Examination of Witnesses (Questions 240
- 259)
WEDNESDAY 10 MARCH 2004
COUNCILLOR LAURA
WILLOUGHBY
Q240 Mr Williams: The Disability
Rights Commission suggests that the duty that public bodies have
to make reasonable adjustments to prevent discrimination to disabled
people should be an anticipatory one. What difficulties and benefits
do you see to that proposal?
Cllr Willoughby: Clause 4 does
not state that it should be an anticipatory duty on functions,
as we said, but it is the case at the minute with services. Again,
as I said, because there is a grey area between what a council
considers a service and a function, most local authorities probably
think they would want to apply the same across the board and,
of course, the Disability Discrimination Bill as it relates to
employment is not anticipatory. The issue for councils is striking
a balance between the benefits of serving disabled residents and
staff, and accepting that disabilities is a wide variety of individuals
with varying different needs, and the question of what adaptations
and changes might be needed is a very wide one, and there is also
a cost implication to all of that. In my authority which is Islington,
which is very small, to comply with Disability Discrimination
Act measures which are coming into force this year will cost us
£8 million. We do not have that all this year so we are having
to work on a scheme of doing that, and we want to put that priority
in areas which disabled residents will use the most, and I think
the message that comes back from local authorities is that they
would rather spend more money on where it is most needed than
spend money on adaptations and changes in an anticipatory nature
that may never be used or seen. We have to accept that most councils'
money is already allocated, and we are told where it needs to
be spent. The discretion is very small and we want to get more
bangs for our buck, basically, in terms of access for residents
and making sure we do that in the best place is most important
to councils.
Q241 Mr Williams: What you are saying
really is that a duty for a local authority to anticipate all
needs of all disabled people is probably not reasonable?
Cllr Willoughby: Probably not
reasonable in terms of cost, and in terms of the breadth of changes
they need to make. Every local authority is different: Islington
has more deaf and blind residents than its surrounding boroughs
and therefore you would want to make some of those changes based
on the people who use your service as well.
Q242 Mr Williams: Some disabilities
are not easily recognisable by service or function providers.
Do you think it is reasonable that those people with those disabilities
should make their disabilities known to the authority?
Cllr Willoughby: I think we are
moving on to something I have a personal view on which may not
be shared across the Local Government Association, which is about
how equalities generally is dealt with in local authorities, because
we are very bad at dealing with people full stop. Some people
may claim discrimination but we are probably that bad to every
resident and not just people with disabilities, and I think we
need to change some of the culture and the way we work with people.
We should be able to work with people however they present themselves.
They should be able to come and feel comfortable that they can
say, "I am dyslexic, I cannot read that fast, can I go away
and read it and then come back", and be able to speak to
a member of staff who may be able to make an adaptation there
or then, or be able to sort the problems so that somebody can
access a service properly. I think that goes across the board
in equalities. We all do not fit into neat boxes, and unfortunately
this is part of the problem in terms of service delivery in councils.
People should feel comfortable to make something known, if that
is what they wish; they should have that guarantee of confidentiality,
and confidence that a local authority will go away and do all
they can to help them access a service, read documents they may
need to and hear in the way they want to hear, and I think every
council should strive towards that. Unfortunately I think we are
quite a long way off.
Q243 Tom Levitt: On the same issue,
what you have just said is very welcome and very constructive
and positive but I am wondering how it relates to the duty to
make adjustments and promote given that, from October this year,
as a service provider you are going to have to do all the things
you have just described anyway?
Cllr Willoughby: Yes, although
I do not think any council would ever have produced an exhaustive
list of all the changes they would need to make to serve people
who may come with disabilities that may not be so obvious, or
that do not fit into some of what people may consider to be an
obvious disability. All local authorities are working towards
Disability Discrimination Act compliance this year but I still
think they are quite a long way off, and I know particularly leisure
services have still a long way to go before they will be completely
Disability Discrimination Act compliant and be able to serve the
needs of all their residents. So we are making those changes and
a lot of them have been made already, but it is not all about
physical changes—it is about changes in attitude and in
heart and mind. That is very different and that is what people
feel when they walk through the door of a council service and
are treated like a human being and can have confidence in that
service to help them if they need that assistance. I know it sounds
a bit airy fairy and not something you can pin down to what councils
should or should not do, but getting people to think beyond the
boundaries of disabilities is a really crucial part of this in
service delivery and in delivering other functions. If you speak
to any member of staff on a council they will tell you that equalities
is very important and of course they believe in it, but they do
not all have the practical tools in order to achieve that change;
they do not know what it is that people want, and I think local
authorities have a lot more work to do over and above physical
adaptations to make that happen, and that will have an effect
across functions and services and across partnerships.
