I was watching Newsnight last week and saw a discussion on the diversity and legacy potential of London 2012 with respect to the UK’s disabled population. Some of the remarks made by Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson I was in complete agreement with, whilst others left me perplexed and feeling somewhat cut off from whatever the organisers are trying to achieve.
She is right to say that legislation alone will do nothing to change the mindsets of the majority in our society who see disability as something to be scared of. The reason for this, as with many people’s fears, is because people are not aware of what different disabilities involve and the affects they have on people. Even after attending full state education, there are still some people who believe a physical disability automatically translates into having a learning disability; I’ve had grown professionals shocked by the fact that I can speak clear English, even though there is nothing to imply otherwise.
Nevertheless, whilst legislation does little for the public’s mindset by itself, it does proactively champion a change in managerial attitudes within the public and private sectors. The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) and subsequent Equality Act 2010 have both implemented statutory duties that I believe contribute to the changing social attitudes through the public’s interaction with these sectors and their growing acceptance of the legislative themes of tolerance and equality.
Unfortunately, I do not agree with Tanni’s interpretation of how the Paralympics will bring about the greatest attitudinal change by “having the athletes here [which] will do more to normalise disability than anything we will ever see”. In fact, a very small percentage of the public will actually watch the Paralympics games in person or on Channel 4 and out of those that do, how many of them will make that tangible link between those elite athletes and the members of their local community who have a disability? I fear too many will compartmentalise what they’ve watched on TV between the interactions they experience in their community.
With respect to the legacy that London 2012 offers the 10+ million strong disabled population in the UK, I worry that it will actually encourage the exclusion already felt by many. We live in a celebrity-driven culture where the ordinary man and woman aspire to the lifestyles lead by the few; increasing the representation of celebrities with a greater range of disabilities will do more good for attitudinal change than focusing on the most-able for just two weeks. I believe there is a real risk that those people who are less able will instead feel pushed aside by majority society and the objectives of the games themselves. Changing a public mindset will always be difficult and I truly believe that the Paralympics has the capacity to be a catalyst for change but their aims are again based on the inclusion of the few and not of the many. A real legacy would focus on all in an inclusive approach.
You should never try to make disability ‘acceptable’; you just need to allow people to understand and that in itself will erode their subconscious casual prejudices.
Greg Judge is a GEM at the Liberal Democrat Disability Association (LDDA) and blogs on The Judgement.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lord Bonkers Diary: The only estate in England with a breeding population of corkindrills
Renters Rights Bill long overdue
Michael's weekly ward surgeries today! #dundeewestend
John Grout
Cassie
Peter Hirst
Joe Bourke
12 Comments
I basically agree with Greg’s position, but society’s problem is more than simply a lack of understanding of disability, it is an active fear of disability that society, the media and even some disability charities still foster. Society preaches a fear of disability from the earliest age – ‘I’d rather be dead than in a wheelchair’, which contrasts oddly with my feeling in the airport the other week of ‘blast, I really wish I had a wheelchair with me’. The view from inside disability is rather different than from the outside.
My fear for the Paralympics is that society is still overwhelmingly locked into the Personal Tragedy model of disability, which allows disabled people only three roles: brave victim (preferably female, under 10 and with a kitten), hero (pick any Paralympian) and bitter crip; and the danger is that the hero Paralympians will be seen as setting a standard of ability that we all should meet, and imposing an impossible bar for most disabled people. The dominant attitudes towards disabled people are already visible in the abuse we receive around disability benefits and who should really be entitled, and the Paralympics risk worsening that situation.
A further problem for many disabled people will be the association of the Olympics and Paralympics with ATOS Origin, they of the notorious reputation for their treatment of disabled people subjected to the WCA test, whose appointment of Steve Cram as Olympics Ambassador makes it clear that they intend to make as much political capital out of their position as Olympic IT provider as possible. As disabled people, do we support the achievement of disabled people, or pour out our scorn on ATOS? How can we help non-disabled people to understand our concerns and fears?
Thanks for commenting David, I haven’t personally witnessed an active fear but I do appreciate that there are some people in our society that still consider disabilities to be something abhorrent and event contagious!
