Memorandum from U Can Do I.T. (DCH 259)
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN CHARITIES PROVIDING
SERVICES FOR DISABLED PEOPLE
U Can Do I.T. is a registered charity providing
one-to-one training for disabled people in their own home on how
to use a computer, both for sending emails and surfing the web
and hopefully to go on to lifelong learning and job creation.
I enclose a copy of our annual report. We have
been providing this service for four years and by September this
year, will have carried out 10,000 visits.
A major difficulty for charities such as ours
dealing directly with disabled people is accessing the target
group. This is extremely difficult because the Data Protection
Act makes it impossible for Government Departments and similar
organisations, Local Authorities and charities to share information
about their client groups.
For example, we have given training to more
than 600 people during this time and these people could well benefit
enormously from help from other charities and organisations such
as Action for Blind People, Leonard Cheshire, The Shaw Trust,
Ability Net, RNIB, RNID and many similar organisations who we
have been working with during this period.
We would very much like to be able to give them
our lists and in exchange receive lists from them so that we can
offer our services to their clients.
In addition to the above, Local Authorities
and organisations such as Transport for All and Dial a Ride all
hold valuable central lists of information which at present are
entirely inaccessible to charities who would like to provide services
for the same people.
Above all, the Department of Work and Pensions
who have lists of all disabled people entitled to Disabled Living
Allowance or Incapacity Benefit but cannot make these available.
What is badly needed and would save a great
deal of time and money is some acceptable means of exchanging
information between these organisations.
As a first step we think that any charity interested
in this possibility should be able to apply for exemption from
the Data Protection Act and be entitled to receive information
from the various bodies listed above and similar organisations
without contravening the provisions of the Act.
The criteria for acceptance under this scheme
would need to be carefully looked at but should be inclusive rather
than exclusive. Any charity, which could show a genuine need for
entitlement for this information, should be able to receive it.
The objection is sometimes raised that people
do not wish to receive so called "junk mail". In this
particular case we do not think this objection could apply because
the services offered would be of genuine interest to a selected
audience. Of course, although there are a large number of charities,
very few of these operate on a regional or national basis and
consequently the numbers of applications involved would not, in
our opinion, be excessive.
A further safeguard, which could be easily put
in place, would be for individual charities supplying information
to be requested to canvass their members to see whether or not
they would wish to receive information of this kind from other
charities. This would involve a certain amount of work initially,
but if included in an ongoing programme, which includes an application
process, it would be simple and easy to install.
I would very much welcome an opportunity to
give evidence before any committee which is considering this proposal.
Properly organised, the inclusion of provisions along these lines
would be a major step forward and encourage communication and
partnerships between charities giving services to those who really
need it and who are at present very hard to reach and excluded
from so many services which are designed to help them by their
inaccessibility.
July 2004
| 
