DDB 61 John Grooms
Draft Disability
Discrimination Bill
Submission
by John Grooms to the Joint Scrutiny Committee
Summary
John Grooms welcomes the
publication of the Draft Disability Discrimination Bill. The provisions
relating to transport, duties of public authorities and increased
rights for disabled tenants are welcome extensions of the Disability
Discrimination Act. We are concerned at the exclusion of a number
of issues including a definition of what is meant by 'reasonable',
the lack of epidemiology, suitable housing and accommodation for
disabled people and the definition of mental impairment.
Background
John Grooms is a disability
specialist charity and housing association and is committed to
supporting disabled people to be as independent as possible and
to realise their full potential. We operate nationally providing:
- Wheelchair accessible
homes and supported housing solutions for people who are wheelchair
users,
- Residential, respite
and nursing care services,
- Rehabilitation for
people with brain injuries,
- Accessible holidays
for disabled people and their families
- Education and training.
With all our work we aim
to treat everyone as an individual. John Grooms believes that
people are not disabled by their individual impairments but by
physical barriers and those created by people's attitudes. We
support the goal of the Disability Rights Commission "of
a society where all disabled people can participate fully as equal
citizens."
Introduction
John Grooms welcomes the
Draft Disability Discrimination Bill (DDDB) and its proposals
to extend the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) as an important
step to a civil society. Within our submission we have first commented
on those areas which will still be excluded from the DDA and which
we feel should be included. This is followed with comments on
specific clauses. In doing so; our submission addresses the various
themes which the committee's call for evidence outlines.
Throughout the DDDB reference
is made for service providers to make 'reasonable adjustments'
to enable disabled people to benefit from services or be able
to use the facilities being offered. It is therefore imperative
that 'reasonable' is clearly defined, perhaps in accompanying
codes of practice following Royal Assent.
It should make clear that
'reasonable' means anticipating disabled peoples' needs before
they experience a problem accessing the service or facility. Not
only will this promote increased awareness, a vital prerequisite
if the legislation is to have any meaningful impact but it will
be a more cost effective approach than having to make retrospective
changes.
- How many disabled
people are there?
John Grooms recognises
that efforts have been made over the last decade to improve services
for disabled people in order to expand opportunities for personal
development, independence and social integration. However it is
our experience that policy initiatives do not always achieve these
goals due to a lack of reliable information about the number of
disabled people, their expectations, current and future needs.
As has been noted elsewhere,
disabled people have the worst housing circumstances of all social
groups in society (Barnes, 1991, OPCS, 1991, Ackroyd 2003). John
Grooms believes that unless disabled people have somewhere suitable
to live, many of the rights set out in the bill will be superfluous
to the reality of their lives.
John Grooms is concerned
that neither the Housing Bill or Planning and Compulsory Purchase
Bill, both of which are currently before Parliament, sufficiently
introduce measures to address this shortfall. The recent commitment
on behalf of the Government by Lord Bassam of Brighton that planning
policy guidance will be produced to ensure that all new planning
applications address the access needs of disabled people is a
welcome start to the cultural change needed when designing or
adapting new buildings.
- Building suitable
housing for disabled people
A survey found that countrywide
an estimated 300,000 wheelchair accessible houses are needed to
meet current and expected demand. The Draft Disability Discrimination
Bill is an opportunity to set targets for all new housing developments
to be built to the Lifetime Homes standard to start to address
this need. However a Lifetime Home may not be suitable for all
disabled people. Therefore 10% of these new houses should be built
to the higher wheelchair accessible standard which John Grooms
advocates to ensure that every disabled person who so wishes
has the opportunity of moving into a home of their own.
The recently published
London Plan incorporates the 10% wheelchair standard for all future
housing provision in the London area. We believe that it is a
planning policy target which should be adopted countrywide if
the vision of a civil society is to become a reality.
A more inclusive society
could be achieved with the rigorous enforcement of existing standards
such as Part M of the Building Regulations. This has required
new housing to be constructed to minimum standards of access since
October 1999. However it is our experience that Part M is not
widely understood and is variably enforced. This was confirmed
in a recent report published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
John Grooms would further
observe that simply enforcing regulations is not sufficient and
suggest that sanctions should be applied for failure to adhere
to these. The current Part M regulations do not take account of
the increasing use of electric wheelchairs; which are substantially
larger than manual chairs. We would like to see these periodically
reviewed to ensure they take account of any sociological and technological
changes affecting the lives of disabled people.