The legacy potential for the Paralympics is pretty sizable, but only if its envisioned and implemented correctly. An over-focus on the heroic and super-active Paralympian is going to redraw the public image of what a ‘preferred’ disabled person should look like. The risk of the Paralympics has not been felt to date due to its limited media coverage which is about to change next year.
I don’t want to sound too negative on the Paralympics as they are a brilliant platform of the physical achievements that are still attainable, even with a disability, however, an appropriate PR campaign and inclusive approach is necessary in order to push the positive energy into support and improved attitudes to all disabilities and not just the populist ones. Highlighting the access difficulties, care needs and benefits required by Paralympians could provide that tangible link between the disabled people in the stadium and those living across the road.
I agree that the ATOS situation is not desirable and we need a rigorousness but understanding assessment that accounts for the variability of disabilities, both between individuals and with the individual. However, I appreciate that ATOS is a 40-country, 50,000 employee global company and this can result in opposing aims and objectives in different service arms. The Olympic games will be using the IT support services and providing they are competitive and meet the procurement criteria, then I’m not necessarily opposed to this.
To be honest – given the very nature of the righteous antagonism towards ATOS because of their treatment of disable people in their assessment procedures, I am APPALLED that ATOS was even considered for this job! It is a gross lack of sensitivity on the part of whoever proposed them in the first place, let alone whoever has seen fit to employ them!
This decision beggars belief! I am speechless!
*disabled* people
@Greg Judge:
It really does you no favours when you defend ATOS. Their cruelty has resulted in several disabled people taking their own lives in the past few years. This is just more proof that we do live in an oligarchy where corporate interests and “jobs for the boys” come before morality, compassion and decency.
@Greg I’ve worked for a multinational company that has admitted to deliberate wrong-doing in a different subsidiary. It doesn’t matter how far away from the actual wrong doing your piece of the company is, you’re still smeared by the unacceptable behaviour, because that problem must be traced all the way up the management tree, and there is not a part of the company or an employee anywhere on its payroll who is not part of that management tree and tarnished by what has happened. Look at the Phone Hacking scandal and the Murdochs for the most recent example.
And that is the situation for companies that have admitted guilt, ATOS refuse to admit there is even a problem, no matter all the evidence that is out there. It ultimately doesn’t matter whether ATOS’s Olympic IT is a separate subsidiary or not, the company as a whole is intent on making capital out of its flagship position and disabled people will rightly see that as spitting in their face.
The Paralympics should be a triumph, a once in a lifetime opportunity to move the acceptance of disabled people forward by a significant amount and show that Britain can get it right, but the reality will see them taking place:
while much of London’s Transport Infrastructure remains inaccessible
while the official Olympic IT provider has a reputation for abusing disabled people
while support for disabled people is being slashed by government
while the predominant media narrative portrays us as scroungers
while disabled people are having to take to the streets to protest
We risk a reality that is shame, not triumph.
I agree that the ATOS situation with respect to benefit assessments is appalling. I remember when I first came across them in a R4 documentary and hearing about the inflexibility and lack of understanding the assessors have for the range of personal experiences people have with their own disability, there is a sustained and growing culture of pigeon holing people and not looking at them as real people. Admittedly, I’ve yet to go through one of these assessments personally but I think that is to change in the next few weeks, so it will be interesting to experience it and see the role of the assessors themselves. From what I understand, they are locked in themselves in purely going through the assessment process and not having the opportunity to add their own professional opinion, if they indeed have one as many don’t – another issue.
And whilst we have these inequalities and misjustices on going and they clearly need to be addressed, preferably with a change of provider and assessment criteria, we still do need to assess people and discern between the significant proportion who are in real need and support with the majority of people who were moved onto Incapacity Benefit by Labour and who clearly need to be properly reassessed. I would like to see NHS/GP’s take the lead on assessments as they know their patients on a personal basis and understand their good days as well as their bad, of course, this does bring into the question of conflict of interest with long term patients but I think with the right guidelines, a sensible system of assessment could be envisaged.
Hopefully DWP will see the error of their ways and start working constructively with DoH and NHS as too many of the issues involved are inter-related and disregarding this fact is indeed hurting patients, claimants and even those who have been stuck on IB but who would benefit in returning to work through an enhanced well being.
