An important data that emerged from this study with regard to the consultations for the Southwark DES was the way the Council used the process to engage with equality and diversity in the context of the participatory rights of persons with disabilities. Diversity here refers not only to the involvement of persons without a disability but also to the heterogeneity of persons with disabilities themselves in terms of their impairment, ethnicity, age and gender. Participatory diversity was crucial in this context not only because to fully respect the difference of disability entails positively acknowledging the heterogeneity of
404 For details on how the participation of community organisations can influence economic change, see generally M. Beirne, ‘Social and Economic Rights as Agents for Change’ supra no.165 pp43-62.
405 S. Witcher, ‘Mainstreaming Equality Theories: Towards a Generic Model of Discrimination’, accessed in July 2007, available at www.creid.ed.ac.uk/events/semiminar;
149
persons with disabilities but also because it demonstrated a commitment on the part of the Council to move beyond respecting difference to accommodating it.
The report on the consultations carried out to inform the Equality Schemes establish that participatory diversity was a central concern of the Council. This is demonstrated by the range of the persons who participated in the events in terms of their impairments or non impairment, ethnicity, social – economic class and cultural background. In particular, it would appear that Southwark council used the concept of participatory diversity to apply the Social model of disability by extending the upper limits of those considered as disabled beyond the definition of the Equality Act 2010.406 In fact, the Council actively encouraged the participation of the carers, families and friends of persons with disabilities at the various events organised. This is significant when one considers the fact that this group of persons constitute an important part of the autonomy and sense of self dignity and worth of persons with disabilities.407 To limit the benefits of a process that is focussed on the issue of negative treatment and discrimination only to certain kinds of disability or impairments without their carers, families or friends would not appear to be consistent with the ideals of substantive equality for persons with disabilities.
The use of the concept of Participatory diversity as an analytical category in understanding the participation of persons with disabilities in the development of the Southwark DES is significant in two respects; first, the approach follows a well-established pattern towards greater disaggregation and a concern to recognize heterogeneity within disability categories.408 By engaging with diversity in the development of its DES, Southwark council recognises that persons with disabilities are not a homogenous group and that achieving substantive equality for this group of persons would involve an appreciation
406 For the legal definition of a disabled person, see Section 6, Equality Act 2010. According to the Act, a person has a disability if he or she has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities. Also, Schedule 1(a) (b) , Schedule 1 Section 9
407 For an expansive approach to the definition of disability, see Coleman v Attridge Law (Case C-303/06) [2008] IRLR 722 (ECJ). This could be contrasted with the decision in Chacon Navas v Eurest Colectivedades SA C-13/05[2006] ECR, where the court took a restrictive approach by holding that sickness did not constitute a disability.
408 D. Mabbett, ‘Why have disability categories in social security?’ 11, 38 Benefits 2003pp163-8.
150
of their heterogeneity. The group dimension to disability equality has a tendency to consider persons with disabilities as a homogenous group and this may sit uncomfortably with the notion of substantive equality.409 The group dimension to disability equality may fail to recognise the heterogeneity of persons with disabilities not only by ignoring the different needs that arise from different impairments but also by freezing the fluidity of the personal experiences of this group of persons in to a single unified entity.
Second, it may be the case that by engaging with diversity, involving diverse persons with different impairments from different backgrounds, Southwark council recognises that group differentiation offers communicative resources to the process of participation because differently positioned people have different experience, history, and social knowledge derived from that positioning.410 Most of the staff of the Council interviewed for this project felt that the diversity of the participants at the consultation events enriched the process of participation as the different persons with disabilities, including various stakeholders were able to contribute their views and experiences so that the recommendations at the end of the events were practical and implementable.
Third, the concept of Participatory diversity might be used to manage the constant changes in the patterns of disability discrimination brought about by demographic and technological changes. This would serve the purpose of counteracting a merely reactive approach to structural changes and thus avoid any negative perception of equality policies as outdated irrelevancies. Finally, the diversity of the participants signified the willingness and capacity of persons with disabilities in the community to act in concert and in common in asserting their rights and to bring about changes in their socio – economic circumstances.