Q244 Chairman: Would you know if
most councils have some form of disability awareness training?
Cllr Willoughby: I would say a
lot do but I would say it is probably woefully inadequate, and
because councils do not run most of their own services any more
there is no guarantee it gets to contractors who paint windows
on estates and do not understand that a resident may take longer
to get to the door, to open it, and to answer a question about
when they can come and fit their windows. Councils are still very
big employers as well and rolling out equalities training, while
their basic customer service is one of the top priorities, is
a cost that is probably quite difficult for a council to bear,
and should slide into a lot of mainstream training as well as
specific training. So I do think it is inadequate.
Q245 Baroness Wilkins: How do you
respond to the view that the "reasonable opinion" test
used in the list of justifications under Clause 4 is too subjective?
Would you like it removed from the Bill?
Cllr Willoughby: It does come
back to what I said before which is that it is about councils
spending the money and the most money where it has the most effect,
and therefore you could either spend lots of money getting all
your buildings up to basic minimum and then most councils will
probably not renew their leases or flog half of them off—I
should not say that really, should I, but we are constantly moving
around in buildings and services—or you could do what a
lot of councils are doing in the current Disability Discrimination
Act which is putting that investment into disabled residents and
places where residents who probably access social services and
the more public services go the most, and I think we have to be
reasonable about the cost versus where that money is best spent.
I do not have a view on necessarily whether it should be in there
or not, but I do think that for councils we have to make the most
of our money in the most appropriate place first.
Q246 Baroness Wilkins: What has been
your experience of the use of the "reasonable opinion"
test?
Cllr Willoughby: I think there
is a lot of misconception in local government about what it means,
and there is a bit of panic. With a lot of services some of the
contractors worry that, on the day the Disability Discrimination
Act comes into effect, there will be tons of court cases accusing
them of not having adapted everything and made all the changes
they need, and I think there is a bit of concern about that because
that has financial implications. I think a local authority should
feel very proud and confident if they are showing that they have
a whole programme of work which they will undertake over a period
of time which shows they will make those adjustments and changes
when and where they can and, more importantly, that they listen.
There is a big issue here which is that you can make as many adaptations
and changes as you like but they may not always hit the right
note. Our councillor in Islington who is currently mayor is very
heavily disabled with a huge wheelchair and a full-time carer,
and when she got first elected she was presented with a small
goods lift but her wheelchair is so big it will not fit in the
lift, and I have heard other examples where lifts have been put
in, and it will have cost the council, to serve councillors and
residents when they have not thought to talk to people who will
be using those services to make sure they get those right. Getting
the timing for that listening is crucial, and then you are talking
to the people who will be using those services as to what is most
reasonable to do first.
Q247 Lord Swinfen: In your written
evidence you suggest that Clause 4 will have an impact on local
authorities' planning and highways functions, and to adoption
and fostering in relation to carers. Are there any aspects of
inspection, elections, licensing or enforcement of laws where
you think reasonable adjustment may be required? What difficulties
do you anticipate in making those adjustments?
Cllr Willoughby: I have already
mentioned that in some cases in terms of a council's role as an
enforcement agency and therefore fining people there could be
issues coming back in terms of people being malicious or suggesting
there is an inequality where there has not been when somebody
is breaking the law regardless of disability, race or gender,
and I think there is also an issue which I have brought up before
about contractors, and for me in my authority how we procure that
contract and write equalities in and make sure that any enforcement
role—because most of our enforcements are done by outside
contractors—takes into account that they are discharging
a role on behalf of a public body. We want them to share the same
standards as us. Licensing is interesting. Obviously the guidance
the government is giving has been put back again so we are not
sure what the full scope of the licensing policy we will have
to bring forward is. I think councils should be able to use their
new licensing functions to make demands. For example, I know in
pubs and clubs disabled toilets are used as glorified storerooms,
and authorities should be able to use their new licensing powers
to take action against companies and licensed premises that do
that. I have sent back our draft licensing policy to be equalities
proofed because there is not any mandate on it at the moment to
do that, and I think we should make sure the guidance that comes
out from the government does include how a council can use its
role to ensure that there is Disability Discrimination Act compliance.
In terms of elections, we have lots of new opportunities with
the new voting methods now and those should be equalities proofed
and the emphasis should be on choice. If there is good choice
for people with disabilities then there is good choice for every
resident, and that is something we should aspire to, so councils
should look very carefully about how they bring in the new voting
methods. The postal method is one way but if somebody has problems
finding out how they get a postal vote then obviously they are
disbarred from using a method that would be ideal for them.
Q248 Lord Tebbit: You mentioned in
your submission the issue of fostering and adoption. Do you see
problems arising in those areas?