“From what I understand, they are locked in themselves in purely going through the assessment process and not having the opportunity to add their own professional opinion”
Greg, you can read the story of my WCA here: http://wheresthebenefit.blogspot.com/2011/04/wca-sick-joke-or-national-disgrace.html The problems extend far beyond the strictures of the assessment, dire and worthy of condemnation though those may be. It wasn’t the structure of the assessment that made the ATOS doctor criticise me for having researched the test, for insisting on giving full and complette answers (even when the difference between ‘yes’ and ‘yes with qualifications’ was the difference between 0 points and no eligibility for ESA, and 15 points and passing on the spot), he even criticised me for the way I described how my disability affects my walking and for being unable to bend my knee. Similar stories, and worse are rampant, with tales of outright falsehood in reports being common, here’s one from one of my fellow bloggers at Where’s The Benefit http://wheresthebenefit.blogspot.com/2011/04/esa-and-work-capability-assessment.html There’s something very wrong when the GMC finds it necessary to publically remind doctors at a company that honesty is a professional requirement. Take a look at the discussions in the two ESA threads here on LDV at https://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-political-reasons-for-people-to-back-the-esa-motion-24860.html and https://www.libdemvoice.org/must-do-better-why-benefit-reforms-are-in-need-of-reform-24853.html and all of the evidence provided there, and I hope you’ll give your support to the conference motion against ESA that is giving hope of a respite from the onslaught of cuts and abuse to disabled people in the street.
” we still do need to assess people and discern between the significant proportion who are in real need and support with the majority of people who were moved onto Incapacity Benefit by Labour and who clearly need to be properly reassessed”
That old chestnut. See here for a rebuttal with supporting statistics: http://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/07/the-three-things-cameron-should-know-about-sickness-and-disability-benefits/. See also the report from the Select Committee on Work and Pensions and what it has to say about people being moved from IB onto JSA, particularly that the difference between, and support needs of, someone getting 15 points and going into the ESA WRAG and someone getting 12 points and being dumped onto JSA may be very slight indeed. The committee didn’t actually say ‘dumped’, parliamentary language and all that, but I’ve been on JSA as a disabled person and dumped is the only word to fit the lack of support (see http://wheresthebenefit.blogspot.com/2011/01/inept-leading-clueless-jcp-jsa-and.html ). The Work Programme may have come in since, but that cannot fix an institutional problem relating to the attitudes of DWP and contractor staff and their utter cluelessness about disability.
‘I would like to see NHS/GP’s take the lead on assessments as they know their patients on a personal basis and understand their good days as well as their bad, of course, this does bring into the question of conflict of interest with long term patients but I think with the right guidelines, a sensible system of assessment could be envisaged.’
Here we’re basically in agreement, but the idea of conflict of interest is consistently over-egged. GPs or consultants are in the best position to evaluate whether someone can, or should, work or not, sometimes better even than the patient themselves. Any assessment that does not involve my own medics robs that evaluation of the people who understand it best, any risk of bias is far outweighed by the bias introduced by excluding them.
“From what I understand, they are locked in themselves in purely going through the assessment process and not having the opportunity to add their own professional opinion”
Greg, you can read the story of my WCA here: http://wheresthebenefit.blogspot.com/2011/04/wca-sick-joke-or-national-disgrace.html The problems extend far beyond the strictures of the assessment, dire and worthy of condemnation though those may be. It wasn’t the structure of the assessment that made the ATOS doctor criticise me for having researched the test, for insisting on giving full and complette answers (even when the difference between ‘yes’ and ‘yes with qualifications’ was the difference between 0 points and no eligibility for ESA, and 15 points and passing on the spot), he even criticised me for the way I described how my disability affects my walking and for being unable to bend my knee. Similar stories, and worse are rampant, with tales of outright falsehood in reports being common, here’s one from one of my fellow bloggers at Where’s The Benefit http://wheresthebenefit.blogspot.com/2011/04/esa-and-work-capability-assessment.html There’s something very wrong when the GMC finds it necessary to publically remind doctors at a company that honesty is a professional requirement. Take a look at the discussions in the two ESA threads here on LDV at https://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-political-reasons-for-people-to-back-the-esa-motion-24860.html and https://www.libdemvoice.org/must-do-better-why-benefit-reforms-are-in-need-of-reform-24853.html and all of the evidence provided there, and I hope you’ll give your support to the conference motion against ESA that is giving hope of a respite from the onslaught of cuts and abuse to disabled people in the street.
