Thursday, January 28, 2016

EPakistanNews.com

EPakistanNews.com

Link to EPakistanNews.com

Low Scale Earthquake hits Punjab cities

Posted: 26 Jan 2016 11:35 PM PST

Pakistan News, Earthquake News Updates in Punjab 2016 – A low scale earthquake hits Punjab cities on Wednesday 27th January 2016, E Pakistan News Reported. According to the initial reports, no...

For More Visit http://EPakistanNews.com

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Women's Views on News

Women's Views on News


Child First campaign launched

Posted: 26 Jan 2016 06:25 AM PST

Child first, domestic abuse, court cases, campaign launch, Women's AidThere is a misguided belief that, because a relationship has ended, so has the domestic abuse.

The national domestic abuse charity Women's Aid has launched a major new campaign, Child First which calls on the family courts and the Government to put the safety of children back at the heart of all decisions made by the family court judiciary.

Child First was launched alongside the report, Nineteen Child Homicides.

Nineteen Child Homicides reviewed relevant serious case reviews for England and Wales, published between January 2005 and August 2015.

It uncovered details of 19 children in 12 families who were killed by perpetrators of domestic abuse. All of the perpetrators were men and fathers to the children that they killed.

All of the perpetrators had access to their children through formal or informal child contact arrangements.

The report tells the stories of the cases of nineteen children, all intentionally killed by a parent who was also a known perpetrator of domestic abuse.

These killings were made possible through unsafe child contact arrangements, formal and informal.

Over half of these child contact arrangements were ordered through the courts.

Key statistics from Nineteen Child Homicides: 19 children killed from 12 families; 2 mothers killed, 2 children seriously harmed through attempted murder – and for 7 out of the 12 families, the contact had been ordered through court.

Polly Neate, chief executive of Women's Aid, said: "There is a misguided belief within the family courts and among judges that, because a relationship has ended, so has the domestic abuse.

"Survivors frequently report to us that they and their children are re-victimised and traumatised by their abusers, even after separation, through the family court process.

"This trauma makes it extremely difficult for the non-abusive parent to advocate clearly and effectively for the safety of their child.

"In the criminal courts, there are protection measures in place to give victims fair access to justice.

"This is not the case in the family courts. For example, it is common for victims of domestic abuse to be cross-examined by the perpetrator. This must end.

"The desire by the family courts to treat parents in exactly the same way, and get cases over with quickly, blinds them to the consequences of unsafe child contact.

"As the report Nineteen Child Homicides shows, these consequences can be fatal.

"The culture of, 'contact with the child, no matter what', must end.

"Less than 1 per cent of child contact applications are refused, but we know that domestic abuse features in around 70 per cent of CAFCASS caseloads, and in 70-90 per cent of cases going to the family courts.

"Clearly, the system is failing.

"The best interests of children should be the overriding principle of the family courts, but far too often this is simply not the case."

Women's Aid is urging the government and family courts to undertake two key recommendations made by the Nineteen Child Homicides report, in order to protect children and their non-abusive parent, and to stop any further avoidable child deaths.

These form the two campaign asks of Child First:

1) Further avoidable child deaths must be prevented by putting children first in the family courts – as the legal framework and guidance states.

Ensure that domestic abuse is identified and its impact fully considered by the family court judiciary.

Child contact arrangement orders must put the best interests of the child(ren) first and protect the well-being of the parent the child is living with, in accordance with 'Practice direction 12 J Child arrangements & Contact order: Domestic violence and harm'.

There is an urgent need for independent, national oversight into the implementation of Practice Direction 12J.

2) Make the family courts fit for purpose through the introduction of protection measures for survivors of domestic abuse

Ensure survivors of domestic abuse attending the family court have access to protection measures, similar to those available in criminal courts.

Survivors of domestic abuse should always have access to a separate waiting room or area, and judges must ensure there is time for the non-abusive parent to leave court safely before releasing the perpetrator.

For, as Lord Justice Wall, said in 2006; "It is, in my view, high time that the Family Justice System abandoned any reliance on the proposition that a man can have a history of violence to the mother of his children but, nonetheless, be a good father."

Claire Throssell, the mother of Jack and Paul, who were both killed by their father in 2014, said: "No parent should have to hold their children and comfort them as they die, or be told that their child has been harmed in an act of revenge or rage.

"Having experienced the family court judicial process and its protocols, the tragic outcome that occurred – whilst court proceedings were still ongoing – exposes flaws and malpractice within family law.

"All too often children's voices are not heard or acted upon.

"Attending court is an emotional, frightening and at times a traumatic experience which nobody decides to initiate lightly – but does so to protect their children's physical and emotional wellbeing."

To find out more about the campaign click here.

To download the report, click here.

To sign the Child First petition clcik here.

Legal aid: decision this week

Posted: 26 Jan 2016 06:05 AM PST

Rights of Woemn, new survery, legal aid, court of appeal,New data shows access to safety and justice is denied to the people the government sought to protect.

This month the Court of Appeal will decide whether to overturn a High Court ruling on the lawfulness of government changes to legal aid for domestic violence victims.

The hearing – on 28 January – comes a year after the High Court rejected a legal challenge from domestic violence charity Rights of Women over the lawfulness of new rules that require victims of domestic violence to provide a prescribed form of evidence in order to apply for family law legal aid.

But new data from Rights of Women shows that 40 per cent of victims still do not have the required forms of evidence to access legal aid.

This is despite amendments to the regulations being made in April 2014.

Law Society president Jonathan Smithers has expressed concern that some of the forms of evidence that are required are subject to a 24-month time limit even though perpetrators may remain a life-long threat to their victims.

'Legal aid is a lifeline for victims of abuse,’ he said.

'This new data shows that access to safety and justice is still being denied to the very people the government expressly sought to protect with its amendments to the regulations.

'The harsh tests requiring people to bring evidence to satisfy the broader statutory meaning of domestic violence are not what parliament intended.

'Legal aid is often the only way that those who suffer at the hands of abusers can bring their case before the courts.

'Without legal aid, women are unable to access family law remedies, which are vital in order to help them escape from violent relationships and protect their children.

'They are being forced to face their perpetrators in court without legal representation.'

The new rules on evidence criteria, introduced by the government as part of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, are preventing victims of domestic abuse from getting legal aid for family cases, even when it is clear there has been violence, or there is an ongoing risk of violence.

For the past three years, since the introduction of the domestic violence evidence criteria, Rights of Women has been monitoring the impact of the legal aid regulations on the ability of women affected by violence to access family law legal aid.

The latest survey findings show that women affected by violence who do not have the required forms of evidence are faced with stark choices: pay a solicitor privately, often causing them to get into debt; represent themselves and face their perpetrator in court; or do nothing and continue to be at risk of violence.

As a result, nearly half of the people the government expressly sought to protect from the removal of family law legal aid remain unprotected.

The statistics are stark: 1.2 million women experience domestic violence every year.

More than 50 per cent of women responding to the Rights of Women survey said that they took no legal action, as a direct result of not being eligible for legal aid.

The rules deny access to safety and justice to the very women the government sought to protect from the removal of family law from the scope of legal aid.

Summary of findings:

This report demonstrates that the domestic violence evidence criteria continues to prove a barrier to accessing family law legal aid for women affected by violence.

37 per cent of women responding to the survey who had experienced or were experiencing domestic violence did not have the prescribed forms of evidence to access family law legal aid;

23 per cent of women responding would have had one or more of the prescribed forms of evidence if the two-year time limit on those forms of evidence was not in place;

The most common form of evidence available to women is one that was introduced in April 2014: a referral to a domestic violence support organisation by a health professional (18 per cent);

The other most common forms of evidence include: evidence from a medical professional (16 per cent); evidence of a protective injunction (14 per cent); and evidence from social services (14 per cent);

71 per cent of respondents said it was difficult (37 per cent) or very difficult (35 per cent) to find a legal aid solicitor in their area;

34 per cent of respondents were having to travel between six and fifteen miles to find a legal aid solicitor. 23 per cent had to travel more than 15 miles;

53 per cent of respondents took no action in relation to their family law problem, as a result of not being able to apply for legal aid. 29 per cent paid a solicitor privately and 28 per cent represented themselves at court.

