide abortions for Irish women who travel, this might mean that the Irish Government has a safety valve which could have contributed to their procrastination with regard to clarifying Ireland’s abortion laws.

Secondly, while states where abortion is severely restricted, such as Ireland, are not a majority in Europe, there is evidence that the anti-abortion lobby in the UK may be growing in influence.

For example, there has much debate recently regarding changing the time-limits for abortion. The time-limit currently stands at 24 weeks of gestation, under the UK Human Embryology and Human Fertilisation Act 1990. In October this year, as reported by the Daily Telegraph, Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, who is a committed Christian, said he would favour a reduction from 24 to 12 weeks.

He stated: “It is just my view about that incredibly difficult question about the moment that we should deem life to start.

“I don’t think the reason I have that view is for religious reasons.”

However, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) called the Health Secretary’s intervention ‘insulting to women’.

In the UK, approximately 91 per cent of abortions occur before 12 weeks gestation, and medical authorities worry that a 12-week limit would mean testing for conditions such as Down’s syndrome would be unable to continue, and that women would be pressured into making difficult decisions more quickly.

Clare Murphy, head of public policy for the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, commented: “What’s disconcerting about people like Jeremy Hunt is that they don’t seem to understand why women would need later services. These are often vulnerable women.

“They completely fail to engage with the reality of people’s lives and their take on science seems completely wrong.”

Although the Prime Minister, David Cameron, has said the Government has no plans for a vote on the matter, Hunt’s admission has encouraged some Conservative back-benchers, including members of the Parliamentary pro-life group, to push for a reduced time-limit, according to the Telegraph.

UK abortion law is clear that the health of the mother should be safeguarded, and this means tragic cases such as the one involving Savita Halappanavar in Eire are unlikely to occur in this country at present.

Although medical treatment for pre-term babies is improving, expert opinion tends to agree that infants born before 24 weeks are unlikely to survive. Therefore, it could be argued that it is important for women’s health that a separation remains, when deciding issues like abortion policy, between the scientific evidence and views that might be influenced by religious belief.

Original story:

The Telegraph

BBC

The Daily Mail

Mr Redfearn, a bus driver who transported adults and children with physical and mental difficulties around Bradford, was dismissed after being elected as a councillor in 2004.

Prior to the election, Redfearn had been nominated for a first-class employee award by his supervisor, but concerns were raised by fellow employees and trade union representatives following the poll.

As many of Mr Redfearn’s passengers were of Asian descent, there were worries that his membership of the BNP would make him the target of attacks and therefore put his passengers in danger.

As he had only been employed by Serco for six months, he had no claim for unfair dismissal; however he did lodge a racial discrimination claim at the employment tribunal.

The claim was rejected in 2005, but Mr Redfearn made a successful appeal which was then overturned by the Court of Appeals as it was found his claim wasn’t racial but political.

Unhappy with the decision, Mr Redfearn decided to go to the European Court of Human Rights, which recently ruled that authorities should have done more to protect his right to freedom of association.

In a narrow majority of four to three, judges said in the judgment: “The Court was struck by the fact that he was summarily dismissed following complaints about problems which had never actually occurred, without any apparent consideration being given to the possibility of transferring him to a non-customer facing role.

“A legal system which allowed dismissal from employment solely on account of an employee’s membership of a political party carried with it the potential for abuse and was therefore deficient.”

Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP, told The Independent: “This is a tremendous result not just for us but for everyone involved in any kind of politics or any kind of views outside the mainstream. He has opened the doors for a significant number of our people to pursue compensation claims.”
Only time will tell how many people come forward with claims after the decision, but it is an interesting one and does show that no matter what your political views are, as long as they are legal, you can’t be sacked for your political associations.

Have you ever been in trouble at work over your politics?

Original story:

The Independent

Channel 4 News reports that Health Minister, Norman Lamb, on the announcement of a consultation on the matter, said the Government was committed to protecting the founding principles of the NHS. He stated: “We are protecting its budget; we are strengthening this constitution, which enshrines the right of everyone to have first class care, now and in the future.”

There has been some recent media controversy about the ‘Liverpool Care pathway’, a methodology based on hospice care, which aims to ease the suffering of terminal patients through their last days, according to BBC News.

Developed at the Royal Liverpool University Hospital and the city’s Marie Curie hospice, the pathway has been backed by doctors and health charities. However, opponents say that it is inhumane because food and water are withdrawn from the patient. A principal criticism is that relatives are not always apprised of this fact.

Thus, the Department of Health (DoH) proposes that patients, together with their families and carers, should have the right to be involved in all discussions and decisions made about end-of-life care.

The BBC reports that, according to the DoH, anybody providing NHS services is required by law to take account of the NHS constitution in their decisions and actions.

The DoH, in an on-line statement, emphasises that all rights set out in the NHS Constitution are based on existing law. If patients are not accorded their rights, they are able to challenge the care-provider, which may include taking legal action. In some cases patients may be able to sue for damages against an NHS body; in other cases they could apply for a judicial review to challenge a decision.

Other proposed changes to the NHS constitution include:

• acknowledging complaints within three days and tightening up subsequent complaint procedures
• giving all patients the right to be accommodated in single-sex wards
• admitting any mistakes, and giving patients an explanation and apology, where necessary
• denying the right to NHS services to abusive and violent patients, if this can be safely accomplished

A sign of commitment to the NHS and its service users is bound to be welcome, particularly in this age of austerity. However, at the same time, it should be remembered that the Government’s recent Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act means that, henceforth, the vast majority of medical negligence claims will not be eligible for legal aid.

Original story:

Channel 4 News

BBC News

In the original claim last year, two former inmates argued that slopping out, or using a bucket for toilet purposes when locked in a cell and the later emptying of the bucket at a sluice, contravened their human rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention (ECHR).

