Welsh Government’s Framework for Action on Independent Living

Consultation Event, Coleshill Centre, Llanelli – 5 December 2012

Feedback from Group Discussion:

-  The Framework should make more of the cost/benefit analysis of actions to support independent living (suggestion that we should refer to Mike Oliver documents – find them on the internet)

-  A lot of public money is being wasted by not involving disabled people from the beginning in procurement and planning processes, and in measuring outcomes.

-  There was concern about Objective 3 funding going to organisations (e.g. Sustrans) to make decisions on behalf of disabled people. It was felt that these organisations treated this as a box-ticking exercise and were being paid to provide an inadequate service. There was little or no engagement with disabled people themselves.

-  Objective 1 funding was also available in the area and had been used to redevelop the main street in Carmarthen. However, the street was inaccessible for disabled people even though Obj 1 funding was meant to provide a better environment. It was felt that there was not enough accountability in place for public funding and that disabled people should be invited to test services before payment is made.

-  Disability is an issue that affects the whole population and actions to support independent living can benefit the whole population – mainstreaming should come through more strongly.

-  New disabled people’s organisations (especially Centres for Independent Living (CILs)) seem to be being forced down the ‘supporting delivery of Direct Payments’ route. There needs to be more clarity, focus and specific help to support the development of CILs.

-  Coleshill Centre was seen as a good example of a Centre for the local community, including disabled people, but as it was 51% owned and run by the local authority, it would not be recognised as a disabled people’s organisation. (Disabled people's organisations are those controlled by a majority (51%) of disabled people at board and membership levels). The long-term intention at Coleshill was to move from LA control.

-  There should be disability awareness training for people at Chief Executive level in all public sector organisations, and this should include experiencing getting around with an impairment e.g. in a wheelchair or with misted goggles.

-  There needs to be a co-ordinated planning process – design and access statements are not fit for purpose and ways can be found to circumvent them. When developments are queried (e.g. grey bollards on grey pavements) the LA says that this is aesthetically pleasing, without any regard for people with visual impairments. Could we have regulations requiring a disability access report with planning applications?

-  Access groups are not statutory consultees in the planning process. There was a feeling that they should be but also recognition that to fulfil this requirement satisfactorily, Access Group members would require training / qualifications. They could then work in partnership with public authorities for their mutual benefit.

-  Public authorities could learn a lot about quality assurance from the big retail giants, whose stores were far more accessible than public buildings.

-  Maintaining capacity in Access Groups in rural areas is a problem. Sometimes this was due to the unavailability or inaccessibility of public transport. A transport infrastructure was needed to support meaningful engagement.

-  There is not enough awareness of the Social Model of Disability; psychologists’ help is needed to get service providers and the general public to stop thinking along medical model lines when dealing with disabled people. There needs to be a change of mindset.

-  There is a need to step outside the medical model and be honest about what needs to be done so we can move towards it. Maybe public authorities could use disabled people to carry out audits of current structures (Carms People First had been doing some work along these lines)

-  Local authorities’ Scrutiny Committees (e.g. on transport, planning, housing) could invite Access Groups to discuss accessibility issues, and come up with action points to be addressed by the relevant departments.

-  There was a discussion about local authority Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) and Strategic Equality Plans (SEPs) both of which were required by regulations. Access Groups and other disabled people’s organisations had a role in challenging progress on SEPs and in engaging constructively with authorities to get things done.

-  EIAs are always carried out in Carms CC but disabled people are not always involved in the process, or are not consulted until the later stages. It was acknowledged that full EIAs are not always necessary but maybe there should be discussion between LAs and disabled people’s organisations about when they are necessary and when disabled people should be involved.

-  Does the Framework document focus minds on people with learning difficulties? While it was recognised that the document deliberately focuses on barriers to independent living, rather than specific impairments, It was felt that people with learning difficulties faced unique barriers that needed to be addressed explicitly.

-  The document was difficult to read and should be written in plain English – referring people who found it too dense to the Easy Read version was patronising.

1