Emma Scott, director of Rights of Women, said: 'The government acknowledges that domestic violence is 'often hidden away behind closed doors, with the victim suffering in silence.

'More than three years on from the devastating cuts to legal aid and despite amendments to the rules, we know that those victims behind those doors do not have the required pieces of paper to prove they have experienced domestic violence.

'Our research has consistently shown that nearly half of women affected by domestic violence do not have the required forms of evidence to apply for family law legal aid and that more than half of those women tell us that they take no legal action as a result.

'This leaves them at risk of further violence and even death.

'We continue this legal action on behalf of those women in order to hold the government to account on their promise to make family law legal aid available to victims of domestic violence.'

Rights of Women is a registered charity that provides free legal advice to women and engages on a policy level concerning access to justice and violence against women issues.

It provides training on legal issues to statutory and third sector professionals, write legal publications designed to assist individual women, and those supporting them, through the law and provide three legal advice lines offering legal advice to women on immigration and asylum issues, sexual violence and criminal law, and family law (including domestic violence, divorce, contact disputes).

Rights of Women's advice lines are staffed by qualified practising women solicitors and barristers.

Rights of Women is supported by the Law Society.

A copy of the full report is available on the Rights of Women website: click here.

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

Women's Views on News

Women's Views on News


EU referendum is for people too

Posted: 25 Jan 2016 11:39 AM PST

Glenis Wilmott, MEP, LabourList, EU referendum, for working peopleWhen it comes down to it, this referendum is going to be about working people.

by Glenis Wilmott MEP.

All the talk this week is of David Cameron telling business leaders to step up, speak out and make the case for Britain remaining in the EU.

On this he's right, and more companies need to be vocal, saying out loud that we must remain in the European Union, and not let disruptive Eurosceptic campaigners bully them in to being silent or allow parts of the press to get away with misrepresenting their position – but it isn't just about business nor is it really about Mr Cameron.

The EU referendum is not about the future of the prime minister, but the future of millions of working people, and the jobs and rights our membership brings.

And in any case, the Tory leader's priorities are not Labour's priorities; the focus of our efforts in Europe are different to his.

Thankfully, some of the more damaging proposals originally floated for Cameron's proposed EU reforms no longer appear to be on the table – like weakening existing EU legislation on working rights, a move that would have undermined the direct benefits working people see from our EU membership.

Where are the proposals to end loopholes in working rights legislation that are used by exploitative employers to undercut terms and conditions?

Where is the action on zero-hours contracts?

Whatever David Cameron may be talking about, Labour MEPs continue to campaign and to legislate, week in, week out, to put Labour values at the heart of Europe.

Take this past week in the European Parliament, which saw Labour MEPs back proposals to improve British people's consumer, health and employment rights and enhance their opportunities.

In Strasbourg over the last few days, Labour MEPs have: voted for a new EU law that will raise safety standards for gas appliances like boilers, cookers and barbecues, cutting the risk of deadly poisoning; backed a plan of action to increase the skills of young people to raise their chance of finding a job; and supported calls for national governments to act to promote female entrepreneurship, which could boost the UK economy by £60 billion over the next 15 years.

We have also voted for tougher EU-wide limits on sugar in baby foods, campaigned for Europe's digital economy to be more inclusive, to ensure people in remote parts of Britain are not left behind and disconnected from the rollout of superfast broadband, and called for EU action to fight racism and discrimination to promote a stronger, more inclusive and tolerant society.

And on the floods and steel crises that have struck communities up and down the country, Labour MEPs have been pushing the Tory government to apply for EU funds to help those hit by the recent flooding, and to work with European colleagues to find a solution to the demise of the steel industry, which this week lost another thousand jobs in the UK.

Forget the prime ministerial political games, the machinations, the spin, damned spin and scaremongering of Farage and friends.

When it comes down to it, this referendum is going to be about working people.

