Northern Ireland Executive - Draft
Programme for Government Framework
2016 - 2021
Disability Action’s Response
July 2016
Any enquiry concerning this document should be made to
Karen Hall
Assistant Director - Policy & External Relations
Disability Action
Portside Business Park
189 Airport Road West
Belfast
BT3 9ED
Tel: 028 90 297880 Fax 028 90 297881
Textphone: 028 90 297882
Website: www.disabilityaction.org
Email: [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
1
Disability Action is a pioneering Northern Ireland charity working
with and for people with disabilities. We work with our members to
provide information, training, transport awareness programmes
and representation for people regardless of their disability; whether
that is physical, mental, sensory, hidden or learning disability.
2
21% of adults and 6% of children living in private households in
Northern Ireland have a disability and the incidence is one of the
highest in the United Kingdom.
3
As a campaigning body, we work to bring about positive change to
the social, economic and cultural life of people with disabilities and
consequently our entire community. In pursuit of our aims we
serve 45,000 people each year.
4
Our network of services is provided via our Headquarters in Belfast
and in five regional offices in Carrickfergus, Derry, Enniskillen,
Newry and Dungannon.
5
Disability Action welcomes the opportunity to respond to this
paper.
GENERAL COMMENTARY
6
Disability Action undertook two engagement sessions with people
with disabilities and their organisations to inform this response.
The events in Derry and Belfast were attended by around 40
people in total. A full note of these sessions is available in
Appendix 1 for reference.
7
Disability Action is concerned that the consultation has not been
made accessible to people with disabilities. No alternative formats
were available on the website or in print. We are aware that one
organisation requested information in an easy read format and that
this was not made available until two days before the consultation
period ended. This is not acceptable and the Executive has not
met its duties under the DDO or its own Disability Strategy. The
Executive should have made provision for the development of
accessible formats before publication given the shorter timescales.
An extension should have been offered to those people who did
not get formats until late in the consultation period.
1
D:\81910712.doc
8
Disability Action welcomes the outcomes based approach that has
been taken in the PFG. However, there are some concerns that
the indicators are very specific and may not measure the actual
outcomes.
There was discussion on how the outcomes can be impacted by
not just Government but by wider civil society and in particular how
the voluntary and community sector can work collaboratively with
Government to deliver on the outcomes.
One of the issues, particularly with disability, is about government
departments working more collaboratively with each other. Within
this framework there would appear to be better opportunity to
ensure that Departments work more closely together.
9
We are aware that the budget will form part of the process for
PFG, and would encourage that the Executive takes a proactive
approach in engaging people in helping to shape the budgets that
deliver the services that impact on their lives.
SPECIFIC COMMENTARY
10
Purpose
It was generally accepted as positive; however a specific
timeframe should be set against it.
11
Outcomes
We have not provided commentary on each of the outcomes, just
the outcomes that those we engaged with thought need to be
changed or considered in a different way. A narrative of the areas
to consider under each outcome in relation to people with
disabilities is included in appendix 1.
We have a more equal society
There was discussion around the term 'more' and whether it
should be removed and just read 'we have an equal society'.
However, others felt that using the term 'more' showed a direction
of travel.
2
D:\81910712.doc
Discussions highlighted that there needs to be recognition of
multiple identity and that existing strategies such as disability,
gender and sexual orientation need to be resourced and
implemented if there is to be success with this outcome.
We are an innovative, creative society, where people can fulfil
their potential.
The main area of discussion on this outcome was about what it
means to 'fulfil their potential'. This will mean different things to
different people and there needs to be recognition of this within
any further action plans.
We care for others and help those in need
We feel that this is a very paternalistic term and not a rights based
approach. An alternative suggestion included:
We support people to live independently and fulfil their potential.
The earlier outcome could then have fulfil their potential removed
as it is included here.
It should be noted that to 'live independently' does not mean
everyone living by themselves; it is a much broader term. The
following definition for independent living has been developed by
the DRILL Programme.
