What is coproduction?

There is widespread misunderstanding and lack of awareness of what coproduction means.  Often the word “consultation” gets substituted in discussions around the issues, but the two are very different. 

Consultation can be part of research for  or a way of processing responses to a policy document;  the final decision as to what is included remains with the author and/or the organisation it is presented to.

Whilst other voices may be listened to, they may also be ignored.  This is the most familiar

 way of developing policy at government or local authority level.

Coproduction is very different.  It is non hierarchical, involving all those involved being treated as equals whose contributions are welcomed and respected including those with lived experience likely to be most impacted by any changes.  It recognises and values different kinds of experience and knowledge.  For it to work successfully participants need to develop listening skills and a willingness to consider and respect the views of all those concerned.

It involves learning new skills and setting aside old preconceptions about the way decisions should be made.  For those who have benefitted from a top down system it can be scary as new skills need to be learnt and unfamiliar views have to be taken on board.

On the plus side the outcomes are more likely to be valuable, especially for those whose lived experience has in the past been undervalued and more often than not ignored in contexts where there’s a  system where those at the top make the decisions. Coproduction does not favour top-down decision-making.

When working with service users it is vital that they should be present as part of the coproduction team either personally or, where needed, with support from personal assistants or advocates.  This is particularly important for disabled people who are frequently sidelined when services are being planned which impact on their needs.

Coproduction and Timms

There are a number of reasons why it is difficult to trust that the Timms Review could be genuinely coproductive.  For one thing Timms has the dual role of DWP minister and Disability Minister.  One of those roles clearly predominates in his thinking: all recent utterances have been in support of benefit cuts; none in support of disabled people going through a period of intense anxiety.  To be fair it would require an extraordinary feat of intellectual athleticism to be able to coproduce with yourself in such deeply contrasting roles!

Stephen Timms has not so far shown himself to be an ally to or friend of disabled people and disabled people’s organisations.  On one occasion, at the end of a meeting with disabled people he shocked those attending when he stepped over a woman who had just collapsed in order to enable himself to reach the door. 

He has been found to have misled MPs on deaths and cover-ups by the DWP, as reported in Disability News Service who also describe his unwillingness to release information about benefit deaths resulting from DWP action. He has been extremely reluctant to publish information requested when – as often happens – it presents the DWP in a bad light.

The idea that disabled people will be involved in coproduction in examination of PIP reforms is also questionable.  There is no information forthcoming about which Deaf and Disabled People’s organisations will be involved in the process.  It is even possible that they will assume as they often do that charities are the best organisations to give information about disabled people’s needs, especially larger organisations not led by disabled people. 

It is noteworthy that the committee examining evidence relating to the Assisted Dying Bill refused to allow evidence from Ellen Clifford, DPAC activist and highly regarded author of The War on Disabled People.  It is the sort of evidence that is needed but it is unlikely to be welcomed in this context.

The composition of the committee is also unclear.  In addition to Stephen Timms it will consist of disabled people, organisations that represent them (does this comprise/include charities?), “experts”, MPs and other (unspecified) stakeholders.  The potential for disabled people to be marginalised is there, and there have in the past been cases of people representing DPOs refusing to continue discussions with the DWP because they have not been listened to.

The culture of the DWP and the ministers who are charged with running it does not augur well for the likelihood that the Timms Review will be in any way coproductive.  Even if they were able to manage to move some way towards it the final document will have to go to Liz Kendall to be authorised or amended and go beyond her to the Prime Minister and Chancellor, a top down process inimical to everything that coproduction stands for.

The third reading

The office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has sent the UK Government a letter calling on them to stop the Universal Credit (PIP) Bill because of serious concerns:

• lack of impact assessments
• impact on women, young people and global majority people
• likelihood of increased poverty
• lack of public consultation
• lack of DDPO involvement
• money bill means inadequate scrutiny
• politicians’ misleading rhetoric re fraud, burden on society etc
• intensified by other measures:  Fraud, Error and Recovery bill; Assisted Dying Bill 

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Disabled People will examine the issue in its 11-26  August session.

Wat ch this space