Article 3 of the ECHR prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; Article 8 provides a right to respect for an individual’s private life, subject to restrictions in accordance with the law or restrictions necessary to a democratic society.

The two claimants had been held at Albany prison on the Isle of Wight, in the period between 2004 and 2011, in single-occupancy cells that did not have built-in sanitation. At night-time, when inmates were locked in their cells, the electronic system, which alerted staff they needed to use the toilet facilities outside the cell, broke down frequently.

If there were not enough staff to manually unlock the cell-doors, the inmates would have to use the buckets with lids provided. However, there would be an early opportunity to empty and clean the buckets outside the cell.

The claimants argued that using the bucket was humiliating for them; they also claimed that this degrading requirement meant that there was evidence of a lack of respect for their privacy, and that using a bucket in an allegedly small and poorly-ventilated cell could lead to health problems.

Last December at the High Court in London, Mr Justice Hickinbottom ruled that the human rights of Desmond Grant, 33, a convicted rapist, and Roger Cleaves, 77, a convicted paedophile, had not been breached, because ‘slopping out’ occurred only rarely, when the regime could not immediately respond to request from prisoners to be let out of their cells to use the toilets.

The prisoners did not have to relieve their bodily waste in front of others, so the act of using the buckets was private. The sluice area was well-equipped with cleaning articles and training in the cleaning of buckets was adequate. The judge also found that there was little risk to the health of the claimants.

The claims by the prisoners who had been held at Albany followed a decision in April 2004 from the Court of Session in Scotland, as reported by the Telegraph. A judge ruled that conditions at Barlinnie prison near Glasgow, where slopping out was practised regularly, had breached the rights of the plaintiff, armed robber Robert Napier, under Article 3.

In this case, Napier successfully argued that the practice of using the bucket while on remand had aggravated his eczema, and he was awarded £2,400 in compensation.

In London this week, Hugh Southey QC, for Grant, argued there had been recent developments regarding prison conditions in European case law, through the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and such developments should lead to the previous ruling in the Albany case being overturned.

For example, plaintiffs from Moldova and Russia had their cases regarding poor prison conditions upheld by ECtHR, but it might be said the conditions overall in those countries’ jails are far harsher than conditions in UK jails.

Additionally, in 2006 the Council of Europe approved a revision of the European Prison Rules, to reflect developments in penal policy, sentencing practice and prison management. These rules recommend certain standards as guidance for member states. For example, rule 19.3 states that: “Prisoners shall have ready access to sanitary facilities that are hygienic and respect privacy.”

However, the recommendations are not legally-binding.

Lord Justice Davis, sitting with Mr Justice Treacy, rebuffed Grant’s application in a robust manner, saying: “It is more or less unthinkable that an action of this kind could have troubled this court, even a few years ago.”

“But the European Convention on Human Rights has changed that.”

He added: “There is certain sensitivity to feelings of degradation attached to the status of being subject to forced incarceration.

“But that doesn’t mean that unreality needs to descend into this area.

“The use of a bucket in a cell as a backup to the other entirely adequate sanitary facilities available doesn’t even begin to constitute inhuman or degrading treatment.”

In this case, the judge appears to have reached a fair conclusion; although it is right and proper that the punishment of offenders should not include deliberate humiliation, incarceration should not be held to the same standards as ordinary life outside prison.

Although revenge is not the aim of incarceration and ‘two wrongs do not make a right’, we should remember perhaps, that the victims of some criminals, such as rapists or paedophiles, have suffered gross breaches of their own human rights.

At the present time, society might also baulk at footing the bill that would result from remodelling older prisons to include in-cell toilet facilities for all. If the appeal had been allowed, it is estimated it could have cost millions to update Albany jail alone.

Original story:

The Telegraph 2

The Daily Mail reports RKA claims she suffered discrimination, in terms of her employment rights, because she used a surrogate mother rather than carrying a child herself or adopting a baby.

RKA could not carry a child naturally due to a medical condition; consequently, the couple opted for IVF treatment with the viable embryos being implanted into a surrogate last year.

RKA’s employers told her that she would not be entitled to any statutory paid maternity leave to care for her new-born child. They did offer her a discretionary period of 52 weeks’ unpaid leave as a ‘goodwill gesture’, but this arrangement did not offer RKA any statutory employment protection.

The baby was born in January 2012, and RKA contacted her employers about returning to work in May. She was told that she was at risk of redundancy, and the dismissal was carried through in July 2012.

Having a child by a surrogate parent is not included as a ‘protected characteristic’ under the Equality Act 2010, which governs anti-discrimination employment law in England, Scotland and Wales.

Additionally, in order to qualify for statutory unpaid parental leave, a parent must be named on the child’s birth or adoption certificate, and have legal parental responsibility.

In the case of a child born to a surrogate, because of the application process, a parental order is usually only granted by the Family Proceedings Court several months after the baby is born.

RKA’s lawyer, Merry Varney from law firm Leigh Day & Co, said: “We believe the current equality act and employment rights act are not currently adequate for parents of children born via surrogacy.

“The Government has a positive obligation under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act to protect surrogate parents to ensure respect for their private and family life and a positive obligation under Article 14 to avoid discrimination.”

Surrogacy UK, a not-for-profit surrogacy support organisation, is bringing a separate but parallel legal action against the Government. The organisation wants a judicial review to change the law, so that mothers who have their baby through a surrogate can enjoy the same employment rights as other mothers.

The Mail reports that there are only about 140 surrogate births every year, and although those numbers may rise, surrogacy is still an uncommon, complicated and non-commercial transaction. It might be said it would behove the DWP to start making changes to include new mothers of surrogate-born children as a protected characteristic, to show the Government also supports these families.

Original story:

The Daily Mail