Written evidence from Inclusion London [NDS0030]

About Inclusion London

1. Inclusion London welcomes this opportunity to submit our evidence to this inquiry. IL is a London-wide user-led organisation which promotes equality for London’s Deaf and Disabled people and provides capacity-building support for over 70 Deaf and Disabled People’s Organisations (DDPOs) in London. Through these organisations, our reach extends to over 70,000 Disabled Londoners.   

Summary

• Despite claiming to have carried out the biggest engagement exercise with disabled people during the development of the National Disability Strategy, the government failed to meaningfully engage and involved disabled people and our organisations.
• DPOs often felt excluded and marginalised, as if the engagement that took place was actively designed to undermine our ability to meaningfully input and influence NDS.  This was in breach of the UK’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled People.
• The lack of engagement with DPOs is a sharp contrast with the engagement with disability charities, to whom the government actively reach out, shared information and had regular meetings.  This demonstrates how disabled people are still spoken on behalf of and the discrimination we face in having our voices heard.
• The lack of strategic engagement with disabled people and our representative organisations meant that the strategy that was developed is not transformative and ambitious.  It does not address structural causes of our inequality. 

Development of the National Disability Strategy

2. 2019 Conservative Party election manifesto promised a strategy developed together with disabled people and their organisations. The existing strategy is not radical or transformative and disabled people did not have a meaningful input into policy solutions included in the strategy.
3. We believe the lack of transformative vision in the strategy is a result of deliberate non-engagement with disabled people and our organisations. As a leading DPO in London we have been calling on the government from early on to engage with DPOs.  In spring 2020 we found out that the engagement would happen through Regional Stakeholder Networks, DPO forum, Series of Roadshows and separate engagement with Disability Charities Consortium[1].  We then were invited to take part in the DPO forum which was established by the government. Despite negative previous experience of engagement, we were prepared to work with the government, but we quicky realised the engagement was not strategic at all.
4. We believe despite the government calling their so called consultation “the biggest engagement exercise in history”, the methods used, the stakeholders they engaged with and the way this engagement was taken into account demonstrates dismissive, patronising and discriminatory approach to DPOs which probably was actively designed to prevent our “intelligent consideration and response” required by the second Gunning principle of lawful and fair consultation.
5. There was no open call for Disabled people, DPOs and others to share their vision with the government for NDS, instead the government handpicked organisations and individuals to engage with, even then the discussions were so broad that it was almost impossible to discuss general or more specific policy solutions, no information was shared on the government’s initial thinking or what will be included in the strategy. 

DPO forum

6. DPO forum was established in July 2020 and closed in October 2020. Further two meetings were cancelled and then after our attempts to clarify the situation DPOs were told that the Disability Unit was reviewing the forum. It never met again and later on DPOs involved in the forum established the forum independent from the government.  We found three meetings we had attended deeply frustrating and unsatisfactory.  Those meetings cannot be seen as a meaningful consultation.  At no point have we received any written information about the NDS or how the government plans to engage disabled people and DPOs in its development, despite assurances from the Disability Unit that they would do so and despite us repeatedly requesting this in writing and at the DPO forum meetings over late summer and autumn.  We only have received a couple of brief verbal NDS updates at DPO forum meetings but without any written information these updates have been totally inadequate as a way of enabling DPOs to engage.  The meetings we did have were very general and it felt like we operated in the dark in total policy vacuum.  When we raised issues related to independent living or financial support, we were quickly told that those will not be covered by the strategy. Those meetings did not give us any meaningful chance to feed into strategy. 
7. We have consistently requested that the DPO forum is organised and planned in a way that would facilitate DPOs strategic engagement in the NDS, such as a work plan, thematic discussions on priority issues identified by form members, discussing and coproducing solutions.  We also had to request basic improvements to the forum like minutes being taken which has not happened. We were not informed about the timeline for the strategy development.
8. After the forum meetings were cancelled the Disability Unit continued some engagement with some members of the forum. We were not part of that group. We were not kept informed about further developments of the strategy, with the exception of emails promoting the survey.  We found out about further developments either through ministerial statements or other general publicity.
9. It is hard to judge whether this was part of the intention or due to the lack of competence.  Either way we believe this was a huge lost opportunity and those meetings in no way can be presented as meaningful engagement.

Regional Stakeholder Networks

10. Another mechanism which the government set up to enable engagement with disabled people and DPOs is Regional Stakeholder Networks, the purpose of which was to reach and hear the voices of disabled people and their organisations in the regions[2].  We believe setting this infrastructure up was not necessary.  There were and still are existing DPOs in the regions and rather than creating something new, it made much more sense to develop and invest in existing structures.  For example, we as a second tier DPO in London do a lot of work to identify DPOs in London, we know this sector well, we work to build its capacity and facilitate engagement opportunities.  Not all DPOs we work with knew about the regional network or were engaged in it.
11. The networks that were established were not DPO led and some even not led by Disabled people[3]. As far as we know, the Disability Unit had at least twelve meetings with regional stakeholder network chairs, however, only two chairs were representatives from DPOs and not all were even Disabled people. 
12. Each network in the region was supposed to bring the voices of Disabled people and their organisations together, as far as we know, five out of nine have not met by September 2020, the other 2 only had their first meeting in September 2020.  Moreover in September 2020 the Disability Unit was forced to admit that they have not seen the minutes from the network meetings that took place[4].  In these circumstances it is difficult to make out how feedback from regional stakeholder network chairs was informed by voices of their local community and how the feedback from those network meetings was taken into account.