Cllr Willoughby: This is one area
that really would be a bit of a litmus test on policy because
what you are dealing with are individual people who may become
carers who may have any form of disability from being deaf to
blind to being in a wheelchair, so this would be a service area
where you could look at having very intense work done on how you
make the right choices, how you help people become foster carers
and adopt, and equally how you can make the right choices for
young people. Every case should be looked at on an individual
basis, and we must have confidence that a local authority has
put all the right resources and systems in place to ensure that
anybody who is a disabled young person or a person who wants to
be a carer or to adopt has the full opportunity. There certainly
is need for more training and support in this area, and adoption
fostering is quite a time intensive process. I know councillors
can spend up to a day a week or a day a fortnight sitting on adoption
panels, and anything we can do to help them come to the right
decisions I think is important.
Q249 Lord Tebbit: But you do accept
that the primacy of your role is the child, not the carer, would-be
carer or would-be adoptive parent, and therefore you may have
to make very hard choices at times in saying, "That disability
really does preclude you from taking over that responsibility"?
Do you think that will cause you any difficulties?
Cllr Willoughby: I think the issue
for a local authority is making sure they have given everybody
who may have a disability the opportunity to put their case fully,
and they are not seen to be discriminated against in going forward
in that process, and that any conclusion that is come to is seen
to be reasonable. I cannot think what circumstance that may be
and that might be something we might need to come back to, but
everything a public authority does is about being seen to be fair
and open and not discriminating, and I think it is important that
people who sit on adoption and fostering panels have all the training
they need to ensure they are not discriminating, either openly
or subconsciously because of lack of knowledge. As I said before
we all think equality is important, and what hinders us most is
lack of knowledge, and how adoption panels get the knowledge they
need to understand, particularly to understand the individuals
that are in front of them. They need to know generic information
but, when you talk about individual people, to know the circumstances
of those individual people and to be able to assess them fairly
is important.
Q250 Lord Tebbit: Are you not missing
out the word "unfair" discrimination because, in deciding
whether someone is suitable to be a carer or an adoptive parent,
you have a function which requires discrimination, so it is a
question of whether you discriminate unfairly?
Cllr Willoughby: Yes, but it is—
Q251 Chairman: That is "discriminate"
in the sense of choose, is it not?
Cllr Willoughby: Yes, but you
do not want the process to discriminate.
Lord Tebbit: But it is unfairness, is
it not, which is the case?
Chairman: Fair choosing?
Lord Swinfen: Does that not come under
the concept of reasonableness?
Lord Tebbit: Yes, I think that is right.
Q252 Lord Addington: Effectively
what we are asking is whether the process of a reasonable level
of knowledge to make a decision would be something which would
have to be in place in the guidance somewhere, or which on the
face of the Bill would have to be applied to this type of function?
Cllr Willoughby: I would think
so but, again, that would have to be seen in conjunction with
our duty to protect and look after a child as well, and I would
guess there would need to be guidance that would bring the two
together.
Q253 Lord Rix: Clause 8 of the draft
Bill gives public authorities a proactive duty to carry out their
functions with due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination
and harassment made unlawful under the Disability Discrimination
Act. Do you see any reason why the general duty in an amended
Disability Discrimination Act should not be formulated more simply
as a duty "to promote equality of opportunity between disabled
persons and other persons", which would bring it more closely
in line with the general duty under the Race Relations Amendment
Act? Further, do you think a duty to promote good relations would
assist in cutting out the harassment of disabled people? If so,
is this something you could support and, if so, what other activities
would you expect to undertake, and what impact would this have
on resources? That is rather a lengthy question but it is all
tied up in one.
Cllr Willoughby: I believe strongly
that we should bring together all duties to promote in line with
each other, so I think it should be similar to the general duty
under the Race Relations Amendment Act. There is a wider discussion
to be had on the word "between" which is a very interesting
one, because at the minute the community cohesion agenda is obviously
quite high up in people's minds since the new guidance on promoting
community cohesion in local areas as a result of Bradford, Oldham
and Burnley. Now community cohesion does not just apply to race
but across the board, and this is not law but it is guidance and
an aspiration and will be something that councils will be monitored
on in the future as well, and I think that where we are looking
to promote equality we should also be looking to promote equality
between people. That is how we get rid of prejudice and how we
share difference, and people learn to work and live next to each
other. In this particular area and if, after this Bill is published,
the Local Government Association were looking to give guidance
to local authorities, we would certainly want to be looking at
how this duty to promote disabled equality could also work with
the community cohesion agenda and take that beyond race in local
authorities.
Q254 Lord Rix: What are the costs
of this? Would they be quite considerable?
