Examination of Witnesses (Questions 360
- 363)
WEDNESDAY 17 MARCH 2004
MR ANDY
RICKELL, MS
RACHEL HURST,
PROFESSOR PETER
BERESFORD AND
MR ROY
WEBB
Q360 Lord Tebbit: You are not concerned
about the safety aspects of an emergency evacuation?
Ms Hurst: In an emergency evacuation,
if we are up in the air, there is no doubt, you know, the airline
regulations (the IATA regulations) already state very clearly
that disabled people who cannot get themselves out of the chutes
should be left behind and should not be put in any way to obstruct
the exits for non-disabled people. So our right to die has been
fully implemented already by IATA regulations, and we accept that
in flying. I think we have to accept it.
Q361 Lord Tebbit: Do you accept the
Government's view that the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 provides
adequate redress for disabled tenants where a landlord has unreasonably
withheld consent to make physical alterations to premises?
Mr Rickell: I think the simple
answer is "No". We have three very practical reasons.
Firstly, the 1927 Act is hardly likely to be familiar to disabled
tenants. Therefore, even if in theory it would apply, de facto
it would not have been enforced. So if it is about enabling disabled
people to get their rights, they will not get them because they
will not know they exist. The second thing is that, to assist
disabled tenants and their advisers, we would like to see all
anti-discrimination laws easily located together in similar pieces
of legislation. We have got it all over the place. I think that
is a recipe for problems, and lawyers' bills are not necessarily
going to serve people's rights. Thirdly and perhaps most pertinent,
we think that introducing this measure in the Disability Bill
would ensure that the "unreasonably withheld" test would
be viewed in the light of reasonableness to avoid discrimination
against disabled people because it would be within a piece of
anti-discrimination legislation. The clause in the 1927 Act would
not necessarily be read by the courts, in this light because it
was written in 1927 and it will be interpreted in that light.
So that is our argument.
Q362 Tom Levitt: What measures do
you think are most essential to ensure that public authorities
become proactive in promoting equality for disabled people?
Mr Webb: I think what was whispered
in my ear was "independent living". I think the very
quick answer to that is, in the submission that NCIL made we attempted
to make slightly longer lists of what we thought independent living
consisted of. How do you ensure that disabled people can be free
and equal citizens in their own communities? That is the aim,
I think. It is very clearly the aim of this legislation and it
is most welcome, I think, from our point of view, that legislation
does set that as its target. I think what we are trying to say
here is, okay, this is a very good target, something which we
have been struggling towards for a long time which we are happy
to work with you to try to work out how we are can achieve it.
I think if we look at the list of seven points there, which originally
came to the seven points of independent living, we have got housing,
information, advocacy, employment, and we put community care in
the list there, so that is part of it. I think if we can guarantee
provision of these basic things, then we can actually guarantee
equality of opportunity for disabled people within the community.
I think the way of looking at these is to go back to the idea
of the social model of disability: because what we are looking
at is a group of people who currently cannot take a full and equal
part in their community because of the nature of discrimination
against disabled people. What we are looking at is what we have
to do in practice to remove those physical, organisational and
social barriers that people can be free and equal citizens. I
think if we can address the lists of items which were originally
raised by some people many years ago as being the pillars of independent
living, I think it would go a long way towards that. What we have
suggested at NCIL is a short amendment which would embrace those
principles under the section on public bodies. The public bodies
would be required, when carrying out their responsibilities, not
to discriminate, to pay attention to each of those things. What
we are suggesting is that if you think that is a good idea to
go forward to say, "Let's begin by asking local authorities
to pay attention in particular to these areas", then we could,
later on, have a much more lengthy and detailed discussion about
exactly how that could best be done, because we are forced to
suggest that that section which we are asking to be appended to
the bill should be further clarified by the regulations issued
by the Secretary of State, which would give everyone here, and
many more people not here, I think, the opportunity to talk about,
"Well, what exactly do the regulations issued by the Secretary
of State need to say to make it practical and reasonable or possible
to deliver these things in day-to-day ways?" So I think we
are offering an opportunity there to establish a basic principle
that everyone should have the right to independent living—every
person should have that right—and that right should be openly
expressed in the Bill and that at the same time an opportunity
to ensure more detailed and more lengthy debate around exactly
how to do that in practice through more detailed regulations which
could be issued at a later point.
Q363 Tom Levitt: With respect, that
answer is almost in terms of the local authorities' own services
and them being joined up. I am thinking the duty to promote being
put on a local authority or a public body. That seems to me to
be more a role of education and proselytising of advocacy in the
wider community. Do you think that that is an essential part of
the duty to promote?
Mr Rickell: Yes. I have looked
at the duty on a wider basis. Yes, I think if the duty is going
to be made a reality, it needs to be mainstreamed and a central
feature of all top level strategies and community plans etc. I
am comparing it, for instance, with the equality of opportunity
clause, which sets the whole tone for the activities of the Welsh
Assembly, the Act which brings the Welsh Assembly into being.
It sets very high up that equality of opportunity is central to
the way in which that body operates. We see that as a very powerful
way of work and should be copied by other public authorities.
We think that all contractors for public services and recipients
of government grants or other support, as a pre-condition of receiving
tax-payers' money, should prove that they will promote this duty.
So it is—what is the word—it is farmed out, if you
like, not just in terms of what the public authority does itself,
but also in terms of the contracting of services and the way in
which public money is actually employed, bearing in mind that
quite a lot of public money is employed outside a public authority
on a contract basis. But public authorities should become exemplars
in the employment of disabled people, so I think that should be
something which should be heavily pushed. In fact that can probably
be dealt with through making it an Audit Commission requirement
or a District Audit or the relevant regulatory bodies, including
the equality of opportunity issue as a condition for meeting certain
requirements, beacon status, the sort of incentives that there
are to public authorities to do well, and certainly that all services
which develop the potential of disabled people—and that
includes things like education, training and rehabilitation, but
that is not an exhaustive list—should see the promotion
of equality as an essential feature of their purpose rather than
a peripheral.
Chairman: Thank-you very much. I think
we have got some other witnesses who are waiting. Can I suggest
that if there are any areas that you think you have got some more
to say about, any areas that we have not covered, you can certainly
write to us, and the transcript will be on the website in a few
days, I believe. If you would like to look at the transcript to
see if there is anything you wish to add, or indeed to look at
the transcript of all the evidence that we have received—it
is all there—and, if you wish to comment on that, of course
you are free to do so. Thank you very much for coming in.
|