The part-time checkout assistant who gets equal rights because we're in the EU; the factory worker for whom 'health and safety' isn't red tape but a matter of life and death; the workers in companies large and small whose businesses depend directly or indirectly on trade with Europe… for all these people, for all working people, there are no circumstances under which they would be better off outside the EU.

So while Cameron tries to rally support from the slopes of Davos, Labour is getting on with delivering the changes we want to see in Europe – progressive changes with Labour values at their heart.

We are doing it now and will carry on doing so – even after we have convinced the people that it is their interests – the British interest – to remain in the EU.

Glenis Wilmott MEP is Labour's Leader in Europe. A version of this article appeared on the LabourList website on 22 January 2016.

Open letter against allowance cut

Posted: 25 Jan 2016 04:01 AM PST

open letter, wor and welfare bill, house of lords, poverty, disabled people‘Urge the government not to create a step backwards for disabled people in our society’.

Ahead of a key vote on the Welfare Reform and Work Bill in the House of Lords, over 30 national charities, members of the Disability Benefits Consortium (DBC), signed an open letter to Iain Duncan Smith, the current Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, warning that the government's cut to the Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) will "push disabled people further away from work and closer to poverty."

The government has proposed a cut of £30 a week from new claims in the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG) of ESA.

The WRAG is specifically there to provide support for those people who are assessed as being unfit for work but able to undertake activities to help them move towards work.

Currently there are almost half a million sick and disabled people receiving this benefit.

The government has however suggested that sick and disabled people who get this benefit are being 'disincentivised' from finding work because of the £30 a week more they get compared to those on Job Seeker's Allowance.

However the Disability Benefits Consortium strongly disputes this claim and a recent survey in October 2015 of over 500 disabled people found the claim to be completely false:

Almost half (45 per cent) of respondents say that the cut would probably mean they would return to work later;

Just 1 per cent said the cut would motivate them to get a job sooner;

Almost 7 in 10 (69 per cent) say cuts to ESA will cause their health to suffer;

More than a quarter (28 per cent) say they sometimes can't afford to eat on the current amount they receive from ESA; and

40 per cent have become more isolated and less able to see friends or family after their ESA was withdrawn or reduced.

This warning came just two weeks after 150 disabled people from across the country visited Parliament to speak directly to their MPs about their concerns around the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, particularly the cut to ESA.

This Disability Benefits Consortium’s 'mass lobby' took place on 13 January and acted to show MPs the huge fears that exist amongst disabled people around their benefits.

One of those who met with his local MP at the lobby, Sam Jefferies, who has a learning disability and is on ESA WRAG, said: "I am really worried about benefits cuts.

"Only 6 per cent of people with a learning disability are currently in employment.

"This number scares me as I, like a lot of people with a learning disability, really want to get a job; however, it is really hard to get work if you have a learning disability.

"Benefits are important to me because the money helps me to stay independent, if it was cut I'm worried that I'd become isolated."

The Open Letter to Iain Duncan Smith reads:

Dear Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, we believe the Government's proposed cut to Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) will undermine its commitment to halve the disability employment gap, and push sick and disabled people further away from work and closer to poverty.

The Government committed to protecting disability benefits, but instead is pushing through a cut of £30 a week to new claimants in the Work Related Activity Group of ESA.

These are sick and disabled people who have been found currently unable to work.

The Government says this £30 disincentivises sick and disabled people from finding work, but it has so far offered no evidence for this claim.

In fact a recent independent Review showed the opposite is true: that this cut will make it harder for disabled people to find work.

Almost 70 per cent of sick and disabled people we surveyed say this cut to ESA would cause their health to suffer and just under half said they would not be able to return to work so quickly.

We call on the Government to listen to the damaging effect this will have on the lives of sick and disabled people and immediately halt this cut.

