Demand for advocacy is rising as funding and access fall

As Action for Advocacy closes, a former chief executive discusses its legacy and the challenges that remain.

Advocacy now has no coherent voice to lobby for people’s access to rights. Photograph: Alamy

Action for Advocacy (A4a) recently announced that it has ceased trading. As someone who was (briefly) a chief executive of A4a, I want to talk about some of what we achieved and some of the challenges left to meet.

When A4a started in 2001 (as Advocacy Across London), the advocacy movement was perceived as disorganised, unaccountable and possibly dangerous. Within the sector, a preoccupation with method led to disagreements that felt vital but that ultimately undermined our ability to support those who were being ignored. A passionate belief in what groups did to support people's rights ran dangerously close to purism. There is no way you would ever have written such a thing into law.

The mission of Action for Advocacy was to secure a strong and equal voice for all citizens. That allowed A4a to use the language of voice, choice and control to challenge both public authorities and advocacy providers. Our belief that advocacy is fundamentally important in upholding people's legal and human rights meant we were determined that it should be understood, and that it should be done well.

By focusing on the principles underlying the different approaches to advocacy, we could bring coherence to diverse provision. This led to theAdvocacy Charter in 2002, then to the Code of Practice for Advocates in 2006. We trained thousands of advocates and managers, built the capacity of a diverse sector, and lobbied government to put into law a duty to make people's voices. In eight years, advocacy had gone from dangerous purists to having legally defined roles in protecting people's rights (through the Mental Capacity Act and the Mental Health Act).

We developed a quality mark (QPM) that was rated ISO equivalent, cited in commissioning guidance by Social care Institute for Excellence. It was designed to ensure that advocacy services retain their empowering, independent and challenging nature; ensuring that the skills, views and rights of those they support remain paramount. Thankfully, it appears that the QPM will continue beyond A4a.

Unfortunately, people still do not have a strong and equal voice. Funding and access for advocacy services are falling while demand is rising. More than 12,000 people are being denied their legal right to access an independent mental health advocate (IMHA). Despite recommendations from the Care and Support Alliance, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Law Commission, the care bill gives no right of access to advocacy.

It has been said that the right to advocacy is implied through the duty to provide advice and information. However, at a time when explicit legal rights to advocacy such as IMHA are ignored, the idea that an implied right to advocacy will suffice is at best fanciful, at worst cynical. Information and advice are not sufficient when you are simply not being listened to, when your dignity is compromised continually, or when choice is being managed out of your life.

A4a leaves a legacy of accountability and quality in the advocacy sector. It helped to create legal rights to advocacy. However, its absence means that advocacy has no coherent voice to lobby for people's access to rights. There is now no place to bring trends and themes in advocacy together, to highlight how we need to change society if we are to ensure a strong and equal voice for all citizens. That challenge can't be left unmet.

Martin Coyle is director of True Voice and a former chief executive of Action for Advocacy