“All disabled people having the same choice, control, dignity and
freedom as any other citizen to achieve their goals at home, in
education, at work, and as members of the community. This does
not necessarily mean disabled people doing things for themselves
but it does mean having the right to practical assistance based on
their choices and aspirations”.
This definition was originally developed by the Disability Rights
Commission as would help align the outcome to the Executives
Disability Strategy and its duties under the UN Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).
3
D:\81910712.doc
We give children and young people the best start in life
Feedback on this outcome focused on ensuring it meant 'all of our
children', it was felt that adding 'all' demonstrated that it included
children with disabilities and other S75 groups.
The outcome only focuses on 'the best start in life' and it was felt
that this was too narrow a period of time and should be the
children and young people's whole life. Instead of best start in life
the alternative suggested was as follows:
We give all children and young people the opportunity to reach
their full potential.
Link to indictor 42 in outcomes
There was also concern that indicator 42 only appears to be
contributory to 8 of the 14 outcomes and is notably absent from:
o Outcome 1(strong competitive balanced economy)
which includes making sure that growth benefits people
in all parts of the region (geographical disadvantage v
community of disadvantage).
o Outcome 4 – long and healthy lives
o Outcome 6 - more people working in better jobs
o Outcome 7- safe community, hate crime
These outcomes all impact on people with disabilities and
therefore indicator 42 should cross-cut all of them. For example, in
particular Outcome 6 and the impact of disability hate crime on
disabled peoples quality of life.
4
D:\81910712.doc
12.
Indicators
We have not provided commentary on each of the indicators, just
the indicators that those we engaged with thought need to be
changed or considered in a different way. A narrative of the areas
to consider under each outcome in relation to people with
disabilities is included in appendix 1.
Indicator 9 - Improve support for adults with care needs.
The first concern is similar to that of the outcome about caring for
others in that it only considers 'care needs' which is paternalistic
and not rights based.
The second concern is that is only relates to adults - why are
children not included?
We feel that the indicator needs to better reflect the definition of
independent living as outlined previously (page 3) and should
include children as well as adults.
Improve the choice and control for adults and children who may
require practical assistance to live independently.
This would align this indicator to Strategic Priority 7 in the Disability
Strategy and Strategic Aim 3 in the Active Aging Strategy.
The measure under this indicator would not show any outcome, it
is just an output measure. The number of people receiving
personal care at home or self-directed support as a % of the total
number of population does not tell us anything about the impact
that it has had on their lives.
There are much better measures that could be used that could
actually measure the success (or otherwise) of the input. For
example, under Self Directed Support the HSCB will be using the
ASCOT (Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit) measure which is
designed to capture information about an individual's social care
related quality of life (SCRQoL). The benefit of this tool is that it
also takes into consideration the carer and the impact on their
quality of life.
5
D:\81910712.doc
This would be a much more appropriate measure as it is outcomes
focussed and can be used across a range of service users and
care and support settings. It could also be used as another
measure within indicator 42.
A similar outcomes model would need to be identified for children
with disabilities.
Indicator 10 - Improve Support for Looked After Children
This indicator is welcome, however the measure only considers
the position of children in care at age 19 and should be changed
so that the measure can reflect their outcomes during care, not just
on leaving.
Indicator 11 - Improve Educational Outcomes
There is concern that the measure for indicator 11 is too restrictive
as it only focuses on GCSE results. In the more detailed indicator
measurement annex it states that there may be an opportunity to
measure SEN outcomes for people with learning disabilities.
We are concerned that these measures will not reflect the
educational outcomes for children with disabilities. Firstly, would
be GSCE data be able to be disaggregated for children with
disabilities?
Secondly, it should not just be about academic results.
Educational outcomes should be measured much more broadly
and centre on the individual outcome. There should also be
consideration on how vocational qualifications can be used as a
measure for those who do not undertake academic qualifications.
Indicator 12 - Reduce educational inequality
The measure is too restrictive and only considers those who get
free school meals and achievement at level 2 English and maths.
