Memorandum from the National Federation
of the Blind of the United Kingdom (DDB 4)
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 1,500 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 loophole in the
regulations or legislation.
The question as to whether the draft Bill's
proposals are necessary, workable and sufficient is debateable;
We feel 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 draft 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 loophole as already said, and although there should
be some exceptions, we do feel that this is not satisfactory.
How the draft Bill reflects the Government's
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 an 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 loopholes 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 three separate documents.
We do hope our comments are useful.
February 2004
| 
