DDB 49 NATFHE
Comments from NATFHE, the
University and College Lecturers' Union, on the Draft Disability
Discrimination Bill.
Natfhe welcomes the publication
of this Bill, and believes that it goes some way to improving
on the current Disability Discrimination Act. [DDA]
Entirely welcome is the extension
of the definition of disability to explicitly include people with
HIV, cancer and multiple sclerosis from the point of diagnosis
[clause 12].
This does not however address the
problem of the narrow interpretation of mental health disabilities
that exists under the DDA. "Clinically well-recognised"
illnesses that last for at least twelve months goes nowhere towards
recognising the host of stress-related illnesses and recurrent
conditions that exist, and the definition of disability needs
to be extended accordingly.
Also very welcome is Clause 8, which
creates a public sector duty to promote equality of opportunity
for disabled persons. This is likely to be the most significant
feature of the Bill, and has the potential to create the positive
momentum for change brought about by the Race Relations Amendment
Act. [RRRA] However that Act laid down a positive duty to promote
good relations between people of different races and a parallel
duty does not appear in the Bill, which instead calls for "improving
opportunities for disabled people", a much weaker concept.
The positive duty is something that
should apply to both public and private bodies, and to all employers.
There is no reason why it should be restricted to public authorities.
If the positive duty does remain restricted
to public authorities, then there should be a list of all those
covered by the duty, as set out in the RRRA.
We welcome the extension of coverage
to new groups of workers, but think it should also be extended
to cover volunteers, as voluntary work is a route by which many
disabled people return to the workforce.
Those perceived to be disabled, even
if they are not, should also be covered.
The fact that the transport provisions,
welcome in themselves, are to be introduced by Regulation, is
disturbing. At the least, a clear timetable is needed, setting
out when the various regulations will come into force.
The major concerns with the Bill are
the areas on which it is silent.
It makes no move at all to move the
DDA away from the medical and towards the social model of disability.
The range of day-to-day activities
used to define whether a person is disabled or not are not changed,
yet these do not reflect at all the day-to-day problems faced
by people with psychiatric illness.
Disability leave has not been added
to the list of reasonable adjustments that an employer should
consider.
There is an anticipatory duty in the
parts of the DDA relating to goods and services, and education.
A new clause is required which sets out a new duty on all employers,
public and private sector, to anticipate what is needed to make
their workplaces accessible to potential staff.
The issue of 'justification' is still
left very clouded. We would prefer that the ability of an employer
to justify an act of discrimination should be removed altogether.
Much greater clarity on what is intended is needed.
The use of the terms 'reasonable person'
and 'reasonable argument' still remains in the clauses relating
to tribunal cases. This does not allow at all for the prejudices
and stereotypes that are so commonly held about disabled people.
The triggers at which a person is deemed
to have been illegally discriminated against are not consistent
throughout the DDA. Wording in the Bill might even be taken to
worsen the situation by using expressions such as 'very much less
favourable' outcomes. This presents a very high barrier to taking
a case to Tribunal. There is a need to establish a common standard
throughout the DDA, which does not put enormous barriers in the
way of disabled people hoping to take a case.
Lastly, NATFHE has a particular concern
that not all examination bodies and standard setting bodies are
covered by the Bill, and they need to be.
In general, the Bill contains some
useful advances, but this opportunity should be taken to take
many more steps in the direction of full civil rights for disabled
people.
[NATFHE represents 66,000 lecturers
in adult, further and higher education]
|