The survey

13. We were surprised and outraged when we received an email from Disability Unit about the survey.  At no point was this survey discussed with DPO forum, which did not make sense, as our expertise of engaging with disabled people could have been extremely useful.
14. The survey was branded as a consultation[5], but it Is still very unclear to what extend did this survey inform the Strategy.  It appears it was carried out when key policies in the strategy were already largely developed[6]. The purpose and the timeline was confusing. The email we received from DU said:

“ The survey will be open until 23 April 2021. Responses received before 13 February 2021 will inform the development of the National Strategy, while those received after this date used to inform its delivery”.

15. We have raised concerns about the deadline, the structure, partial inaccessibility and the questions used in the survey.  This survey could be only seen as a data collection exercise, not as the main way for disabled people to inform the strategy.
16. Although the survey was available in alternative formats, it was impossible for example to fill in the easy read version online.  The government made an impression that they could not make this happen because of the timeline, however, those timelines were self-imposed and as an organisation that does surveys in easy read, we can say it is relatively easy and quick to do.  People with learning difficulties therefore had to have a printer, print out, fill in and post the survey to at the time of the national lockdown.  This was not at all practical.
17. The survey questions were mainly a multiple choice, the space form other comments, open suggestions was very limited.  Members of our staff who filled in the survey report that the character limit for answers did not allow to meaningfully answer the questions about what needs to change.  Some questions were derogatory, for example a question asking non-Disabled people if they would have a relationship with a Disabled person. The survey did not give Disabled people the opportunity to describe the barriers they face and suggest their solutions.
18. The survey did not cover experiences of Disabled people living in institutional settings.  It was for individuals and the was no opportunity for organisations who were not involved in Regional Stakeholder Networks or DPO forum to feed into the development of NDS.

Engagement with Disability Charities

19. There is a stark contrast in how the government handled engagement with disability charities as opposed to DPOs. They proactively reached out to charities early on, gave them at least some information about their thinking, set up regular meetings. When DPOs had to persuade the government to engage, did not have regular meetings and were kept relatively in the dark about the development of NDS.
20. The Minister and the Disability Unit had regular engagement with Disability Charities Consortium. – a group of 10 biggest disability charities.  As far as we are aware, The Unit proactively reached out to them in January 2020, gave outline of what will be included in the strategy and DCC had at least 12 meetings with Disability Unit  specifically about the strategy. 
21. It is important to note that those charities provide services to Disabled people, they are not led by disabled people, Disabled people have little control over their policy positions, resources or direction most of their leadership team are non-disabled people.  As DPOs we think charities cannot speak on our behalf without our permission. 
22. It would not be at all acceptable in any other equality group context for the government to dedicate the majority of time and resource to consulting with organisations and individuals who are not part of that equality group themselves.  However this is exactly what in our view has happened when the National Disability Strategy was developed.  This again shines a light on deeply rooted and profound discrimination we face as disabled people in having our voices heard.
23. A situation where the government has regular engagement with charities for disabled people and very sporadic and ad hoc engagement with DPOs is a breach of the UK’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities[7]. 

How will the National Disability Strategy help disabled people to enjoy equal living standards and life opportunities to those without disabilities?

24. The government’s own analyses of responses to NDS survey show that only 5% of disabled respondents think the government provides adequate support to disabled people, 82% said they don’t think disabled people have enough financial support to meet their needs, nearly halve reported having some difficulty getting in and out of their home and more than 60% - difficulty accessing the community[8]. Disabled people make up 20% of our population with many more people becoming disabled as a result of long Covid. A truly transformative strategy should be e of key part of the governments ‘levelling up’ agenda.
25. We think the document published on the 28 July 2021 does not address key problems, does not reflect the issues and priorities of disabled people and was not developed with Disabled people organisations. From the point of view of disabled people we represent this document is a lost opportunity to strategically address key problems faced by disabled people. There has not been a disability strategy since 2011 Fulfilling Potential. The strategy that was published is effectively a collection of policies that the government departments were planning to do anyway, some of which are welcome, but those could not be called strategic or transformative.  Moreover, analysis shows that of the £1.6 billion the prime minister said would support the reforms, only £3.95 million had not previously been announced[9]. 
26. Disabled people experienced the greatest impact of austerity,[10] they continue to have discrimination, exclusion and marginalisation on daily basis.  Many live in poverty and are being hit by the cost of living crises[11].  To radically change our lives the strategy needs to incorporate and implement the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

What progress has been made on the strategy so far? How quickly can some of the short-term goals be met?