It has been signed by:
1. Lord Low of Dalston CBE; 2. Baroness Grey-Thompson DBE; 3. Baroness Meacher; 4. Jan Tregelles, Chief Executive of Mencap; 5. Steve Ford, Chief Executive of Parkinson's UK; 6. Michelle Mitchell OBE, Chief Executive of the MS Society; 7. Lesley-Anne Alexander CBE, Chief Executive of RNIB; 8. Mark Lever, Chief Executive of the National Autistic Society; 9. Mark Winstanley, Chief Executive of Rethink Mental Illness; 10. Paul Farmer CBE, Chief Executive of Mind; 11. Lynda Thomas, Chief Executive of Macmillan Cancer Support; 12. Liz Sayce, Chief Executive of Disability Rights UK; 13. Heléna Herklots, Chief Executive of Carers UK; 14. Gillian Morbey OBE, Chief Executive of Sense; 15. Richard Leaman CB OBE, Chief Executive of Guide Dogs; 16. Paul Breckell, Chief Executive of Action on Hearing Loss; 17. Alison Garnham, Chief Executive of Child Poverty Action Group; 18. Amanda Batten, Chief Executive of Contact a Family; 19. Deborah Gold, Chief Executive of National AIDS Trust; 20. Jackie Morton, Chief Executive of Terrence Higgins Trust; 21. Carol Boys, Chief Executive of Down's Syndrome Association; 22. Jeff Skipp, Chief Executive of Deafblind UK; 23. Sonya Chowdhury, Chief Executive of Action for M.E.; 24. Dr Adrian James, Registrar of the Royal College of Psychiatrists; 25. Philip Lee, Chief Executive of Epilepsy Action; 26. David Barker, Chief Executive of Crohn's & Colitis UK; 27. Debbie Cook, Chief Executive of National Ankylosing Spondylitis Society; 28. Stephen Fisher, Chair of RSI Action; 29. Paul Lenihan MBE, Chief Executive of Action Duchenne; 30. Dave Webber, Chief Executive of Livability; 31. Chris Simmonds, Chief Executive of Revitalise; 32. Tanya Marlow, founder of Compassionate Britain; 33. Peter Corbett, Chief Executive of Thomas Pocklington Trust; 34. Theresa Shearer, Chief Executive of ENABLE Scotland; 35. Teresa Catto-Smith, founder of Autism in Scotland; 36. Billy Watson, Chief Executive of Scottish Association for Mental Health; and 37. Ian Welsh, Chief Executive of Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland.

And research from Mencap, a co-chair of the Disability Benefits Consortium, a national coalition of over 60 different charities and other organisations committed to working towards a fair benefits system, has revealed the extent to which the public are against the government's cuts to welfare and the effect this will have on disabled people.

A poll of over 2,000 UK adult members of the general public revealed that:

71 per cent of people think cuts to welfare will make the UK a worse place for disabled people to live; and

Just 6 per cent thought the Welfare Reform and Work Bill would make the UK a better place for disabled people.

Jan Tregelles, Chief Executive of Mencap, said: "Not only are disabled people telling us loud and clear that this cut to ESA will make their lives harder, with both their health and chances of returning to work being harmed, we also see how the general public are deeply concerned with these cuts.

"The fact that just 6 per cent of people believe the Welfare Reform and Work Bill will make the UK a better place for disabled people shows the need for the government to reassess its benefits reforms.

"Disabled people have told us of the vital role support from benefits like ESA plays in their lives, and the fact that so many say that taking this support away would leave them isolated from their communities, closer to poverty and further from work should be enough to make the government listen – especially when this cut directly contradicts its noble desire to halve the disability employment gap.

"Ahead of this key vote in the House of Lords we ask Peers to listen to disabled people's deep concerns, and urge the government not to create a step backwards for disabled people in our society."

Monday, January 25, 2016

A DONATION FOR YOU.

Dear Beneficiary,
This is to inform you personally that i the founder of facebook.Mark.E.Zuckerberg and my loving dear wife.Priscilla Chan voluntarily donate the sum of 1.Million Euros to you as our pledge to our new born baby that we will give to charity 99% of our facebook profit and we quote "We are committed to doing our small part to help create this world for all children",this is part of our charitable foundation name Chan Zuckerberg Initiative which focuses on health and education.
You can read more of this on my facebook page and (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg)

As philanthropists our aim is to improve the lives of people around the world and help the less privilege by founding education and health research programs.We hope that this kind gesture of cash gift will go along way in helping you archive your dreams and we plead that you touch the lives of people around you by giving to charity in your community.