Cllr Willoughby: It is difficult
to give costs because what do you consider to be promotion? Is
it putting on festivals or is it about how a council discharges
its duty of wellbeing? Is it about the messages it gives out?
Councils are doing various different things across the country
in order not only to look at their role in terms of the Race Relations
Amendment Act but in terms of community cohesion and wellbeing,
so I cannot give you specific costs. I can, however, give you
a traditional answer which is that councils do not have enough
money to do any of these things! Most of our budgets are tied
up and we would love more, please! I do believe that councils
are the best places to look at how communities live and work together,
and how we can promote equality at local level, and in particular
how we can change people's hearts and minds. I can tell you that
Islington is different to Tower Hamlets and to Camden, and that
local difference can only be reflected through a local authority.
Q255 Lord Rix: Have you any bright
ideas how you might change hearts and minds?
Cllr Willoughby: Well, I am hoping,
although we do not have a Single Equalities Act, that a single
equalities body will give a vision that local authorities can
help deliver, and I think there are some really good examples
across the country on how councils are doing that. We have produced
community cohesion guidance and we have produced a booklet which
I have brought for you today, because we do not only look at legislation
when we are giving guidance to authorities; we have got very good
guidance to authorities about how to provide services and good
examples in your community, how you raise some of the issues that
stop bullying of disabled children at school, how you teach young
people—and adults for that matter—respect for the
people who live with them around them in the community they are,
and we can certainly get you some examples of particular authorities
that have done work on disabilities in that area that may be helpful,
and I am sure they would not mind telling you how much it costs
them either.
Chairman: If you could send examples
that would be extremely helpful.
Q256 Lord Tebbit: Do you think that
your local authority, for example, would be able to comply with
this duty to promote equality and all that without employing any
extra staff?
Cllr Willoughby: I think we would
need more staff. We always need more staff to do equalities work
in Islington. Islington, an inner city authority, has always prided
itself on having a good equal opportunities record. I can tell
you it was not as good as everybody thought it was, and I can
happily put my hand up and say that we have an awful lot to do
in order to make our community feel like they are living and working
together, not in isolation and not disparate and separate from
their community. It does not only need a dedicated equalities
department but you do need people who understand how you make
that change, and I go back to the fact that it is an aspiration
we all have but knowing the practicalities of how to bring about
change in equalities is very different. I do think you need specialists
and people who can help guide and direct your whole organisation,
because again this should not be about, "That is okay, the
equalities department does it, we will leave them to it",
but about how that aspiration is shared across that whole organisation,
the organisations you employ and you work in partnership with.
It is a big old local government family out there and there is
a lot of work to do in it.
Q257 Lord Tebbit: If this is a statutory
duty and if it requires extra staff, and I am inclined to agree
that it would, and if you are not going to get any more money
for it, which non statutory obligations will have to be cut back?
There surely will be non statutory obligations which you will
have to cut back on in order to comply with your statutory obligation.
Cllr Willoughby: It depends how
you change your department to make it work harder and differently.
Most authorities probably do quite a lot to promote equality and
to promote opportunities for disabled people that they may not
realise they already do, so I would not like to see it being about
cutting one for the other, and I would not want to give you any
impression that we would not like more money, please, but local
authorities are very resourceful on this and I think in Islington
we will comply with our duty to do this. It may not be as fast,
quick, bright and shiny as we would like in terms of what could
be a gold standard, which is a bit of what the document is that
I have brought for you today, but we will certainly do our best
with the resources we have, and I think staff and local government
are very resourceful at doing that. More than anything else it
is leadership in this area that is needed, and people who can
take that forward and inspire others, just as much as it is about
having staff on the ground.
Q258 Lord Tebbit: It sounds a bit
like you need some loaves and fishes help.
Cllr Willoughby: Always!
Q259 Mr Clarke: I was interested
in your reference to the single equalities body. I got the impression
you felt that that would be more effective on these issues, that
is disability, than the Disability Rights Commission. Is that
your view? If so, why?
Cllr Willoughby: It is not the
view from the Local Government Association. The Local Government
Association would like to see a Single Equalities Act rather than
a re-organisation of the bodies that provide that support, and
I know the DRC have only really got going and got the bit under
their teeth on promotion of disabilities. There is a long discussion
to be had on that and the Local Government Association is part
of that discussion. What I am most keen to see is that we do not
end up with a single equalities body that has great vision and
does not share it with anybody else delivering services regionally
or locally. It has to be something they see everybody has a stake
in and a stake to deliver. Personally a Single Equalities Act
rather than a rearranging of the furniture is where I would see
a far more strong and robust approach to equalities.
| 