Educational inequality does not just exist due to income level, it
exists due to a wide range of circumstances. For children with
disabilities the inequality can be because of lack of access to
appropriate levels of support in school or other barriers. The
measure should reflect the broad range of inequalities experienced
by children and young people in education.
6
D:\81910712.doc
Indicator 14 - Improve the Skills Profile of the Population
We welcome recognition in Indicator 14 of the importance of up
skilling at level 1 to balance the inordinate emphasis on levels 2
and above in other strategies and initiatives. Disability Action
concurs that the labour market will still require significant numbers
of workers across the whole skills spectrum. This is an issue for
the economy – not just social inclusion. It is important that this is
considered as part of mainstream Government training for young
people and that they are not excluded from vocational training
provision by a focus on level 2 and above.
Indicator 15 - Improve Child Development
The measure does not include any indication that it will measure
child development for children with disabilities. As this will be a
new measure the Executive must ensure that the measure can
include data for children with disabilities and evidence the early
intervention measures that are vital for children with disabilities
and their families.
Indicator 16 - Increase the Proportion of People in Work
Indicator 17 - Reduce Economic Inactivity
The measure for indicator 16 will not reflect success or failure in
employment outcomes for people with significant disabilities. The
Disability Employment Strategy targets this group and therefore
the measurement needs to be aligned to this indicator.
The measure for indicator 17 also needs to ensure that
disaggregated data is available in relation to disability. However,
further measures need to be considered that focus on the outcome
rather than just the output.
During discussions people thought that indicator 16 & 17 could be
aligned together but with having more than one measure.
It is essential that these indicators and measures are aligned with
the Disability Employment Strategy that was recently published. It
is vital that going forward the PFG action plan embraces and
resources the actions of the Disability Employment Strategy.
These include:
7
D:\81910712.doc
 Theme 1 - Empowering and supporting people to secure paid
employment – PfG needs sub-targets to drive and resource this
work. Outcome 1 should include measures to make sure
growth benefits all people – potentially through increased
engagement with employers/use of social clauses.
 Theme 2 Job retention and career development – The PfG does
not address issues of retention or progression. PfG needs to
acknowledge the value of retention of employment both to the
disabled employee and the employer who retains an
experienced member of staff. The challenges facing people
with disabilities in employment have been documented.
 Theme 3 Working with employers – the PfG engagement with
employers is largely focused in growth and inward investment.
The PfG focus noted above on geographical deprivation needs
to be challenged to ensure that work with employers promotes
equality of opportunity for disabled people across NI as a
disadvantaged community of interest.
 Theme 4 Research and development – obvious need for
baseline measures highlighted in the DES strategy should be
addressed by PfG
 Theme 5 Strategic partnership and engagement – PfG should
adopt the partnership approach embraced by DEL/DES in the
development of the Strategy and in the make up of the
stakeholder forum. All departments need to be working in
collaboration and should learn from the mistakes of previous
executives. Efficient and effective partnership with relevant
departments should be a strategic demand.
Indicator 25 - Increase the use of public transport and
active travel
The concern with this indicator and the measurement is that it
does not reflect that for some people with disabilities the only
transport option is the car. It does not reflect that people with
disabilities still face significant barriers in accessing public
transport and active travel.
The Accessible Transport Strategy needs to be considered
within this indicator and the measures set out within it.
The measurement Annex describes that data is available for
people with disabilities as an estimate. This is not acceptable.
8
D:\81910712.doc
Any data set that is to be developed or used must ensure that
there is significant data that can be disaggregated to measure
the outcome for people with disabilities.
Indicator 28 - Increase the confidence and capability of
people and communities.
The indicator is welcome, however, there are concerns about
the measurement and how effective this would be me about
providing and opportunity to measure against peers. Any data
must be able to be disaggregated to measure outcome for
people with disabilities.
9
D:\81910712.doc
13.
Indicator 42 - Increase Quality of Life for People with
Disabilities
Disability Action welcomes that there is a specific indicator for
people with disabilities.
At the engagement events specific time was set a side to discuss
this indicator.
