DDB 78 Local Government Association
Draft Disability Discrimination Bill: The LGA Response
1. Introduction
1.1 The Local Government Association welcomes this
opportunity to respond to the draft Disability Discrimination
Bill. The LGA represents all primary local authorities in England
and Wales and this response has been agreed by the LGA Equalities
Executive, the member body responsible for establishing and overseeing
the LGA's equalities policies. Further to this response the Chair
of the Equalities Executive will be giving oral evidence to the
scrutiny committee on 10 March.
1.2 The LGA has previously supported many of the
proposals that the draft Bill seeks to introduce. The LGA welcomes
the draft Bill as a means of ensuring greater equality of opportunity
for disabled people.
1.3 The clauses that are of most relevance to local
authorities are: Clause 4 (Discrimination by public authorities);
Clause 6 (Discrimination in relation to letting of premises);
Clause 8 (Duties of public authorities); Clause 9 (Codes of practice);
Clause 12 (Meaning of disability); and the intended clause that
will extend the scope of the Disability Discrimination Act to
protect local councillors from discrimination.
1.4 The clause that is likely to have the greatest
impact on local authorities is Clause 8, which will introduce
a new duty on public authorities to promote equality of opportunity
for disabled people and the LGA has previously made clear its
support for the introduction of a duty on all public authorities
to promote equality of opportunity for all. The main concern
of the LGA is that the Government is introducing this duty in
a piecemeal fashion that is increasing the administrative burdens
on local authorities in a less efficient way than might be the
case were a generic duty to promote equality for all to be introduced
instead. It is also creating inequalities within the equalities
legislation itself. The introduction of a new duty to promote
equality for disabled people will sit alongside the duty to promote
race equality, introduced by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act
2000, but there remains no such duty in relation to gender equality.
The LGA has been lobbying for a single equality act to address
the complexities and inconsistencies of the current patchwork
of equalities legislation.
2. The Broader Legislative
Framework
2.1 In recent years there has been a growing lobby
in support of the introduction of a single equalities act and
the LGA has made clear to ministers our position in support of
such proposals. The arguments in support of replacing existing
anti-discrimination legislation with a single equalities act were
well made in the Report of the Independent Review of the Enforcement
of UK Anti-Discrimination Legislation, 'Equality: A New Framework'
(Hepple, Coussey and Choudhury, University of Cambridge, 2000)
and in the report of the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic
Britain, 'The Parekh Report' (Runnymede Trust, October
2000). These reports set out both the legal and the social policy
arguments for the adoption of a single act to replace the complex
patchwork of current legislation that has developed over the past
30 years.
2.2 It is noted that the remit for the Joint Parliamentary
Scrutiny Committee does not extend to consideration of the broader
legislative framework but the LGA wishes to re-emphasise its support
for a single equalities act in this response.
3. The Draft Bill
Clause 4: Discrimination by public authorities
3.1 The LGA recognises that Clause 4 will have an
impact on local authorities' planning and highways functions and
to adoption and fostering in relation to carers. These areas
are not presently covered by the Disability Discrimination Act
1995.
3.2 With regard to highway maintenance, the closure
of roads and resulting diversions can be a hindrance to all pedestrians
and road users but may be especially problematic for disabled
people. Planned diversions or road/pathway closures should involve
liaison and consultation with local representative groups of disabled
people. The introduction of this clause may serve to ensure that
such liaison is more widespread than it may be at present. For
emergency works, however, there is unlikely to be the opportunity
to engage in consultation or liaison and authorities may only
be able to make minimal provision for pedestrian access. In such
circumstances the LGA would expect that the authority would, in
most cases, be deemed to have acted reasonably in initiating repairs
and road/path closures without liaison.
3.3 The provisions of the Bill should complement
or strengthen provisions within existing Acts or incoming legislation
and any guidance produced to accompany a forthcoming Act should
make references to other legislation where appropriate. The New
Roads and Street Works Act 1991 sets out, in Section 59, the general
duty of a street authority to co-ordinate works and there is a
requirement (b) "to minimise the inconvenience to persons
using the street (having regard, in particular, to the needs of
people with a disability)". This requirement is carried
forward to the Codes of Practice for Co-ordination and Safety
at Street Works and Road Works. The Traffic Management Bill,
currently passing through Parliament, is concerned with facilitating
the flow of traffic, including pedestrians. There is little,
if anything, in the Bill regarding disabled people and this may
be an issue that might be addressed in guidance, which is to be
published as the Bill progresses, which may benefit from reference
to the provisions of the draft Disability Discrimination Bill.
3.4 In terms of local planning authorities' functions,
Clause 4 should ensure that all planning applications are assessed
in accordance with the extent to which they address equal access
issues. It may be helpful if accompanying guidance should advise
planning authorities to require applicants to include access statements
with planning applications where appropriate. It may assist authorities
in meeting their duties if they are given clear powers to refuse
an application on the basis that it does not contain an adequate
access statement. This provision should be cross referenced in
the Planning Bill currently progressing through Parliament.