” we still do need to assess people and discern between the significant proportion who are in real need and support with the majority of people who were moved onto Incapacity Benefit by Labour and who clearly need to be properly reassessed”
That old chestnut. See here for a rebuttal with supporting statistics: http://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/07/the-three-things-cameron-should-know-about-sickness-and-disability-benefits/. See also the report from the Select Committee on Work and Pensions and what it has to say about people being moved from IB onto JSA, particularly that the difference between, and support needs of, someone getting 15 points and going into the ESA WRAG and someone getting 12 points and being dumped onto JSA may be very slight indeed. The committee didn’t actually say dumped, parliamentary language and all that, but I’ve been on JSA as a disabled person and dumped is the only word to fit the lack of support (see http://wheresthebenefit.blogspot.com/2011/01/inept-leading-clueless-jcp-jsa-and.html ). The Work Programme may have come in since, but that cannot fix an institutional problem relating to the attitudes of DWP and contractor staff and their utter cluelessness about disability.
‘I would like to see NHS/GP’s take the lead on assessments as they know their patients on a personal basis and understand their good days as well as their bad, of course, this does bring into the question of conflict of interest with long term patients but I think with the right guidelines, a sensible system of assessment could be envisaged.’
Here we’re basically in agreement, but the idea of conflict of interest is consistently over-egged. GPs or consultants are in the best position to evaluate whether someone can work or not, sometimes better even than the patient themselves.
Thanks for the detailed information, I had clicked on your name beforehand and had started reading some of your WCA blog and just downloaded the Select Committee’s “The role of incapacity benefit reassessment in helping claimants into employment” report, will get onto reading those in more detail and post a detailed response then, might even be in agreement, you never know.
One thing I am certain of is the political drivers of this WCA and other current disability benefit reforms have been economic and not social. Are one of the reason’s you feel dumped on is because JSA is totally inadequate? I think it is for both able-bodied and disabled. I would like to see a fair and honest NHS lead assessment which then offers the opportunity for a fully-benefit-supported 1 or 2 week trial in a workplace of their choice. There could a diverse list of accredited employers whereby someone can try any length and/or intensity of work for a period of time and then for themselves, the employer, GP and/or independent assessor to submit feedback on how well they coped and what they got out of it. If the policy factors are focused on the person’s physical, mental and emotional welfare and any potential they have for getting positive rewards to their own wellbeing then I believe this would be a good starting point for DWP.
I did read previously about the harassment tactics used by ATOS and I do agree that the entire managerial stem of the organisation should admit corporate responsibility for such tactics. Likewise, culpability also lies at the doors of the governments sanctioning such initiatives as well. Harassment is wrong, completely but I think there is scope for encouragement and explanation of what a worklife can offer people, a prolonged period of inactivity can limit your perceived potential and capabilities, for those who would benefit personally, these self-created barriers do need to be reduced whilst also appreciating it is people themselves who truly know what they’re able to do.
One thing I would like to add on the suggestion that “It really does you no favours when you defend ATOS”, whilst ATOS Healthcare and various managerial positions are at fault and this needs to be addressed by the government. The UK ATOS IT service arm employees 10,000 people in Britain whom are benefiting from the Olympic contract and no doubt continuing to be in a position to pay their taxes and out of unemployment and receipt of JSA.
I appreciate this can only really perceived as a negative move in PR terms as the public see ATOS as ATOS but the IT arm has one a series of excellence awards and I maintain the point that if they’ve met the procurement criteria at a competitive and economically efficient rate, then I’m happy for British workers to work on London 2012.
http://www.scotlandis.com/members/details/285/atos
Greg,
Apologies for the delay replying. You asked: ” Are one of the reason’s you feel dumped on is because JSA is totally inadequate?”
