This post was first published at Open Democracy:
https://opendemocracy.net/uk/katherine-wedell/reliant-on-kindness-how-austerity-is-undermining-principle-of-2010-equality-act
https://opendemocracy.net/uk/katherine-wedell/reliant-on-kindness-how-austerity-is-undermining-principle-of-2010-equality-act
Reliance on kindness,
in law and in public services, has no place in a liberal democracy based on
equal citizenship - but it's the consequence of austerity.
We rent a flat and our son Tom, aged fourteen, uses a powered
wheelchair. As anyone will know who has
tried to rent a wheelchair accessible property, they are few and far
between. Happily, we found a suitable
flat, but the parking space is very tight indeed for a wheelchair accessible
van. In fact, when the other spaces are
filled, it’s actually impossible for Tom to get into the van and to get the van
in or out.
I contacted the management company to ask about possible solutions to the parking problem, and, unwisely, suggested a solution. They replied that the proposed solution was impossible, that I was aware when I rented the flat of what the parking arrangements were, and that they were unable to assist me any further in this matter.
Like many carers and people living with disability, I was
weary from fighting other more important battles. So I just shelved for the
time being the relatively small parking problem.
Then a new management company took over. Our first contact with them was when my son’s
wheelchair accidently caused some damage to the wall in the lobby. I phoned, expecting to have to pay for the
damage. The new company could not have
been nicer. No, the site manager said,
it was accidental damage; we’ll make good the wall and put some kick plates on
it to improve the lobby for wheelchair users.
I also mentioned the parking problem.
Within 48 hours two site managers came to visit and saw a solution. They asked about my son; one of them said that
her son has autism and she is passionate about the rights of people living with
disabilities. They asked whether the
flat and access to it was suitable, and whether there was anything else they
could do.
The second company’s very helpful attitude transformed my
week. It was a breath of fresh air. It
was also, only what the law requires. The 2010 Equality Act would have given us
protection from the attitude of the first company, had I followed it up. That company were legally required to be more
helpful; required specifically by Section 20 of the 2010 Equality Act. [CM1]
The Act applies to any person or organisation providing goods, facilities or
services to the public.
The 2010 Equality Act is a game changer, in our
experience: a line in the sand, a
statement that people living with disabilities and difference are equal
citizens; and that reliance on arbitrary acts of helpfulness or unhelpfulness
is unacceptable.
Shortly after the parking episode, Tom took part in a Duke
of Edinburgh Award camping trip, run by his school. The afternoon before the trip the local
authority school minibus provider phoned the school to say that one of the
minibuses that the school was planning to use was broken down and not
available.
The consequence of this would be that one of the students
who uses a wheelchair would be denied the educational opportunity of going on
the trip. Inclusion is fundamental to
the school and it was unthinkable that a student would be excluded. The deputy head, who had a pile of reports to
write that evening before accompanying the students on the overnight camping
trip the next day, spent two hours phoning round to locate another minibus,
which he eventually managed to do.
Why was the minibus broken down and no replacement
available? Because underfunding means
the education service is relying on minibuses which are old and unreliable.
A second example, this time from
the NHS. Tom is taking a pioneering new
genetic drug, that’s normally delivered to our house. A glitch when we moved house recently meant
that he urgently needed a new prescription from his consultant.
Problem – we discovered that the
consultant was on holiday and there was no cover for him. Oh, and his secretary
was on long-term sick leave, and there was no cover for her.
After several frantic phone
calls to various hospital departments, a registrar helped us, over and above
her workload. She phoned us back at 7pm,
after her shift, and met us the next day, in between her appointments.
Tom’s basic medical need was
met was through the goodwill of a public sector employee prepared to do (more)
unpaid overtime. And this is an example
from genetic medicine: how can the UK be
a world leader in developing genetic medicines if the NHS is so underfunded
that it relies on goodwill to deliver pioneering treatments to patients?
So-called ‘austerity’ – in other words, funding cuts – means
public service users are reliant on kindness to access services to which they are
entitled.
Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ idea of 2010, “to help people to come together in their neighbourhoods to
do good things”, coincided with 25% cuts to public services. The net political message was that “doing
good things” could plaster over the cuts in public service funding. After 2013 Cameron no longer mentioned the
Big Society but the idea continues in zombie form. Reliance on kindness appears
to be the government’s answer to the delivery of public services.
The examples given here are small, everyday incidents – but
incidents like these are happening across public services every day and they
impact in two ways.
On a human level, they are an abuse
both of service users and of conscientious public service workers, who know
that if they do not put in extra help to compensate for the lack of funding in
public services, then the people who rely on those services will lose out. The next time we saw Tom’s consultant, a
highly skilled and experienced doctor, he told us that cuts to administrative
support had made his job so unmanageable that he had decided to take early
retirement. The human cost becomes an
economic cost as well.
On a political level, incidents like these, across public
services and every day, are undermining the principle of equal citizenship in
public life. The principle of the 2010
Equality Act also underpins access to public services. Service users are entitled to public services
on the basis of being equal citizens.
Reliance on kindness, in law and in public services, has no place in a
liberal democracy based on equal citizenship.
The funding of public services should reflect that.