3.5 Although adoption and fostering is a service
in relation to children, Clause 4 will extend the provisions of
the DDA to carers. The LGA supports the principle of equality
of opportunity for disabled people, including adoption and fostering
rights, but in making adoption and fostering placements the needs
of the child must take precedence over the rights of potential
carers. Applications from potential guardians with learning disabilities
may present authorities with particular problems and guidance
would be helpful for councils in such circumstances. Where the
disability of a potential carer is of a more physical nature there
may be the need for certain adjustments to be made to their home
and for ongoing support from the authority. In such cases this
may substantially increase the cost of the placement for the authority
and the LGA would expect that any decisions made on the basis
of cost would be subject to a 'reasonableness' test which, again,
might be addressed within accompanying guidance.
Clause 6: Discrimination in relation to letting
of premises
3.6 It is unlikely that this Clause will greatly
impact upon local authority landlords, as adjustments to social
housing are a standard service of housing authorities in respect
of disabled tenants or potential tenants. There may, however,
be a modest increase in expenditure on auxiliary aids as a result
of increased awareness of new obligations by local authorities
and tenants groups. The Clause is more likely to affect private
sector landlords. This will lead to increased activity for local
authority environmental health enforcement teams in supporting
and protecting private tenants who wish to progress auxiliary
aids with a private sector landlord. An LGA member has asked
how this Clause might affect Disability Facilities Grant and clarification
of this would be helpful. The LGA also suggests that this should
be cross referenced within the Housing Bill now moving through
Parliament.
Clause 8: Duties of public authorities
3.7 The LGA views Clause 8 as the most significant
provision within the draft Bill for local government if, as expected,
the specific duties reflect those introduced by the Race Relations
(Amendment) Act. The LGA is happy with the wording of the general
duty under Clause 8.
Clause 9: Codes of Practice
3.8 The detail of these duties will be contained
in the Code of Practice yet to be developed and, as the LGA has
been invited to participate in the advisory group that will oversee
the drafting of this Code, it is unnecessary to go into detail
on the nature of specific duties in this response.
Clause 12: Meaning of 'disability'
3.9 The LGA is content with the proposals to extend
the scope of the DDA to cover people with HIV, multiple sclerosis
or cancer.
Local councillors
3.10 LGA officers and members have had lengthy discussions
with DWP officials as to the impact of this proposal to extend
the provisions of the DDA to cover councillors and as to how the
relevant clause should be drafted. The LGA supports the proposal
and has presented views to officials on a number of issues that
the extension of the provisions to councillors has raised and
we hope that these views have informed the drafting of the clause.
4. The Draft Regulatory
Impact Assessment
4.1 The benefits of the planned legislation are relatively
clear, in terms of improving the quality of life for disabled
people and in tackling social inclusion. The costs, however,
are more difficult to assess.
4.2 The draft RIA estimates that by far the greatest
costs will be for transport providers, which will not fall upon
local authorities. Clause 4, in extending the scope of the DDA
to various functions of local authorities not previously covered,
is likely to require additional training resources, particularly
in the areas of highways, planning, adoption and fostering. The
main cost for many local authorities is likely to be the introduction
of the new duty to promote equality of opportunity, which is likely
to require a review of all policies and procedures and the production
of an annual 'scheme' or plan, if it is to follow the same structure
as the race equality duty, as is suggested.
4.3 The RIA does not make any estimate of the cost
of implementing the new duty (Clause 8) as the specific duties
have yet to be proposed. The RIA does, however, suggest that
costs are likely to be relatively insubstantial. The evidence
of the introduction of the race equality duty would suggest that,
for those authorities that have been less proactive than other
authorities in seeking to address disability discrimination and
particularly for smaller authorities with limited resources, the
costs in human resources terms (including training costs) could
be quite substantial. The RIA does state, however, that the nature
of the specific duties and the potential costs of implementing
these will be the subject of consultation with relevant bodies,
and the LGA looks forward to making further representations on
this issue.
4.4 Other estimated costs that will fall either wholly
or partly upon local authorities are: £650,000 recurring
costs in meeting the extension of the duty to make reasonable
adjustments to landlords; £500,000 over five years to meet
the costs of extending the DDA to cover local councillors, and;
£78,000 recurring costs to cover the extension of the DDA
to cover more people with HIV, cancer and MS. The most significant
cost to local authorities from these estimates is likely to be
the extension of the DDA to cover councillors. The LGA would
suggest that £500,000 over five years is an under estimate,
bearing in mind that 13% of councillors are disabled. The cost
estimate amounts to about £2000 per authority per year, which
would barely meet the requirements of a single deaf cabinet councillor
requiring a BSL interpreter for all meetings. It is also unclear
why this has been estimated as a fixed term cost when in many
cases it would be a recurring cost. The other problem in assessing
costs for local government is that this is likely to vary considerably
from one authority to another, depending, of course, on the number
of disabled councillors in any given authority.
Local Government Association
February 2004
| 
