DDB 40A NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
Mrs Lesley Kelly
Honorary General Secretary
National Federation of the Blind of
the UK
49 Owenford Road
Radford
COVENTRY
CV6 3FQ
Tel; 024 76 725852
02/02/2004
Dear Sir/Madam
RE; RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT DISABILITY
DISCRIMINATION BILL
Enclosed with this letter is the response
from the National Federation of the Blind of the UK to the Draft
Disability Discrimination Bill.
At this stage I have only been able
to answer in a very general way. It has been extremely difficult
to respond to due to the way the Bill has been drafted for visually
impaired people to respond to, and I may respond further later
on, but you may feel that what has already been done is sufficient
for you to have an idea of the feelings of the Federation already
without any further response.
If you require any further information
from me, please do get in touch at the above address and telephone
number or e-mail: lesley.kelly1@ntlworld.com..
Yours faithfully
MRS LESLEY KELLY BA (HONS)
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
DRAFT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
BILL
The National Federation of the Blind
is an organisation of blind and partially sighted people. We
campaign for a better standard of living for all blind and partially
sighted people. We have at the moment approximately 1500 members.
There are approximately 24 branches around the country and they
are consulted by local government and other bodies. There is
also a national Executive Council of approximately 10 members
including a President, a Vice President, a General Secretary and
a Public Relations Officer. We are consulted from time to time
by the government on a number of issues and various other bodies.
All our members are volunteers.
We are pleased that you have consulted
us on the Draft Disability Discrimination Bill, but we are concerned
that we have not had enough time to go into the document in any
more detail than we have.
There is another problem that we have
with this document. The Bill is written in a way that it is difficult
to pick out the changes, having to work with two documents is
very difficult when you have to go from one document to another
and back again all the time. It would have been a lot easier
for us if you had put the new text into the Disability Discrimination
Act itself.
We are also very disappointed that the
Government has not produced a completely new "Disability
Rights Bill". This is what we were wanting, not a play about
with the Disability Discrimination Act. We believe and agree
that the Act does need to be strengthened, and bring new things
in, but it does not give us a good feel for what you will do about
discrimination issues, or Disability Rights for disabled people.
This Government has done well to set
up the Disability Rights Commission 2000, the Special Educational
Needs and Disability Act 2001, and bringing into effect in October
the final part of Part 3 and 4 of the DDA. Also we are pleased
that the Regulations which almost change the end of the employment
and occupational exemptions in the DDA, bringing small business
into the Act.
We are pleased that the Government plan
to bring new rail vehicles to be fully accessible to disabled
people, that taxi drivers must accept assistance dogs, that new
single and double decker buses are accessible to disabled people.
We are pleased that you are including more of the measures included
in the "Towards Inclusion" document, and the recommendations
of the Disability rights Task Force (from Exclusion to inclusion".
We are also pleased that you have included new measures which
would improve disabled people's civil rights and breakdown institutional
barriers. This is really not possible to say whether it will
work or not, unless regulations are put into place that will stop
any kind of discrimination against disabled people.
It is said that the Bill would bring
in new rights that disabled people do not have. These are to
be welcomed, however, again it is not certain that this will be
successful without regulation. All these things including, the
membership of private clubs, increasing the renting of premises
and the transport system are all excellent things, but there are
areas that are not being covered. Why aren't the rules regarding
access to information for example, extended to the health service,
why aren't manufacturers included? They make goods that have
to be accessible to disabled people, for example, the digital
radio, blind people cannot access the screens.
So will all these measures do what the
Bill sets out to do, tighten up on the discrimination of disabled
people? This is a good question. I fear the answer is no. Why
you may ask, well, we still have the "reasonable adjustment"
clauses here, which leads to a whole load of "get out"
clauses for everyone, and so this therefore will not strengthen
the Bill. There is also the fact that the Bill is saying "This
does not apply if". Again exceptions to the rules does leave
things open to discrimination as this too is a loop hole in the
regulations or legislation.
The question as to whether the draft
Bill's proposals are necessary, workable and sufficient is debateable;
We fell that it is workable, and necessary, but we do not feel
it is sufficient for the reasons already mentioned.
When should the Bill's provisions come
into force? As quickly as possible, by September 2005 possibly.
What should be in the regulations, order
and codes of practice proposed in the drat Bill? This is difficult
for us to answer, as for the reasons referred to earlier regarding
the way the Draft Bill is set out.
The adequacy of the enforcement procedures?
We are not sure that the enforcement procedures are strong enough
because of the continuous inclusion of the "reasonable adjustment"
clauses
Whether the draft Bill achieves the
right balance between securing the rights of disabled people and
imposing duties and costs on the private and public sectors?
We feel that this does go some way, but again because of the way
the document is written and the terms again of "reasonable
adjustment" and this does not apply to". This weakens
the balance.
The proposed changed to the definition
of disability. We welcome the changes, but we must point out that
this will have to be supported by more funds in the areas of health
education, social services and employment.
Whether the range of "triggers"
in the Draft Bill for requiring reasonable adjustment are appropriate.
The answer is no, as reasonable adjustment leaves the legal profession
with a huge loop hole as already said, and although there should
be some exceptions, we do feel that this is not satisfactory.
How the Draft Bill reflects the Governments
2001 manifesto commitment to extend basic rights and opportunities
for disabled people? We feel that this Bill has gone some way
to reflect the rights and opportunities of disabled people. It
has not fully complied with the manifesto, in that it has only
attempted to strengthen the Disability Discrimination Act 1995,
and we feel has not given the DRC much more strength in its work
for disabled people. We feel that there should have been a Disability
Rights Bill which would become an Act by the time the next government
elections took place.
In conclusion therefore, we welcome
the Draft Bill , but are disappointed that it was not a Disability
Rights Bill, to become and Act of Parliament. We are pleased
that other areas are covered such of rented accommodation and
transport, and changing the definition of disabled people. We
appreciate there will be an extra cost to the private and public
sector, and to the government, but we feel that this is necessary
to stop all kinds of discrimination, not just institutional discrimination.
We believe that there are still loop holes in the DDA, and we
do not feel that the DRC have been given strengthened powers through
this Bill.
We would have liked to have commented
further, but time and the fact that we are all blind and partially
sighted has made it more difficult in the way the Bill was set
out. It was also difficult having to refer to 3 separate documents.
We do hope our comments are useful.
| 