NOTE:GIVERS NEVER LACK.

If you are reading this mail which is directly from us then you are one of the 5 lucky unknown beneficiaries of our donation gift and all you have to do is to contact our family advocate in the person of Carlos.Adan with this below informations and this secret code (MZ-34/PC-05) as your proof of been awarded this cash benefit by mailing him through his special email address (carlos.adan@aim.com) so that he can process your fund for disbursement.

1).Full Names:
2).Resident Address:
3).Telephone Number/Country Code:
4).Secret Code:

Please we don't want you to rejoice over this great offer and let lose this informations to the general public,
because people will take advantage of this and rush to have a share in the charity offer by sending us emails and possibly trying to contact our lawyer too,as we wish you a great fortune and hope that you will be kind enough to give a little to charity and your community and help the poor.

Best Wishes,
Mark.E.Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan.
chanzuckerberg.initiative@gmail.com

Saturday, January 23, 2016

Women's Views on News

Women's Views on News


Calls for more adequate civil rights safeguards

Posted: 22 Jan 2016 10:27 AM PST

Liberty, David Miranda, Edward Snowdon, freedom of the press, Schedule 7, Article 10, Laura Poitras, Court of AppealAdequate safeguards to stop laws being used arbitrarily against journalists are needed.

The recent appeal court ruling that Schedule 7 incompatible with Article 10 of Human Rights Act has been claimed as a victory for press freedom, but other questions are still open.

The Court of Appeal has ruled that the power to stop, search, detain, question and seize documents from anyone travelling through a UK airport under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000  is incompatible with Article 10 of the Human Rights Act.

In a landmark judgment regarding David Miranda's 2013 detention at Heathrow Airport, the Court of Appeal found that Schedule 7 is not subject to adequate safeguards to stop it being used arbitrarily against journalists.

This was one argument put forward by human rights organisation Liberty in its intervention in this case.

The background to this is the detention of David Miranda for nine hours by police at Heathrow Airport in August 2013.

He was on his way back to Rio de Janeiro after meeting filmmaker Laura Poitras – director of Oscar-winning documentary Citizenfour – in Berlin.

Miranda was helping the work of journalist Glenn Greenwald, who had recently written several stories about Edward Snowden’s revelations on surveillance for The Guardian.

He was questioned under Schedule 7 and freed only when officers reached the legal time limit for either arresting or releasing him.

His electronic equipment – which included a hard drive carrying encrypted journalistic material derived from Edward Snowden – was confiscated, and he was questioned for long periods without a lawyer present.

Under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, officers – police, immigration or customs – can detain an individual and question them for up to six hours; they may search the individual, or any of their belongings, and may retain those belongings for as long as they may be needed as evidence. And it is a criminal offence if the person detained fails to answer questions, or obstructs the exercise of the functions under the Act.

In its intervention, Liberty argued that Schedule 7 is unlawful because it is not subject to sufficient legal safeguards to prevent it from being used arbitrarily against journalists and in such a way that it interferes unjustifiably with the fundamental right to freedom of expression.

And in his judgment – with which Lord Justice Richards and Lord Justice Floyd agreed – in Paragraph 113 Lord Dyson stated that: 'If journalists and their sources can have no expectation of confidentiality, they may decide against providing information on sensitive matters of public interest.

‘That is why the confidentiality of such information is so important.'

'In disagreement with the Divisional Court, I would declare that the stop power conferred by para 2(1) of Schedule 7 is incompatible with article 10 of the Convention in relation to journalistic material in that it is not subject to adequate safeguards against its arbitrary exercise and I would, therefore, allow the appeal in relation to that issue.’

And in Paragraph 119 he said ‘It will be for Parliament to provide such protection.'

'The most obvious safeguard would be some form of judicial or other independent and impartial scrutiny conducted in such a way as to protect the confidentiality in the material,' that Paragraph continued.

Liberty has long argued that Schedule 7 is an over broad and intrusive power.

It can be exercised without the need for any grounds for suspecting the person stopped has any involvement in terrorism, or any other criminal activity and contains no protection for journalists or their sources.