The first issue is does it mean children and adults with disabilities?
It is vital that it includes both and not just adults. The proposed
measure outlined does define this and the suggested survey to be
used for the measure appears to only consider adults.
One of the key questions was what does 'quality of life' mean and
how will it be defined within the measure. The discussion focused
that it would mean different things to different people depending on
their individual circumstances.
In terms of the title of the indicator it was felt that the language
needed to change so that it read:
'Improve the Quality of Life of People with Disabilities'.
People felt that this was more appropriate as it would better reflect
individual outcomes.
Discussion took place on whether this was the right indicator at all
or should be more about measuring social inclusion and the
current indicator doesn't seem to reflect the structural and
environmental barriers that people with disabilities face.
However, both groups felt that there needed to be clarification on
the definition and that it should be co-produced with disabled
people so that everyone was involved in developing the measure.
Both groups also felt that there would be a requirement for more
than one measure for this indicator, that they needed to be more
outcome focused and that it should be developed with people with
disabilities.
10
D:\81910712.doc
We asked the question about what quality of life would mean to
people with disabilities and how they would measure it. Below is a
list of key areas people discussed:
□ Access to housing, employment, leisure activities - if you
have access you have better quality of life.
□ Provision and uptake of timely, appropriate and effective
services.
□ Social inclusion measures
□ Cost of living measures
□ Poverty measures
□ Independent living measures
□ Impact of government policy on quality of life - i.e. welfare
reform, social care, disparity of disability legislation in NI
compared to GB.
Link to Existing Strategies and Policies
There is concern about how existing and new strategies will work
within the new framework. For example, the Disability Strategy,
the Disability Employment Strategy, the Accessible Transport
Strategy.
A significant amount of work an engagement has been undertaken
with these and people are seeking reassurance that the PFG
model will ensure that any actions are still taken forward and
integrated with the action plans for each indicator.
We need to ensure that disability is not just included in an action
plan for indicator 42 but across all of the indicators.
There is a need for the indicator to be aligned to the government
responsibilities under human rights conventions. In particular the
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(UNCRPD) and UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
(UNCRC).
Both these conventions provide an opportunity to provide a model
for measurement against a variety of rights.
11
D:\81910712.doc
Measurement / Data
The Disability Strategy already has a range of indicators against
each of the strategic priority and the work that has been
undertaken on this should be considered as additional measures
that could be used,
There is also significant data within the Northern Ireland Survey of
Activity Limitation and Disability (NISALD). Although this data is
over 10 years old, it would provide a baseline that would be used.
OFMDFM did commit to re-running this survey in 2016, however
this has not materialized, therefore should this be considered as a
more detailed measure that could be used?
What is clear from our work on the UNCRPD is that there is not
enough data in Northern Ireland that can be disaggregated to a
level for people with disabilities. It is vital that any measure,
across any indicator, can be disaggregated for people with
disabilities.
It is vitally important that the measure can reach people who live in
different types of households. The measure as it stands would not
reach people with disabilities who live in supported living,
residential or nursing care. We cannot measure the quality of life
of people with disabilities if we don't include all people with
disabilities.
The measurement must include children with disabilities. At
present it does not appear that there is any measure that will
provide any indicator of outcomes for children with disabilities and
their families.
All the measures that are developed must be available to provide
comparison with others in society, for example, can the indicator
be measured against the quality of life of those without a disability.
Should consideration also be given to how it could be
benchmarked against other countries and nations? So should an
international quality of life indicator such as the World Health
Organisation WHOQOL measure be applied?
12
D:\81910712.doc
Engagement
The process going forward must ensure that it directly engages
with disabled people and their organization to ensure that the
indicator and measurements are co-designed with people with
disabilities. It is our lived experience which will help ensure that
the indicator, measure and any subsequent action plans will
actually deliver real change for disabled people.
One of the failures of the current disability strategy is that it has not
engaged disabled people or involved them in developing real
actions that can deliver. It is imperative that the Executive learn
from this and truly engage with disabled people, throughout all
areas of society.
14
Equality Screening Comments
Disability Action notes that in the first instance the Northern
Ireland Executive has not applied the 4 screening questions
recommended by the Equality Commission for Northern
Ireland.1
The ECNI2 also recommends that in order to answer the 4
screening questions public authorities should consider the
implications of the policy being screened and gather
information/evidence to inform the policy. These omissions
render the screening process seriously flawed from the outset.
Disability Action would ask if the 4 questions, as outlined, where
applied individually to each of the 9 groups listed under Section
75, if yes, the NIE should have supplied the background
evidence to enable informed comment to be made. If no, then
again, this renders the process seriously flawed.
Regarding the 4 questions used, each of them are different so it
would be reasonable to assume they would provide different
answers however the NIE present the same answer to
questions 1 and 2 and questions 3 and 4 respectively which
raises concerns.
1
Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 Equality Commission for Northern Ireland: A Guide for
Public Authorities, Appendix 1, page 54
2 Ibid, page 54
13
D:\81910712.doc
Disability Action would seek information on the consultation
process which highlighted “a range of potential policy issues
potentially impacting on relevant groups” to enable informed
comment to be made. (Question 3)
The NIE would appear to be stating that the Programme for
Government Framework will be formally applied across all 9
categories. Disability Action would point out that Section 75 is
about more than treating everyone the same as some of the 9
categories, in particular people with disabilities, will not be at the
same starting point as others and may require alternative policies
and/or mitigation to ensure equality of opportunity for all.
(Questions 1-4)
The NIE states that the PfG has identified a range of positive
policy issues impacting on relevant groups and good relations and
these will be dealt with as appropriate at a lower level.
Disability Action would advise that Section 75 requires a proactive
approach to policy making and where, through gathered
information, adverse impacts identified on any or all of the 9
categories, mitigating factors and/or alternative policies should be
applied to alleviate the impact or, if necessary, progress to an
EQIA. The NIE therefore can’t opt out of its Section 75 obligations
by delegating its statutory responsibility to lower level
organisations or agencies. (Conclusion)
In general, this screening process only considered the “proposed
outcomes” rather than the proposed actions impact on equality of
opportunity. Additionally, the process did not provide evidence
across the 9 Section 75 categories to substantiate in an adverse
impact exists or not.
The current economic and austerity position makes equality of
opportunity more relevant in regard to those most disadvantaged
in society. As this PfG places an emphasis on the economy
Disability Action believes that those currently disadvantaged, in
particular, people with disabilities will potentially be
disproportionately affected by the PfG.
Given these and the comments made at paragraphs 1-8 above
Disability Action believes this screening process to be
14
D:\81910712.doc
unacceptable and recommends the NIE to redraft the screening
process.
OR
Given these and the comments made at paragraphs 1-8 above
Disability Action believes that the screening process requires
significant redrafting.
15.
Concluding Comments
This is very much a new way of working for everyone, but the
process needs to be made much more accessible to people and
the Executive need to ensure that everyone can be involved in the
process. This means going out and talking to people over a longer
period of time and providing more opportunity for engagement.
We are aware that this is the first step and that subsequent action
plans will be developed, disabled people must be engaged with
this process.
Disability cuts across all the outcomes and indicators and this
should be recognized in the measures and action plans.
There are concerns that this mandate will be about setting
baselines - we want to see the use of available data or early
baselines set so that we can start to see progress going forward.
Disability Action welcomes the opportunity to respond to this
document, and would like to thank all those who took part in
engagement events to help inform this response.
We will continue working with disabled people and their
organizations to inform the PFG process going forward.
15
D:\81910712.doc
Appendix 1 - Direct Notes from Engagement Events
1.
We prosper through a strong, competitive, regionally balanced
economy
 Apprenticeships for people with disabilities
 Skills development for people with disabilities
 Flexibility of the workplace and economy ie greater support
systems and recognition of the contribution that disabled people
can bring to the workplace
 Develop understanding of decision makers to allow for individual
needs of pwds to ensure inclusion in a competitive economy
 Education of employers/staff in regard to disability issues
 Programmes to build the confidence of pwds
 Implementation of the Disability Employment Strategy which
should be fully funded
2.