27. Although we are unable to monitor every commitment and action included in the strategy, we see that the government departments are already not on track with implementing what they said they would do.
28. For example, the government departments are already late on some important commitments:

• To act on disability hate crime, as part of a new government crime and disorder strategy that would be published in 2021.
• To confirm plans to improve the framework to deliver accessible new homes by December 2021. We are extremely concerned by this delay, as the government investing in new guilt homes, but there is no requirement to make at least some proportion of those accessible and make all of them adaptable.in the context when 400.000 Disabled people live in inaccessible accommodation[12].
• The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) to publish proposals “by the end of 2021” to “ensure that every disabled person who wants to start a business has the opportunity to do so”. Again, these proposals have not yet been published.
• The strategy promised an awareness raising campaign aimed at changing attitudes towards disabled people.  We had no information about it either.

29. It is our understanding that some policies int eh strategy have been paused because of the High Court decision[13].  We are not yet clear which policies are still being implemented.  We believe pausing policies is unnecessary.  The government could have regarded the High Court decision as the opportunity to start from scratch, focuse resources on real engagement and develop a strategy that addresses priority issues for disabled people and delivers a long-term change.

How effectively is the Government communicating with disabled people and involving them in the implementation and further development of the strategy?

30. As outlined above, we believe the government failed completely to meaningfully engage with disabled people and our organisations when developing NDS.  We believe this failure is a manifestation of how disabled people still face significant marginalisation and discrimination in having our voices heard.  The government prefers engagement with non-disabled people led charities, which only reinforces the idea that Disabled people cannot speak for themselves. 
31. It may sometimes be difficult to engage with Deaf and Disabled peoples Organisations, this is because over the last 12 years many lost resources and capacity.  DPOs are struggling to survive and often need extra capacity and support to engage meaningfully in policy development[14] and unlike charities DPOs are constantly have to fight and challenge just to have those opportunities to engage.  This situation not only breaches UK obligations under the UN Conventions on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities it also a missed opportunity to develop solutions that truly work.  There are historic[15] examples and the work happening at regional and local level[16] which shows that meaningful strategic engagement with DPOs can lead to real change.

Current engagement between DPOs and the Disability Unit

32. The government was not proactively engaging with DPOs, however the DPO Forum England has on several occasions written to the Minister for disabled people calling on a reset of engagement and for her to set up an effective strategic mechanism. Since May 2022 there is regular communication and regular meetings and communication and meetings between the DPO Forum England representatives and the Disability Unit staff.  There has been two meetings with the Minister for Disabled people and she has committed to having regular meetings with DPOs.  We will monitor how this engagement will progress and whether it will be strategic and focused on priorities set by DPOs.
33.  

What progress has been made on the Disability Unit’s review into the way the Government engages with disabled people?

34. As far as we are aware, the review has been paused.  Inclusion London took part in several meetings about designing the review. We have not heard about any progress since February 2022.

How compatible is the National Disability Strategy with the UK’s treaty obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities?

35. It is our view that to comply and move the UK forward in implementing its international obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities the strategy should have been based on the rights guaranteed by the Convention, it should have incorporated those rights and implemented Concluding Observations issued by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 
36. Inclusion London’s research on the compliance with the UNCRPD shows significant retrogression in many rights compared to 2017[17].
37. The development of the strategy also breached in our view UK’s obligations under the UNCRPD.  Which in article 4.3 says:

In the development and implementation of legislation and policies to implement the present Convention, and in other decision-making processes concerning issues relating to persons with disabilities, States Parties shall closely consult with and actively involve persons with disabilities, including children with disabilities, through their representative organizations.

38. The UN Disability Committee issued General Comment No7[18] to clarify this provision in the UNCRDP, which gives a definition of representative organisation:

“Organizations of persons with disabilities should be rooted, committed to and fully respect the principles and rights recognized in the Convention. They can only be those that are led, directed and governed by persons with disabilities. A clear majority of their membership should be recruited among persons with disabilities themselves.

It further clarifies that:

“To implement their obligations under article 4 (3), States parties should include the obligation to closely consult and actively involve persons with disabilities, through their own organizations, in legal and regulatory frameworks and procedures across all levels and branches of Government. States parties should also consider consultations with and the involvement of persons with disabilities as a mandatory step prior to the approval of laws, regulations and policies, whether mainstream or disability specific. Therefore, consultations should begin in the early stages and provide an input to the final product in all decision-making processes. Consultations should include organizations representing the wide diversity of persons with disabilities, at the local, national, regional and international levels”.

39. Our experience and the experience of other DPOs  with the development of the NDS shows that the government breached its obligation under article 4.3 of UNCRPD.

July 2022