Scope open letter says disabled people are controlled, not included

Last year, the Canary reported how Daniel Harvey, activist and campaigner for disability justice, was denied access to Parliament on International Day of Persons with Disabilities, despite making all of the necessary arrangements.

Below, Daniel writes about his experiences and the lack of resolution, months later. In particular, he describes the lack of support offered by Scope, the charity for which he is an assembly member.

Approached for comment, James Taylor, executive director of strategy at Scope, said:

We are sorry for the experience Daniel had when he attended one of our events in Parliament last year and are grateful for his feedback. We have continued to engage with him since the event last December and with Parliament. We know there is more to do so that Parliament does not repeat the same mistakes. And we will look to improve our process for future events.

We are currently working to improve the experience our members have with Scope.

Advertisement

Our members are hugely valued and important to us, and we are currently engaging with all members to understand how we can improve their experience.

Dear Scope

When giving up your time to support one of the UK’s biggest disability charities, you would expect a sense of co-production.

I am currently an elected assembly member for Scope. We are involved in influencing Scope and how they connect with its members and the general public. During my time, I have entered two meetings: one centred around an icebreaker; the other on disability awareness training. The vast majority of us were already familiar with the latter, due to lived experience.

So, technically speaking, I haven’t actually achieved anything.

When I was invited to Parliament for a Scope event, I was denied entry. This was despite having clearance and an official invitation. Due to a governmental error, my invite and clearance was hidden from view. I was told by police officers at the gate that I had to try and resolve this amongst the hustle and bustle of Metropolitan London.

I made the decision to leave after an hour of attempting to call every staff member I could from Scope.

Experts in the systems that hurt us

I’ve received no agreeable resolution. Instead, the expectation was for me to work for free by providing my knowledge and insight to strengthen the government’s accessibility policy.

I am personally fed up with hearing that age-old narrative where disabled people, who have experienced a barrier, are then expected to volunteer their expertise exploitatively. It’s an existential crisis that leaves a bitter taste to those of us who don’t have a choice in becoming experts in the systems that hurt us.

Our insights and experiences are extremely valuable, and to see this poor trend continue within a charity that I deeply respected has saddened me.

Silenced, not empowered

Scope has made multiple errors around supporting and safeguarding its assembly members. Staff members have left without reason. Changes have been made without our acknowledgement. Our current means of communication in WhatsApp has disappeared. Scope has now changed the platform without consulting us to Microsoft Teams, which is atrocious for accessibility amongst our community.

I am shocked by Scope’s approach and their lack of accountability. I’ve had informal meetings with various staff members, but it hasn’t gone anywhere. This isn’t the picture of inclusion I had in mind. Scope is meant to empower disabled people, but somehow I feel silenced.

The lack of communication from a disability charity that supposedly champions inclusion and accessibility has ironically created some very big barriers. There has been no paid staff member monitoring communications, which helps with safeguarding its members. We are also restricted when reaching out to the management team or board of trustees for support, due to a lack of engagement.

Undemocratic

Being an assembly member involves being able to share your perspective on any proposed changes. Instead, we are expected to legitimise the obstacles we are experiencing. That isn’t democracy.

I didn’t agree to sit in spaces where you feel unable to challenge. I am tired of being told to hold my tongue or be grateful when the very things we fight for daily are happening right in front of us. I will not be complicit with Scope if they cannot recognise the value of this assembly.

I spoke with another assembly member, Damian Bridgeman, for his perspective:

My relationship with Scope goes back to childhood. I re-engaged at a governance level where I went back onto the council as a volunteer. I gave up my skills freely.

Damian was later encouraged to become a trustee.

I went through the process despite inaccessible forms. Then I was told my skills didn’t fit the board’s matrix.

Still he remained…

‘Control dressed up as inclusion’

During his involvement with the council, Damian grew aware of proposed charity shop closures. He wrote a 13-page turnaround plan to help. However, he was told that his plan didn’t stack up.

In my career, I’ve developed assistive technology which is now being used by 250 million people globally. I knew I could deliver that turnaround.

Damian’s conclusion is extremely unambiguous:

We are being kept close enough to be visible, but not close enough to have real influence. That’s not inclusion. Instead, that is control dressed up as inclusion.

That last line in particular has hit me. For so many of us, we fight for change in a world where we come face-to-face with health battles, discrimination, physical and environmental barriers and economic exclusion.

Disabled people shouldn’t be expected to sit still with their feelings like it’s some performative act. We shouldn’t ever discourage anyone from the opportunity to engage and make change especially when it’s in reach.

Opportunities like being in the assembly were meant to be that for me. Unfortunately, it has turned out to be a story of deep disappointment.

Please do better.

Featured image via the Canary