Originally published 6 December 2006. This article is retained from the tCI archive. Law, policy or practice may have changed since publication.
On Monday 4th December, the Disability Equality Duty came into force. It means that public bodies have to ensure the involvement of disabled people in many aspects of their work, and this will be codified in their Disability Equality Schemes. Civil Servants and Local Government Officers have spent much of this year preparing for this landmark date, and there is widespread goodwill towards the measure.
Few, however, would pretend that our institutions have been consistently good at engaging effectively with all disabled people. True, some have done better than others, but progressive critics have surely been right to bring this hit-and-miss approach to an end. In many ways, legislation was inevitable, and has been generally welcomed. But there is a downside. Remember when newly-created bodies such as NHS Trusts and Crime & Disorder Partnerships were given statutory duties to consult. Well-intentioned, no doubt; but when Managers start talking to their stakeholders because they have to, by law, rather than because they need to know the answers, there is always the danger of tokenism.
That danger applies to the DED as well. Going through formulaic dialogues with representative groups of disabled people won’t of itself achieve much. The point of the initiative after all is to improve the relevance and suitability of public services for people who face barriers and obstacles in their day-to-day lives. The only real test of effectiveness is whether these dialogues accomplish significant improvements.
The challenge, therefore, is for everyone involved to rise above the process requirements and focus on the content of those dialogues. Gathering people together for the purpose of discussing something that is ultimately trivial is not just a missed opportunity – it is a misuse of their time. In the next few months, public bodies need to lay the foundations for long-term relationships – and the best way of securing the commitment of disabled people is to demonstrate that the issues, upon which they will be consulted and involved in, really are important.
There is another danger – rising expectations. Those who have campaigned for the new laws naturally want them to make a difference. One cannot, however, always legislate for the intentions of senior Managers. When public participation was essentially at their discretion, there was an assumption that they wouldn’t bother unless they meant it. When it becomes a legal duty, the dynamic changes and with it comes the increased risk of just going through the motions. If this happens, disappointment will turn to disillusionment and damage the cause of dialogue as a whole.
The DED goes live just at the time when many other seldom-heard or hard-to-reach groups are also receiving more attention than before. It is all part of an overdue emphasis on inclusive participation. The recent Local Government White Paper confirms this as an important continuing objective.
It should therefore go with the grain of the times, and deserves true commitment. Trigger points
- Are you sufficiently prepared for the DED implementation? Have senior management bought into its implications?
- Look carefully at the agendas for forthcoming dialogues with disabled people; are the issues important and strategic?
- Consider deepening your understanding of forthcoming priorities by attending the Institute Seminar on the Local Government White Paper on January 11th in London. It is called the Implications for Consultation & Participation.
This is the 74th Tuesday Topic; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement