DDB 123 Disability Awareness in Action
Further written evidence
by Rachel Hurst, Disability Awareness in Action and Andy Rickell,
the British Council of Disabled People
Written answer
by Rachel Hurst to the following question which the Committee
did not have time to cover fully on 17 March
| We gather that you are critical of the notion that discrimination does not take place if it can be shown that the treatment or outcome in question is 'justified'. Are there any circumstances where, for example, costs would be disproportionate or other people would be put at a significant disadvantage, and that differential treatment or outcomes for disabled people are therefore justified?
|
We are perfectly happy
with the term 'reasonable' in assessing whether or not an employer
or service provider should provide accommodations to ensure non-discrimination.
Our problem is with the use of the term 'justification'. This
implies that discrimination against disabled people can be right
or vindicated. We understand the need for exceptions and exemptions.
We also understand that if the way of ending the discrimination
is unreasonable - then of course that discrimination would not
be considered unlawful - but it does not justify the discrimination.
We cannnot - if we are a human rights society talk about justifying
discrimination - that is of itself a violation! Neither of the
other non-discrimination legislations use the term 'justification'.
The Sex Discrimination Act talks about certain circumstances
not being considered 'unlawful'. The Race Relations Act has 'exceptions'.
We believe that neither group would have tolerated use of the
word 'justification' - with its relationship to justice, truth
and rightfulness - to describe a situation of discrimination.
For instance - if a small firm cannnot afford maternity pay (a
reasonable accommodation), then government steps in and ensures
that discrimination does not take place by providing state benefits
- there is no excuse given that because the firm is small that
the discrimination is justified - it clearly is not. The measure
of reasonableness and the promotion of accommodations are essential
for disabled people to have proper protection against discrimination.
That has already been agreed within the DDA and gives more than
adequate protection to those people whose own rights may be infringed
if they were to be asked to make unreasonable accommodations.
We firmly believe that to talk about 'justifying' discrimination
flies in the face that all this country is trying to do to promote
a human rights culture.
Written answer
by Andy Rickell to the following question which the Committee
did not have time to cover fully on 17 March
|
The draft bill currently provides that public authorities must have regard to the need to promote equality for disabled people only "where opportunities for disabled persons are not as good as those for other persons." Is this condition necessary ?
|
This question is referring
to the wording in Section 49A(1)c.
This condition is in my
opinion not just unnecessary, but it would allow inequality to
continue.
Services which are only
provided to disabled people, so that there is no possibility of
comparing the service with that received by non-disabled people,
would if this clause remained find themselves, perhaps unintentionally,
not subject to the promotion of equality duty. Bearing in mind
the importance of these services to enable disabled people to
be fully included in society - services such as adult social services,
specialist housing, specialist health services, specialist employment
services, specialist educational services etc - the result would
be perverse. It is essential that these services have a general
equality of opportunity ethos to ensure disabled people receive
the support they require to exercise their rights. Therefore
this clause needs to be removed."
Andy Rickell
Director
BCODP
|
