Memorandum from the Local Government Association
(DDB 78)
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 £2,000 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.
February 2004
| 
