Examination of Witnesses (Questions 496
- 499)
WEDNESDAY 24 MARCH 2004
MS LUCY
SCOTT-MONCRIEFF,
MR DAVID
RUEBAIN AND
MS VICKI
CHAPMAN
Q496 Chairman: Good afternoon. Thank
you very much for coming to join us. Would you please introduce
yourselves for the record?
Mr Ruebain: My name is David Ruebain.
I am a solicitor. I am here today as Co-Chair of the Law Society's
Mental Health and Disability Committee. Very briefly, what we
do is support the Law Society in developing its law reform function,
particularly in respect of the area of mental health and disability
law.
Ms Scott-Moncrieff: I am Lucy
Scott-Moncrieff. I am the other Co-Chair of the Committee.
Ms Chapman: I am Vicki Chapman.
I am the Head of Law Reform at the Law Society.
Q497 Chairman: The draft bill proposes
that anyone with the progressive conditions of cancer, HIV infection
and multiple sclerosis should be covered by the DDA. You argue
in your written evidence that all progressive conditions which
are likely to have a substantial effect should be included and
not just these three, so perhaps you would explain why.
Mr Ruebain: We feel that it is
a matter of equity fundamentally. The purpose of the original
legislation, the Disability Discrimination Act and its consequent
extensions over the years in a variety of ways is quite properly
to seek to end unfairness faced by disabled people, if I can characterise
it like that. Obviously, you will have heard a lot of evidence
about exactly who should and should not be covered and that debate
was raging for decades prior to the DDA and has been since its
initial enactment. We are very pleased to see a recognition of
the need to extend the legislation to cover more people. In fact,
I should have said this at the outset. We are very pleased by
the Bill generally and we welcome it and certainly we consider
that our role here is to seek to further strengthen the rights
of disabled people rather than to oppose the bill in any sense.
In our view the overarching objective of anti-discrimination legislation
for disabled people is to end unfairness and if it is right, which
it is, to seek to include those people with progressive conditions
at the point of diagnosis—so if it is right to include people
with cancer, HIV infection and multiple sclerosis—because
even though they may be at the early stages of the condition they
nonetheless face unfairness and disadvantage, we see no reason
why it is also not right to cover other people with progressive
conditions which are likely to have a substantial effect. I think
we gave examples of motor neurone disease, Huntingdon's and Parkinson's.
Frankly, it just follows on from the principle that where there
is unfairness there should be a remedy.
Q498 Chairman: Would you support
the list principle where you list the diseases or the general
term "progressive conditions", or a regulation-making
power to allow the Government to add conditions as and when?
Mr Ruebain: It is a very interesting
question, if I may say. It depends on the approach that one takes.
I think we would support an extensive coverage so that in effect—
Q499 Chairman: That is the list approach.
Mr Ruebain: I do not think it
necessarily has to be. One could have a definition which includes
anyone with an impairment which has a substantial effect and anyone
associated with somebody with such an impairment. I recognise,
if I may say so, that we are unlikely to get that much at this
round of reconsideration.
| 