409 C. O’cinneide, ‘A New Generation of Equality Legislation? Supra no.2 pp 219-248.
410 I. Young, supra no166 pp 81-108.
151 1.2.3 Community Engagement and Social Cohesion
One of the building blocks in the development of the Southwark Equality Scheme was the commitment of the Council to build a cohesive community by promoting good relations between the different groups in the community.411 This is of central importance when it is acknowledged that the essentialism of the group dimension approach to disability equality may undermine the fact that equality and discrimination are relational concepts by setting up rigid inside-outside distinctions among the different groups in society and thus ignore the fluidity of social relations. One of the key strength of the positive duty to promote equality is its recognition that equality entails more than the negative requirement of avoiding unfair disadvantage owing to identity.
The promotion of good relations in the community now forms part of the general duty under the Equality Act 2010 and underpins the shared values of the Southwark Sustainable Community Strategy which provide the strategic framework for the promotion of equality between the different groups in the community. It was perhaps inevitable that the paradigm shift in disability equality encapsulated in the public sector equality duty would eventually be reflected in the Council’s corporate community cohesion strategy. This has not only resulted in certain important changes in the corporate structures but also in increased joined-up workings between different departments of the Council.
There were three lessons that could be extrapolated from the Southwark equality schemes regarding the promotion of community cohesion which could be linked to the delivery of substantive equality for persons with disabilities; first, by framing disability as a relational concept within the context of the social model of disability, the council was able to link the legal requirement of participation to achieving social cohesion. In other words, the approach demonstrated how a local authority’s processes for community engagement could be integrated with its processes for ensuring compliance with its legal duty to promote the participation of persons with disabilities. It is more likely that such an approach would better plug the Council’s policy into the wider society in which it operates and thus afford it
411 Southwark Equality Scheme 2005-8, Annex 5: Consulting with Diverse and Excluded Communities.
152
greater legitimacy and credibility. Furthermore, conceptualising disability as a relational concept that defines the relationship between persons with disabilities and the Council could breed trust and thus improve the delivery of services by public bodies.
Second, the involvement of representatives and groups of persons with disabilities in the planning of the consultation events meant that strategies of involvement were adopted which enabled the Council to reach out to hard to reach communities within the borough, thus ensuring a positive turn out to the consultation events. Discrimination is as much about social exclusion as it is about less favourable treatment and it may be the case that, by encouraging the interaction of both persons with disabilities and non disabled residents Southwark council not only appreciated that disability is a relational concept but also was using the event to promote social cohesion.412
Third, the involvement of a range of user led disability organisations within the borough such as the Southwark Disability Forum (SDF), the Organisation for Blind Africans and Caribbeans (OBAC) and the local representative organisation for the hard to hear ensured that the participation was broad-based, encompassing both persons with physical and sensory impairments. Since these organisations are bodies of large memberships, they provide a network of real or potential participants for the Council’s consultations which may help enrich and enhance the participatory rights of persons with disabilities in Southwark. Furthermore, working with other statutory agencies and voluntary organisations in the borough during the consultation process did not only provide Southwark council with an opportunity to link up strategies and policies but also enabled persons with disabilities to improve their knowledge of their environment and to create new contacts. For example, during one of the workshops with the Southwark Disability Forum (SDF), and attended by the Metropolitan Police, persons with disabilities were able to talk about their experiences and concerns about community safety and harassment.
412 See generally H. Collins ‘Discrimination, Equality and Social Inclusion’ supra no.133 pp16-43.
153
The discussions gave the Police new insights in to the community safety concerns of this group of citizens and enabled them to develop new and innovative strategies for dealing with the concerns. Significantly, a link up project called the Community Safety Network was developed whereby those persons with disabilities who have experienced harassment in the borough were given the telephone numbers of individual Police Officers whom they could contact at any time should they be subjected to further harassment. The project did not only build confidence between the police and residents with disabilities but most importantly provided a real mechanism which could pre-empt unfortunate situations such as the death by suicide of a mother and her disabled child in Leicester because of taunting and harassment from other local children (suicide reported on BBC Channel 4 news of Tuesday, 29.09.09).