We live and work sustainably – protecting the environment
 We have an interest in the environment and policies etc
government should look to ensuring full accessibility for pwds eg
fishing, country walks, birdwatching etc
3.
We have a more equal society
 Implementation of significant strategies eg disability, gender,
sexual orientation. The Disability Strategy must be fully resourced
and the implementation process must include the voice of pwds in
developing the action measures and in monitoring and evaluation
 Multiple identity issues must be addressed
 People live in fear – there is a lack of understanding,
misconceptions and stigma around pwds
 Politicians think equality is done and dusted but more needs to be
done to accomplish an equal society
 If OFMDFM as the lead and equality officers within government
don’t do it right, then no one else will
 Pwds need to bring the issues to politicians and start to breakdown
the boundaries
 We need to do more to ensure the voices of pwds are heard
 Address the disparity in equality legislation between NI and the GB
Equality Act 2010
 Concerns regarding Brexit and impact of Welfare Reform
16
D:\81910712.doc
4.
We enjoy long, healthy, active lives














5.
Cost of gyms is a problem for people on benefit and low income
Disability Training of leisure centre staff
Access to suitable sport and accessible facilities
Promote the mental health benefits of exercise
Less focus on the negatives and promote engagement in leisure
activities for better outcomes
Health screening not offered to pwds
Scoping of accessibility of leisure facilities
A gym can be a safer, healthier environment
Children with disabilities – early years and inclusive activities
General health can be neglected as disability can be the primary
focus
GP referrals - public health awareness around issues such as 10
week sports voucher
Look at the individual rather than the collective need regarding
activities
Leisure centres can be institutional
Pwds require obstacle/barrier free/concessions
We are an innovative, creative society, where people can fulfil
their potential
 Back to outcome 1 to fulfil our potential
 The Disability Employment Strategy – what will happen now for its
implementation with no prospect of funding from Europe
 Being innovative and creative for pwds and giving us the
opportunity to do something
 Pwds not given equal opportunities because viewed as dependent
and can’t demonstrate their experience
 Children with disabilities may not take exams, however reaching
their full potential is not about academic qualifications
 Early diagnosis for children with disabilities is required and the
supports they need to achieve their own potential
 Childcare and nursery places especially the recent media
coverage on cuts in nursery places for cwds
 Carers and parents are often forgotten about - in some cases a
parent has to give up work to care for their child. The impact on
the whole family should be addressed.
17
D:\81910712.doc
 There are geographical disparity implications to a range of
services ie rural areas lack the services that urban dwellers have
 There needs to be a priority of individual need, not priority of need
with a set budget
 Regarding transitions more needs to be done to ensure an efficient
transfer from children to adult services for young people with
disabilities
 Impact of closure of some local services eg library closures
6.
We have more people working in better jobs
 Pwds tend to occupy lower quality jobs. Such prejudicial
judgement on dp’s ability goes beyond equality and diversity and is
institutional within public and private employers
 There is an argument for better jobs for pwds
 Part time work for pwds carry less entitlements ie pensions etc
 The onus should be on government to ensure that employers
support pwds employment programmes
 Clarification on qualifications for jobs versus the educational
outcome for pwds.
 Alternatives – as work is not always an option for some pwds
7.
We have a safe community where we respect the law and each
other
 After a hate crime police focus on prosecution never on the victim
 Police do not feed back to the victim and therefore no court case
which impacts on your mental health
 There should be robust monitoring of hate crime on pwds as the
emphasis is on race/sectarian crime
 Community policing has improved
 Focus should be on proper policing and not the two communities
 How this outcome is termed will result in policies to protect the two
traditional main communities in NI and not the other Section 75
groups
 Pwds can be identified through external housing adaptations to
their home so this requires more creative design
8.
