In this piece, Julie Newman from Regard discusses the government’s current emergency planning provisions and how they’re falling short for Disabled people. We need more than evacuation plans – we need a guarantee that our independence and dignity will be upheld no matter the emergency.
Recently, the UK Government urged people to stock up on enough food and water for four to five days in case of emergencies, as part of an information drive from their new national resilience campaign. Unsurprisingly, it caused a storm of panic and outrage and social media, which led me to think about how this would apply for us as Disabled people.
Firstly, I was outraged that there was the assumption that everyone could comply with this. There are currently 7.5 million people experiencing food poverty in the UK, let alone the 380,000 homeless that are registered in the statistics. No doubt there are more who are uncounted. I started to look at the guidance and government planning more widely.
When we think about disasters and emergencies, it is tempting to think first about evacuation. Can people get out of danger, and can emergency services reach them? But the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) asks us to think more broadly.
Article 11 requires States to take all necessary measures to ensure the protection and safety of Disabled people in situations of risk, including humanitarian emergencies and natural disasters. Article 19, meanwhile, establishes the right to live independently and be included in the community.
Taken together, these rights raise an important question.
Does emergency planning protect Disabled people’s lives without undermining our independence, dignity and inclusion?
That means thinking about much more than evacuation. Can emergency warnings be received and understood? Can someone take their wheelchair, communication equipment, medication or other essential equipment with them? Can a personal assistant, carer or assistance animal accompany them? Are evacuation transport and emergency reception centres accessible? What happens when an emergency lasts for days rather than hours? And, crucially, does recovery enable people to return to independent living rather than being placed somewhere simply because it is easier for the system?
And what about intersectionality?
Disabled people are not all the same. Disability intersects with age, sexuality, gender identity, culture, language, communication needs and many other aspects of people’s lives. These intersections can create barriers which are invisible in a generic emergency plan.
There is also the opportunity for cultural bias to creep into planning and guidance. Emergency responders may make assumptions about family structures, who provides care, relationships, gender roles, language, food, religious or cultural practices, or the extent to which someone can rely on relatives or neighbours. Those assumptions can become particularly significant when an emergency disrupts people’s usual support networks.
The answer must surely be to create inclusive policies. It is to recognise that assumptions can creep into emergency systems themselves and to ensure that planning, training and communication allow people to explain what is actually needed.
Consider a Disabled LGBTQI+ person. An emergency may suddenly require them to disclose personal information to strangers, share accommodation or washing facilities, explain relationships or rely on people who have never been trained to understand why privacy and confidentiality matter. Someone who has carefully controlled who knows about their sexuality or gender identity may have little control over that disclosure in an emergency.
This is not an argument that every LGBTQI+ Disabled person will experience these problems. It is an argument that emergency planning needs to anticipate them. The same principle applies to Deaf people, people with communication or cognitive support needs, neurodivergent people, people with mobility or visual impairments, and people whose support networks may themselves be affected by the emergency. Our research across the four UK nations has found considerable evidence of good practice and increasingly detailed guidance. However, there remains an important question about the journey from policy to practice.
A plan can identify Disabled people as a priority group without demonstrating that the necessary capacity, training, accessible infrastructure and support are actually available when an emergency occurs. Reliance on voluntary organisations also needs careful consideration: community organisations can be enormously valuable, but their capacity cannot simply be assumed.
Emergency resilience should therefore be tested not only by asking whether Disabled people appear in a plan, but whether the plan enables us to remain safe, informed, supported, independent and treated with dignity throughout the emergency and its aftermath.
Article 11 is about protection and safety. Article 19 reminds us what that protection should ultimately preserve: the right to live our lives as equal members of our communities.
This article first appeared in https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/%E2%80%9Cwe-need-more-evacuation-plan%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%93-where-do-disabled-people-fit-government%E2%80%99s-emergency-plans
COMMENTS