The problems with JSA are simply part and parcel of the whole attitude towards disability within DWP, and I am absolutely serious when I say that in my opinion they amount to institutional disability discrimination. I’ve talked about explaining to my Disability Employment Advisor at our first meeting that I had just spent 20 years working as an engineer at the cutting edge of aerospace development and being promptly told I should apply for minimum wage jobs, which was clearly her default suggestion, but I had an even starker example in a reply to my latest blog at Where’s The Benefit in which the poster notes that JCP had suggested he apply for a job as a scaffolder – he’s a wheelchair user. This isn’t simply one person having a bad experience of them, the problems are systematic and nationwide. Calling their frontline staff utterly clueless about disability is probably being unreasonably positive. On top of that we have the tragic fiasco of ESA, the WCA and ATOS, with reports of as many as 11 suicides to date, and where again my personal experience mirrors the utter malpractice and incompetence being reported by disabled people nationwide. And to cap that we have the DWP using press releases and off the record briefings by political departmental special advisors to manage a campaign of hatred against disabled people in the tabloid press, a campaign the Select Committee on Works and Pensions expressed serious concern about in their latest report, and then utter fury, though couched in the nicest parliamentary language, that DWP had released another biased briefing the same day as their report in order to distract the tabloids from the report’s criticism. Scope and other disability charities have been saying for months that the DWP press releases are leading directly to a rise in disability hate crime on the street, and, based on my own experience of this, I was one of the disabled people they asked to talk to the media about that.
One of the points the Select Committee report makes about JSA and disabled people is that the difference between someone given 12 points at WCA and placed on JSA and someone placed on ESA can be trivial, and yet the Work Programme funding is: JSA £3,700, ESA WRAG: £6,500, ESA WRAG, ex IB: £13,500. There can literally be almost £10,000 less funding for supporting a disabled person on JSA rather than ESA, and based on only the most trivial difference in their disability.
“I would like to see a fair and honest NHS lead assessment which then offers the opportunity for a fully-benefit-supported 1 or 2 week trial in a workplace of their choice.”
That’s a considerable improvement on what we have now, but how would that help someone in my position? I need an employer willing to let me work from the prone position, take breaks as I see fit and who accepts that my work will be disrupted on a regular basis. I’ve been in employment at this level of disability, I know exactly what’s required, and I know that the support isn’t there in the overwhelming majority of companies. It isn’t the disabled people who are the problem, it’s the employers and the disablism they openly admit, and that isn’t being addressed. Even if you ignore that aspect, look at the physical provisions that would be needed for me to be able to work there, and try to justify that based on one or two weeks of work experience, and then multiply that by many thousands of disabled people with individual adaption needs. Access to Work, the DWP branch that handles funding for physical adaptions for disabled people to be able to work has seen its budget slashed and numbers of people helped declining, with Cameron reneging on a pre-election promise to let people get ATW help packages in place before job-hunting.
“If the policy factors are focused on the person’s physical, mental and emotional welfare and any potential they have for getting positive rewards to their own wellbeing then I believe this would be a good starting point for DWP.”
That would be a major improvement, but there are major problems with how it would be implemented given current attitudes within government. DWP have just released a new piece of research supporting their conclusion that work is universally good for you, but you can see my dismantling of that on Where’s The Benefit. What sort of organisation draws a conclusion and then conducts polling to support that, rather than vice versa? DWP and its medical advisors, Dame Carol Black, Professor Paul Gregg, even the supposedly independent Professor Malcolm Harrington are all convinced that work is universally good for you (hardly surprising as that’s pretty much dogma among occupational health specialists), none are willing to acknowledge that there are people like me, for whom working results in a level of pain, or other disability related effects, that all but destroys your life. Lord Freud is another clear example of drawing your conclusions about disability, then conducting risible research to back your position. Meanwhile the frontline personnel at JCP and ATOS have attitudes towards claimants that are a clear cause for concern. I’ve talked about my own experiences with JCP and ATOS and having to complain to ministerial level to get them to acknowledge my disability, but some of the other disabled campaigners have just turned up a series of facebook pages in which ATOS employees have been a little too frank on their real attitudes, with one, a Nurse Health Care Professional, and therefore someone assessing disabled people on a daily basis, referring to us as ‘down and outs’ and another where an administrator refers to us as ‘parasitic w*nkers’, apparently there is at least one more, but I haven’t seen that yet. These all speak to the attitudes towards disabled people in their organisation. There have been similar reports about attitudes at training providers. There is a systematic problem with the staff involved, stretching consistently across DWP and its sub-contractors, and new schemes won’t change that, you need to change how the people think about disability, or change the people.