But the Court of Appeal does not have the power, under the Human Rights Act, to change the Schedule 7 power. Instead, it has issued a ‘declaration of incompatibility’, which leaves it to Parliament to decide how to change the law so that it is compatible with Article 10.

Rosie Brighouse, Legal Officer for Liberty, said: "This judgment is a major victory for the free press.

“Schedule 7 has been a blot on our legal landscape for years – breathtakingly broad and intrusive, ripe for discrimination, routinely misused. Its repeal is long overdue.

"It is also a timely reminder of how crucial the Human Rights Act is for protecting journalists' rights.

"Once again it [the Human Rights Act] has come to the rescue of press freedom in the face of arbitrary abuse of power by the State."

Liberty is raising similar concerns regarding the lack of proper safeguards for journalists in the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill, currently before Parliament.

Liberty says the Draft Bill legislates for indiscriminate mass surveillance against the whole population which will include the collection of confidential material by journalists.

The Draft Bill also, Liberty says, provides broad powers for the State to intercept and hack individuals' communications.

Liberty is concerned that targeted and 'thematic' warrants, interception and hacking warrants can be issued by the Secretary of State – and by chief constables in respect of hacking – subject only to a weak review process undertaken by a Judicial Commissioner; and that the Draft Bill allows access to journalists' communications data to be self-authorised by a large number of public bodies, again subject only to a weak model of judicial confirmation.

And given theses issues, Liberty is calling for judicial warrants for all surveillance applications.

Liberty is also calling for additional safeguards so that warrants are only issued in respect of surveillance that targets confidential journalistic material where:
a) there are reasonable grounds for believing an indictable offence has been committed;
b) surveillance is likely to yield material of substantial value; and, other methods of obtaining the material have been tried or are bound to fail; and
c) a judge is convinced that it is in the public interest to grant access to the application.

To read Liberty’s written evidence on the Draft Bill click here.

Fight work-related cancer

Posted: 22 Jan 2016 10:02 AM PST

ETUC, Dutch presidency EU, focus on work-related cancersEvery work-related cancer is avoidable. All exposures are preventable.

Occupational cancer is the biggest work-related cause of death in the European Union (EU). And occupational carcinogens pose a threat to 1 in 5 workers.

To put this in perspective, for every one worker who dies from a work injury, about 20 workers are dying from a work-related cancer.

This means that about 100,000 workers or retired workers in the EU are dying every year from a work-related cancer.

Hazardous substances continue to be found in the workplace and pose a risk for future disease, although many occupationally-related cancers result from exposures to hazardous agents decades ago.

Some substances such as silica and diesel engine exhaust are process-generated, while other work-related cancer risks arise from the way that work is organised – for example night work.

Also, new substances like synthetic nano-particles are introduced in many production processes.

The burden of work-related cancers is also a threat for the coming generations; for example children of workers exposed to certain substances like endocrine disruptors are at higher risk of cancer.

All exposures are preventable.

Trade unions in Europe have as a target the elimination of occupational cancer. Trade union safety reps and health and safety committees play a crucial role in pushing for this.

At workplaces trade unions are demanding that dangerous substances and processes are eliminated or substituted with less dangerous ones.

And trade unions are seeking to improve work organisation in order to avoid or minimise exposures to night and shift work.

To reinforce this work trade unions are calling for improvements to the legislative framework at EU level and are seizing the opportunity created by the initiative of the Dutch Presidency.

EU legislation is a key instrument because it establishes common minimum requirements for all 28 EU countries. It creates a common playing field avoiding competition between employers of the different EU countries at the cost of workers' lives.

The ETUC has six demands in the field of safety, health and welfare at work, for the upcoming Dutch Presidency of the European Union.

1. At EU level, the legislation protecting workers against work related cancers needs to be revised as a matter of urgency.

The basic legal provisions were adopted in 1990 in the Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive.

At that time, it was certainly a positive step forward. However that Directive contains binding occupational exposure limit values (BOELVs) for only three substances. 25 years later there are many gaps.

