The government is advertising for ten deaf or disabled people to join a new Independent Disability Advisory Panel (IDAP) which will, amongst other things, share “expertise and insight” with the Timms review panel. The big question is, what does this say about who is on the Timms review panel?
Last month, the government announced that they had appointed disability rights campaigner Zara Todd as chair of IDAP.
The panel was first mooted in the Get Britain Working white paper. Its purpose is to “provide guidance, recommendations and feedback to embed lived experience” into government health and disability policy.
Now, the government is advertising for ten people to join the panel.
The posts are for 1.5 days a month, paid at a rate of £200 a day. The closing date for applications is 29 September and the panel is only scheduled to run until the end of March, with the possibility of an extension.
This means the panel may only only meet six times in its entire existence, as workshops are to be held just monthly.
The government are “looking for people who identify as Deaf, disabled or as living with a long-term health condition who have the following experience:
- working or volunteering for a Deaf or Disabled People’s Organisation or Charity, or active participation in a health or disability related network, campaign, or research project
- existing experience providing strategic advice on matters related to health and disability
- strong understanding of the barriers faced by Deaf and disabled people and people living with a long-term health condition in relation to employment, unemployment and economic inactivity
- ability to work effectively with a wide range of people”
According to the job advert, all members will have to sign a non-disclosure agreement which will prevent them from discussing what they learn with people outside of the panel.
This recruitment approach contrasts hugely with the recruitment for the Timms review itself. We have no idea how the Timms review panel was recruited, who they are, what the terms of their “employment” are, how often they meet or anything else.
But the IDAP remit to work with the Timms review, does suggest the possibility of a public relations exercise, so that Timms can claim that disabled people were involved in his work without ever revealing who was on his own panel.
Is it possible, for example, that the Timms review panel contains more representatives of assessment providers, employers, training companies and other private sector organisations than it does of disabled people’s organisations?
As long as the whole Timms review process remains shrouded in secrecy, deep suspicion seems to be the only reasonable response to anything connected with it.
