Editorial

Abstract

Some conferences are really good for encouraging thinking, and I am fortunate in just having attended an excellent event in Scotland. Equal, Connected and Contributing: Research perspectives on the citizenship and human rights of people with learning disabilities was a joint venture organised by the Scottish Consortium for People with Learning Disabilities with the Open University and the Institute for Research and Innovation in Social Services. It was attended by a large audience of people with learning disabilities, professionals, families and carers from across Scotland along with a small group from Ireland. The subject of the conference was of relevance to the British Journal of Learning Disabilities, and a number of things struck me in particular. Some of these were about the United Kingdom itself and how things are both similar and different in the countries of Britain. As an editor, I am used to asking authors to be clear about the geographical scope of their work: some contributors tend to confuse their regional or national experience as being universal. However, this normally involves debates about the United Kingdom within an international perspective. I have not previously asked an author to discuss relevance within the United Kingdom in the context of devolution. However, a strong message that I took away from the conference was that social policy is significantly different in England and Scotland and that the divergence is growing. For example, I had not really appreciated that there were differences between the Scottish Mental Incapacity Act and the Mental Capacity Act that applies in the rest of the United Kingdom. Federal states must be quite used to such differences, but I am not sure that we have fully understood them yet in the United Kingdom. One of the key differences is the closeness to national decision-makers enjoyed in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland compared to England. For example, a larger proportion of people in Scotland have met, been listened to and heard the Minister for Health in Scotland than will ever be possible in the much larger jurisdiction of England. I am not sure how this impacts on policy itself, but such accessibility of ministers certainly helps with the perception of involvement in the decision-making process. Despite the differences in legislative and administrative processes, I was also struck by many of the similarities in issues affecting people with learning disabilities both sides of the border. For example, the mental capacity/incapacity acts may be different, but the experience of struggling to get health practitioners to understand the nature of informed consent was almost identical. The debates about the value of and access to paid employment for people with learning disabilities were just the same as were some of the identified gaps in research such as that into commissioning, forensic services and human rights. The demand by people with learning disabilities that they are not, but should be involved at all stages of the research process was also a common theme. The organisers of the conference are currently considering editing the papers for a special edition of the British Journal of Learning Disabilities, and I look forward to the results of their discussions. Following the last special issue that concentrated on the history of services, this edition returns to our usual mix of approaches and disciplines. I remain convinced that the inclusion of such a wide spectrum of material related to learning disabilities is one of the major strengths of this Journal, and I hope you enjoy methods and subjects that are familiar, as well as those that are new to you.