In real life, workers are exposed to hundreds of different substances. Millions of workers in Europe are exposed to dangerous cocktails of three or more different substances. Binding limit values are one of the essential tools for minimising the exposure levels.

The ETUC has identified a list of 50+ priority substances for which a limit value has to be included in the Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive.

We are calling for the Dutch Presidency to ensure that their work programme will update the Directive to include these 50+ priority substances.

2. Workers who have been exposed to carcinogens should be entitled to medical surveillance. It helps to detect as soon as possible a cancer and it may save lives to have rapid treatment at the very beginning of the disease.

At present EU legislation entitles workers to health surveillance only for the time during which they are exposed. This is insufficient. A cancer may occur dozens of years after the exposure stopped.

The ETUC is calling for the Dutch Presidency to ensure that the Directive is up-dated to provide that workers who have been exposed to carcinogens, mutagens and reprotoxic substances or processes should be entitled to a regular health surveillance after, as well as during, their employment period.

3. Endocrine disruptors are also a cause of cancers (in particular breast cancers or prostate cancers).

The EU commission had a duty under EU Legislation to provide a definition of endocrine disruptors before the end of 2013 in order to allow a correct implementation of several pieces of legislation relative to pesticides and biocides. Under pressure from employers and manufacturers, the EU Commission did not fulfil its obligation.

We want the Commission to adopt, before the end of 2016, the definition of endocrine disruptors on the basis of scientific evidence.

4. Some other pieces of legislation have to be adopted or improved in order to win the battle against work related cancers.

Sun radiation has to be included in the scope of application of the directive on artificial optical radiations because it would prevent many skin cancers among workers in sectors like construction or agriculture.

The long-term effects of electronic fields should be considered in the specific legislation on that issue.

The rules should also limit night work which is a cause of breast cancer.

We are calling on the Dutch Presidency to set out a road map of how these essential missing elements will be dealt with.

5. Tens of millions of tonnes of asbestos, the biggest cause of workplace cancer, are still in place in workplaces across Europe, and although there is a ban on the importation or use of asbestos there is no plan to eradicate that which is in place.

As a result millions of workers are still being exposed to asbestos every year.

We are calling on the Commission to ensure that Member States have in place a national plan for the safe removal and disposal of all asbestos in Europe.

6. Social dialogue between employers and unions is one of the most important ways of ensuring the protection of workers and should be encouraged by governments and the European Commission.

The union representing hairdressers in Europe has concluded an agreement with the representative group of employers for a better health and safety framework in their occupation.This agreement would contribute to avoiding cancers among hairdressers.

Both sides of industry want the EU to implement it through a binding directive and we are calling on the EU Commission to stop stalling and take the steps to make the Hairdressers Agreement a binding Directive

What can you do now?

At national level, affiliates and trade unions are asked to:

Contact their Ministry of Employment in order to get their governments support for the updating of the Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive and to urge support for a stronger enforcement of existing legislation. To be effective this contact needs to be made in January 2016;

Contact the Embassy and Consulates of the Netherlands in your country and arrange to meet and outline the trade union demands;

Contact your MEPs in order to get their support too and, importantly, make them aware that our lives are more precious than lobbies' interests;

Keep the ETUC Health and Safety Committee informed about your actions and what feedback you are getting;

Include articles on work-related cancer and how unions are campaigning for improvements in union newsletters and magazines; and

Use digital media to inform your networks and raise awareness about this ETUC action for improvement to the Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive using #zerocancer.

Meanwhile, ensure that you continue to raise the issue with employers to ensure that they take practical levels to remove all carcinogens from the workplace or, where that is not possible, prevent any exposure.

Every work-related cancer is avoidable.

Trade Union action may make the difference. We know from research that workplaces are safer when they have trade union-led health and safety committees.

To can find more information about the issues at stake and the type of jobs that have a high risk of occupational cancer see the ETUC Health and Safety Committee ETUI guide; the Takala report;  Risctox; or the TU list of priority substances.

Trade unions throughout Europe support the initiative of the Dutch Presidency to update the EU Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive.

We need to act now to ensure that the discussions lead to the type of changes that will protect workers from work related cancer in all industries, occupations and countries in Europe.