We care for others and we help those in need
 This outcome is medical model orientated.
18
D:\81910712.doc
 There should be a measurement within the PfG on social housing
and segregated disability communities
 The effect of cuts on people living independently and the non
introduction of Transforming Your Care
 Carers’ needs must be taken into consideration
 Housing Associations should build to the same rules as the NIHE
 The indicators for this outcome need to be re-done
9.
We are a shared society that respects diversity
 Hate crime has already been covered at 7 above.
 Media coverage in GB regarding Welfare Reform has resulted in
an increase in hate crime towards pwds
 Pwds need respect and given the same life chances as everyone
else because perceived lack of qualifications and economic status
influences non-disabled peoples’ perspective and attitude towards
pwds
 The government should take on best practice examples from the
community/voluntary sector and how they work with and for a
diverse population
10. We are a confident, welcoming, outward-looking society
 Regarding a confident, welcoming, outward-looking society really
how visible are pwds?
 Has this outcome been dented by the UK’s exit from Europe?
 How will this outcome be achieved without the aid of European
funding?
11. We give our children and young people the best start in life
 This PfG has not considered children with disabilities at all
 Early diagnosis is key to a best start for c&ypwds
 A huge area of need for funded learning disability programmes and
past underspend must to be rectified ie the WH&SCT cuts to
learning disability programmes
 There are no mental health services for c&ypwds and this must be
addressed
 The medical model of disability and children’s services ensures a
negative delivery of services. Departments with responsibility of
c&ypwds should adopt a human rights model
19
D:\81910712.doc
 Families have to continually fight and advocate in order to get
minimum services. There should be more support for parents and
they shouldn’t be ignored or patronised
 The whole family should be assessed in regard to services
 The lack of positive role models for c&ypwds limits c&ypwds
potential to achieve
 Doctors and other health professionals should get training on
families experiences
 Recommend CDSA Manifesto as a way forward
12. We have high quality public services
 There should be a measurement of quality services for pwds
 This should include access to transport, education, housing, health
– all high quality
 Public services should be flexible to accommodate individual
needs – not one size fits all. This outcome requires political
engagement to inform public services
13. We have created a place where people want to live and work, to
visit and invest
 Again, this has an economic focus and it would be hard to see
where pwds fit in
 By getting it right for pwds who live here it might also encourage
visitors with disabilities
14. We connect people and opportunities through our
infrastructure





This should include digital inclusion – more high speed broadband
Upgrade the road between Derry/Londonderry to Belfast
4G training
Affordability of technology – the cost excludes some pwds
More utilizing of technology to support pwds in education and
health etc.
 Access to social, leisure activities and opportunities will improve
health and wellbeing
20
D:\81910712.doc
Indicator 42
Increase quality of life of people with disabilities
 This indicator must be underpinned by the UNCRPD in particular
Articles 4.3, 5, 6, 7, 19 and 28
 The impact of Welfare Reform and specifically fear of cuts and
pressure of constantly needing to prove yourself
 Freedom from fear, worry, anxiety replaced by a reassurance of
an adequate level of economic security and adequate standard of
living
 Measurement – research the higher cost of living with a disability
 Social measure – independent living research what this means
and baseline what is currently happening
 Disparities in legislation within the UK ie GB Equality Act 2010
 Access to training, employment and alternatives
 Underrepresentation in public appointments of pwds
 Social housing – all (public, housing associations and private)
should be built to a disability quality standard
 Changes in policy such as repayable loans for adaptations results
in fear of debt
 The PfG should have defined what is meant “quality of life” so that
we could make an informed response
General comments
 This document is written in a vague manner with no concrete
actions which can be seriously measured
 All outcomes and indicators have an economic focus which will be
the main thrust of this Framework
 Disability issues cut across all 42 indicators and this should be
recognised
 Highly recommend that the outcomes are re-worded, using
positive equality language and accompanied by correct and
realistic indicators which will ensure achievement of the PfG
21
D:\81910712.doc