Joint Committee on the Draft Disability Discrimination Bill Written Evidence


DDB 121 Disability Rights Commission - New Clause

Memorandum to the Joint Committee on the Draft Disability Discrimination Bill on:

New Clause 15: relationships between locally-electable authorities and their members

By the Disability Rights Commission

Tuesday 23rd March 2004

1. The DRC welcomes the publication of new clause 15 of the draft Bill aimed at extending anti-discrimination provisions to councillors and members of the GLA.

2. We note the provision at clause 15B(4) for regulations to be laid as to the circumstances in which treatment is to be taken to be justified for the purposes of s.3A (1)(b). The Commission has considerable concerns about the "material and substantial" test of justification contained in this section of the employment provisions, which is, as held by courts determining disability discrimination employment claims, a very low threshold. These concerns were outlined in our review of the legislation "Disability Equality: Making it happen". Although the concerns are likely to be met in some part by the new definition of direct discrimination (which is not subject to the justification test), they nevertheless remain for less favourable treatment which relates to a disabled person's disability. We trust that the regulations will not be used to lower this already low threshold even further.

3. With regard to the duty to make reasonable adjustments: we have considerable concerns regarding the wording which has been adopted in relation to this.

4. It was our understanding that the reasonable adjustment provisions would broadly follow that of the employment provisions, to ensure that all aspects of adjustments would be covered. Indeed this is clearly the broad approach, as these provisions would sit within Part 2 of the Act, and be subject to the definition of discrimination contained in the revised s.3. The wording of this provision, however, applies the duty to make adjustments to physical features and in relation to a "practice, policy or procedure". This is the wording of s.21 (1) of the DDA i.e. from the Part 3 duties. This duty so far as it is interpreted in relation to Part 3 applies for example to "no dogs" policies, or fire evacuation policies. Separate provision is made in Part 3 for "auxiliary aids and services", which would include such things as sign language interpretation and information in alternative formats. In view of this, we believe that it is likely that it would be argued that the duty in relation to councillors is less extensive than either the duty in Part 3 or the equivalent duty in relation to employment. This could mean that there would be no requirement to provide interpreters, or to provide information in alternative formats - key issues for disabled councillors. We would wish to see this wording amended to ensure that these areas are covered by the adjustment duty.

Contact:

Caroline Ellis, Parliamentary Affairs Manager,

Disability Rights Commission

7th Floor, 222 Grays Inn Road

London WC1X 8HL

Tel: 020 7211 4082.Mobile: 07881 540426.

Email: Caroline.Ellis@drc-gb.org


See Disability Equality: Making it Happen, pp 31 - 35; Jones v Post Office ([2001] IRLR384; Surrey Police v Marshall [2002] IRLR843

 
previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 23 April 2004