GEORGE MILLS Senior Regional Advisor - London DHI presentation Hidden in plain sight

The Aim of the Inquiry The central aim of this inquiry was to investigate how disability-related harassment is dealt with by public authorities, public transport operators and others.

Why this Inquiry ? Evidence of serious cases of abuse including Pilkington But, serious cases only tip of the iceberg For many harassment is commonplace and goes un- reported Apparent failure of public authorities to recognise extent of disability related harassment Previous research on the safety and security of disabled people

EHRC definition of disability-related harassment Unwanted, exploitative or abusive conduct against disabled people which has the purpose or effect of either: – Violating the dignity, safety, security or autonomy of the person experiencing it, or – Creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading or offensive environment.

Types of harassment described by disabled people included: – name calling – damage to property – exploitation, theft and fraud – anti-social behavior – cyber bullying and cyber harassment – sexual abuse, rape and sexual assault, and – physical assault, ranging from lower level assaults up to murder Forms of harassment

Ten Cases As part of this inquiry we examined 10 cases in which disabled people have died or been seriously injured. Our intention in looking at this selection of cases is to illustrate some of the key features of disability-related harassment. They give us some clues as to how and why such behaviour happens, and how, even when it is of a very extreme nature, it can go unchallenged. For more details of the cases please see the full report.

KEY FINDINGS 1 The inquiry has confirmed that the cases of disability- related harassment which come to court and receive media attention are only the tip of the iceberg. Our evidence indicates that, for many disabled people, harassment is a commonplace experience. Many come to accept it as inevitable.

Key findings 2 Disabled people often do not report harassment, for a number of reasons: It may be unclear who to report it to; they may fear the consequences of reporting; or they may fear that the police or other authorities will not believe them. A culture of disbelief exists around this issue. For this reason, we describe it as a problem which is ‘hidden in plain sight’

Key Findings 3 There is a systemic failure by public authorities to recognise the extent and impact of harassment and abuse of disabled people, take action to prevent it happening in the first place and intervene effectively when it does. These organisational failings need to be addressed as a matter of urgency and the full report makes a number of recommendations aimed at helping agencies to do so.

Key Findings 4 Any serious attempt to prevent the harassment of disabled people will need to consider more than organisational change, although that will be an important precondition to progress. The bigger challenge is to transform the way disabled people are viewed, valued and included in society.

Systemic institutional failure Incidents often dealt with in isolation Lack of consideration of disability as a motivating factor Opportunities to stop harassment are missed Focus on the behavior and ‘vulnerability’ of the victim rather than the perpetrator Failure of agencies to work together to stop harassment Little investment to understand the causes and prevention Barriers to reporting and recording across all sectors Barriers accessing justice/ perpetrators face few consequences A lack of shared learning across agencies

Over the next six months We will consult widely with stakeholders on whether these are the right steps, how they might work and whether there are any other measures which might be more effective. We want to find out how these recommendations can be embedded in planned initiatives, and be cost- effective. others take responsibility and ownership for these recommendations.

Manifesto for change Our full report sets out specific measures for each relevant sector which our evidence suggests could make a major difference. These include: ministers in key departments, local government leaders, housing providers, the NHS, the police, the courts, schools and public transport operators. Not just public bodies who need to act differently, it’s all of us

Leadership It is, after all, senior officers and executives who set the priorities for organisations. Strong leadership will drive real change throughout the organisations which they lead. Set core objectives, either within their governance structures or otherwise. Accountability, transparency and outcome ?

Report sets out specific recommendations in relation to criminal justice sector, local government and partnerships, transport, housing, health and social care, education and their sector inspectorates and regulators. Police - take a prompt lead in investigating all repeat cases and repeat cases should automatically have a high priority status. Prosecutors – change of language in relation to Special Measures with a focus on securing an equitable service, a simpler and more streamlined approach for receiving them that is monitored. Local government – play a lead role in developing partnerships, that are accessible for disabled people to join, review priority given to harassment. Ensure that advocacy and support services are adequate and accessible Transport – design out potential for conflict in new fleet and transport infrastructure design. Sector specific recommendations

Housing – interventions to prevent harassment occurring and it escalating, provisions against harassment should be included in tenancy agreements. Health and social care – health services should ensure their safeguarding alert processes are robust and staff are adequately trained. Schools – should develop material on the social model of disability, to better understand the prejudice faced by disabled people and to tackle harassment when it occurs. Inspectorates & regulators – always intervene in serious cases, common standards and criteria, joint inspection.

Key areas for improvement for Local Government Provide leadership in partnerships and within the community Promote positive attitudes to disabled people Increase reporting of harassment Recognise that anti-social behaviour may be motivated by hostility or prejudice against disabled people Intervene effectively to prevent escalation Better support for disabled people Develop a corporate approach to safeguarding Improve joint working with other agencies

Key areas for improvement for the Police Increase reporting of harassment Investigate, recognise and record harassment as disability related Provide better support for disabled victims Recognise that disability related motivation may exist alongside other motives Improve investigation and evidence gathering Intervene effectively to prevent escalation Improve communication with other agencies

Key areas for improvement for Prosecutors Improve recognition of offences as disability related across crime types Recognise that disability related motivation may exist alongside other motives Prosecute offences as disability related where there is evidence of hostility/prejudice either as sole or partial motivation Avoid plea-bargaining out the aggravation Provide better support for disabled victims to give best evidence including improving access to ‘special measures’ Ensure access to justice for victims of harassment, including those who might have been viewed as lacking credibility in the past Improve communication with other agencies

Multi-agency co-operation Demonstrate real commitment to effective partnership working if we are to see results. There will be resources implication and operational constraints. For this reason we are keen to engage with all parties to find out how the improvement can be achieved for the most reasonable cost.

Multi-agency hate crime panel Reviewing existing structure in the borough Formal structure Shared ownership and lead agencies Develop an action plan Types of Memberships Chairing the panel Servicing and resources Coordinate casework and policy issues Confidentiality Put the victim first Monitoring and evaluating of services

Close to home: An inquiry into older people and human rights in home care and-policy/inquiries-and-assessments/inquiry- into-home-care-of-older-peoplehttp:// and-policy/inquiries-and-assessments/inquiry- into-home-care-of-older-people

Guidance is available at: and-guidance/public-sector-equality- duty/guidance-on-the-equality-dutyhttp:// and-guidance/public-sector-equality- duty/guidance-on-the-equality-duty If you would like the EHRC to give a presentation to your staff contact us on:

Guidance : Using the equality duties to make fair financial decisions: Ensure you have a written record of the equality considerations you have taken into account Ensure that your decision-making includes a consideration of the actions that would help to avoid or mitigate any negative impacts on particular protected groups. make your decision-making process more transparent make your decisions based on evidence

Triennial Review How fair is Britain? Executive Summary Easy Read summary How fair is Britain? Equality, Human Rights and Good Relations in Supporting evidence How to search for information within a PDF file projects/triennial-review

SPECIALIST ADVISERS LINE Advice line hours: 09:30 -12:30 Tuesday to Thursday Advice line telephone numbers: Sex Discrimination or Sexual Orientation Disability Discrimination or Age Discrimination: Race Discrimination or Religion and/or Belief Discrimination:

‘Building a society built on fairness and respect where people are confident in all aspects of their diversity.’