MORE LONG GRASS - The consultation process for a charter of rights and a national lived experience collaborative warrants critical evaluation. As it stands, there's palpable concern that this initiative may ultimately yield little more than well-crafted rhetoric, lacking any real substantive impact. This apprehension is rooted in a familiar pattern: extended discussions and consultations that create an appearance of progress but eventually culminate in a mere statement of intent rather than concrete action.
#YouKeepTalkingWeKeepDying
In 2018, Faces and Voices of Recovery UK pioneered a significant milestone with the creation of the UK Recovery Declaration of Rights. This declaration was not just a document; it was a manifestation of a comprehensive, nationwide movement. For over two years, we engaged with over 150 organisations and rallied the support of thousands of individuals, weaving together a diverse tapestry of voices and experiences from across the UK. This initiative, which you can explore in greater detail here, stands as a testament to our commitment to inclusivity and collaborative effort.
facesandvoicesofrecoveryuk.o…
As we embark on the development of this new charter of rights, this time a purley Scottish variant, there are major concerns about its purpose, potential impact and reach. The apprehension stems from the fact that this new charter, unlike our previous endeavors, is being primarily driven by the civil service, rather than being led by those with
#livedexperience. The difference in leadership and approach raises questions about the charter’s ability to match the scope and reach of our 2018 declaration.
The UK Recovery Declaration of Rights was a product of grassroots involvement and genuine engagement with the recovery and treatment community, ensuring that it resonated deeply with the needs and aspirations of those it sought to represent. In contrast, the new charter, being steered more by civil service directives, wont encapsulate the same level of depth and breadth. Such a top-down approach will be missing the invaluable insights and inputs that only those with lived experience can provide. Even if lived experience are “consulted” the are passengers on a a bus they aren’t steering the bus when Scot Gov is driving it.
Reflecting on a pivotal moment in 2021, when I decisively walked out of a meeting with Scottish Government civil servants, I wish to elucidate the reasons behind such a drastic action. Over an extensive period of 11 months, which involved over 600 email communications with various civil servants, including top-level officials, our team diligently worked to develop comprehensive business plans, detailed proposals outlining aims and objectives, job descriptions, and costings for a national lived experience collaborative, we had first suggested the idea for one in 2019 in our report to government called Working together to challenge stigma and save lives. You can see it here
facesandvoicesofrecoveryuk.o…
However, the relationship with scot gov developed the process increasingly felt like a mere bureaucratic exercise, a fishing expedition from the civil servants devoid of the collaborative spirit necessary for effecting genuine change. We were reassured many times to “trust us and be patient.” I foolishly did so.
This process eventually culminated in the moment I chose to walk out of the meeting, a decision that symbolised my profound frustration. The breaking point came when, after contributing so significantly to this initiative, the very idea of which we had recommended creating in 2019 in our report, they insensitively offered FAVORUK mere expenses (bus fares etc) to participate in a project that we had essentially conceived, nurtured, developed and brought into vision.
Over two years have since passed, a duration that in itself is startling. It’s disconcerting to acknowledge that the blueprint for an effective collaborative, which we provided over two and a half years ago, is still struggling to materialise. What I fear is unfolding is the development of a 'watered-down' version of what a truly impactful lived experience collaborative could be. The comprehensive and insightful strategies we provided risk being diluted into a less effective form, one that is shaped more by bureaucratic expediency & the usual suspects than by the genuine needs and experiences of the individuals it is intended to serve.
More importantly, the involvement of individuals with lived experience, while valuable, risks being manipulated into a façade of participation rather than being a genuine, influential voice in policy-making. The current policy architects and actors, most of whom contributed to the existing crisis in the sector, are still here and again at the helm, raising questions about any actual potential for real change. I and many others find it deeply disconcerting to witness senior members of the recovery community, especially those working in treatment services, being prominently featured in photographs as a way to lend credibility and substance to what is claimed to be engagement efforts.
In summary, what I see here is another exercise in superficial engagement. What is needed is a commitment to learning from past initiatives and genuinely incorporating the genuine authentic leadership, insights and expertise of those with lived experience, & others to ensure that the resulting policies are both effective and reflective of the real needs of those they aim to serve.
#IFNothingChangesNothingChanges