Perhaps an effective consultation process is needed, to enable a disabled
person (or persons) to represent to wider views of disabled people rather
than just their own viewpoint based on their personal experiences.  It is
all too easy for a disabled person to be invited to a committee as a token
gesture, without being empowered to participate effectively and act as a
representative of disabled peoples' views.

Clare
----------
>From: claire wickham <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: representation
>Date: Wed, Jul 25, 2001, 5:00 pm
>

> Suzanne,
>
> <some stuff deleted>
>
> For several years now, I have been questioning the validity of an equal
> opportunities committee where none of the members has had disability
> equality training and no one has knowledge or expertise that would
> enable them to in any way represent disabled people.  One of the
> answers that I have received is that there are no members of the
> committee from minority groups and that it would be impossible to
> represent every minority group on such a committee. (This, I think,
> questions the whole basis of such an EO Committee, but never mind!)
>
> I think there are two types of representation:
>
> 1.  Where the interests of disabled people are to be represented at a
> committee whose prime function is not disability focused. for example,
> a meeting of heads of department. I suppose I could just about
> justify representation by a non disabled person here, provided that
> they had knowledge of the views of disabled people and were working
> from a disability equality perspective.  Clearly if the person was
> disabled themselves, this would add to their representative powers.
> But, thinking about this, it would seem strange to have the interests
> of women, for example, represented by a male and for the interests of
> minority ethnic groups to be represented by a white Anglo-Saxon person!
> So, perhaps I am saying that of course the person should be disabled
> themselves.  However I can conceive of some cases where interests might
> be represented by a non disabled person, probably most of these cases
> would be once offs or short term projects rather than longer term
> committee work.  For example, if,  the head of our department was
> representing our views that a HOD forum, I would expect him to raise
> issues concerning disabled members of staff but then he would have been
> very well briefed about these.
>
> but, if the meeting was about access issues then I would expect a
> disabled representative to be co-opted or for the head of department
> to have carried out a consultative exercise prior to the meeting.
>
> however, you raise the question of
>
>>
>> A colleague was recently invited to be on a panel looking at an
>> important disability issue. When she told me,  I asked her how
>> disabled people's views on this issues were going to be included or
>> represented. Her response was that it wasn't necessary to have
>> disabled people on the panel because a "competent professional"
>> could represent the views of disabled people.
>
> I think you are quite right to be shocked by that as this is rather
> different case. This is the second type of representation. Here the
> panel has a mandate to seek out the views of
> disabled people and they should therefore clearly be extending their
> remit to include disabled people themselves, with the proviso that
> such people are representative and are not there as individuals to put
> forward their own personal agendas and experiences.  I cannot see any
> argument for confining representation to the views of a select
> professional.
>
> Perhaps your colleague could suggest that the group co-opt's at least
> one disabled person who can represent the views of disabled people.
>
>
>
>  I have heard it said that parents of disabled
>> people can represent disabled people on such working groups. Can
>> this be right, and would we say the same about an ethnic minority
>> or a gender working group?
>
> my response to this would be, well "No" of course parents cannot
> represent disabled people, but as users of services they might well
> wish to be involved in the consultation process.
>>
> and to return to my own situation, concerning the lack of
> representation of disabled people on the equal opportunities committee,
> I have also been told that of course the committee will co-opt selected
> people whenever there are disability issues to discuss.  To this I reply
> that over the past five years the Access Unit has never been consulted
> by the equal opportunities committee and it seems strange that such a
> committee would never have wished for any expert advice on disability
> issues!  If representation is not built into such committees, and it is
> left to the ill informed committee members to decide when the views of
> disabled people are relevant, this is exactly what happens -- the
> uninformed do not realise that the views of disabled people should be
> taken into account on a wide range of policy issues.
>
> Best of luck and I hope some of this is of interest.
>
> Claire
>
>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>> ------- End of forwarded message -------
>>
>>
>> Susanna Hancock
>> Equal Opportunities Officer
>> HRS
>> Telephone: 020 8411 6873
>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>> ------- End of forwarded message -------
>>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> --- End Forwarded Message ---
>
>
> ----------------------
> Claire Wickham
> Director: Programmes, Research and Development
> Access Unit
> University of Bristol
> Union Building
> Queen's Road
> Clifton
> Bristol BS8 1LN
>
> Tel: 0117 954 5710
> Textphone: 0117 954 5715
> Fax: 0117 954 5714
>
> [log in to unmask]