John Grooms is concerned
by the retention in Schedule 1 of the DDA that mental impairment
only counts as a recognised disability if it is as the result
of a 'clinically well-recognised illness'. As the Law Society,
Mind and the Disability Rights Commission have observed, people
with mental health problems who experience discrimination are
unable to bring cases under the DDA due to the narrowness of the
definition. Many of John Grooms' clients experience significant
perceptual, emotional and cognitive problems due to sustaining
a brain injury but do not have a 'mental impairment' as currently
defined by the DDA.
Comments
on specific clauses within the Draft Disability Discrimination
Bill
Clause 1
- John Grooms welcomes this provision which strengthens the existing
legislation and places a duty of care on the publisher.
Clause 2
- John Grooms welcomes the initiative that insurers should not
be allowed to treat disabled employees less favourably. However
we would be concerned if, as a result, insurance cover was withdrawn
from all employees or the premium increased for providing insurance
cover. John Grooms would recommend that regulations are introduced
which will prevent this from happening.
Clause 3
- The lack of access to suitable transport is a major cause of
social exclusion for disabled people. John Grooms therefore welcomes
the commitment to bring in regulations to include various modes
of transport within the DDA rather than just the infrastructure
as at present.
We are disappointed however
at the long timescale set out for the regulations to be introduced
- particularly for passenger rail vehicles - and call for them
to be brought in as soon as possible. It is also vital that the
regulations do not just cover physical access to the vehicle but
accessible toilets and visual signage. We hope that the Government
will work with international partners to bring aviation and shipping
industries into line.
Bringing in these regulations
sooner will address the Government's policy priority area of getting
people back to work where appropriate. As the recent survey of
disabled people by Leonard Cheshire discovered, almost a quarter
of the respondents had turned down a job partly due to inaccessible
transport.
Clause 4
- John Grooms welcomes the DDDB's proposal to place a duty on
public services to ensure that any systematic bias against disabled
people is removed from the way services are delivered and people
are employed. Explicit reference should be made to those public
authorities which deliver health care services.
Within the duty on public
authorities; there should be a requirement that they are required
to fund advocates to provide support for disabled people who may
require this service to ensure their voice is heard. Legal protection
against discrimination should be at the same level as existing
powers relating to access to goods, facilities and services already
covered by the DDA.
Clause 5
- John Grooms welcomes this provision but would recommend that
clubs and societies of all sizes be included.
Clauses 6
and 7 - John Grooms welcomes the commitment to extend the
DDA to cover the duties of landlords and managing agents towards
disabled tenants. We would welcome clarification of what auxiliary
aid or service is considered to be reasonable. We would also welcome
details on the enforcement measures proposed and how a disabled
tenant can access them where a landlord or managing agent refuses
consent to a reasonable alteration.
Clause 8
- John Grooms welcomes this proposal. It is our experience that
unless consideration of the needs of disabled people are included
at he heart of the policy making process, they will not be adequately
addressed.
Clause 9 - John
Grooms welcomes the extension of the Disability Rights Commission's
remit to include the production of Codes of Practice to support
public sector bodies promoting disability equality.
Clause 10
- John Grooms welcomes the extension of the questionnaire procedure
to cover Part III claims.
Clause 11
- John Grooms welcomes the proposal that Chief Police Officers
will be liable for any discrimination by their officers against
disabled people.
Clause 12
- John Grooms welcomes the inclusion of progressive disabling
conditions within the definition of disability where it is likely
that the condition will inhibit a person's ability to function.
References
Barnes, C. (1991) Disabled
People in Britain and Discrimination, London: Hurst and Company
Office of Population Censuses
and Surveys (OPCS), The 1991 census of Great Britain: General
Report, London: HMSO
Ackroyd, J. (2003) Where
do you think you're going?, London: John Grooms
Committee Stage, Planning and Compulsory Purchase
Bill, 2nd February 2004, Hansard Column 454,
The estimate is based on research carried out in
the last decade and partly derived from the comprehensive study
carried out by the Housing Corporation, Housing for People with
Disabilities: the needs of wheelchair users (1991), which identified
330,000 wheelchair users living in unsuitable dwellings in the
social sector
Imrie, R. (2003), The Impact of Part M on the Design
of New Housing,
Mind the Gap
|
