Memorandum from groups representing people
with a learning disability (DDB 23)
1. SUMMARY OF
RECOMMENDATIONS
— We agree with the Disability Rights
Commission's idea that the point at which discrimination occurs
(the trigger) should be set at "substantial disadvantage"
throughout the Disability Discrimination Act and the new Disability
Discrimination Bill.
— The draft Codes of Practice should
be published as soon as possible.
— The Government should set aside money
to tell people about the Bill.
— We want this new law to happen as
soon as possible so that the Disability Rights Commission is able
to decide exactly how things will work before the Commission for
Human Rights and Equality takes over.
— All transport services should be
included in Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act immediately.
— Accessible audio-visual information
to customers onboard vehicles should be made a priority by changing
Part 5 of the Disability Discrimination Act.
— We would like to see all buses and
trains made fully accessible by 2017.
— Any definition of an "auxiliary
aid" should include accessible tenancy agreements and other
signage.
— Landlords should not be allowed to
withhold consent unreasonably from a tenant who wants to make
changes to the physical features of their home.
— The Government should write a list
of public authorities. This should include schools, further education
and higher education institutions, the Qualifications and Curriculum
Authority and general examination bodies. It should also say what
a public authority is so that other bodies which the Government
does not put in the list, but which match the description of a
public body, would also be included under the new equality duties.
— The Government should say more clearly
what the disability equality duties will mean for each public
body, particularly in relation to education and employment.
— Volunteers should be covered under
the Disability Discrimination Act powers.
— A person should not have to say they
have a disability when they fill out a job application. An employer
should only be allowed to ask if someone has a disability before
a job is offered if it is absolutely necessary.
— There should be accessible tribunals
rather than courts to enforce Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination
Act because courts are often too expensive and scary for people
with a learning disability to use.
2. INTRODUCTION
The following organisations representing people
with a learning disability have written this to say how we feel
about the draft Disability Discrimination Bill:
— British Institute of Learning Disabilities
(Bild).
— National Autistic Society.
3. GENERAL COMMENTS
Many of the people who will help write the final
Bill do not understand the needs of people with a learning disability
very well. Accessibility is not just about being physically able
to get in and out of a building or vehicle.
Some of our comments below reflect our concerns
that things that are important to people with a learning disability
will not be properly considered in this Bill even though there
are 1.2 million people with a learning disability in England alone.
In total, around 15% of the UK population of disabled people have
a learning disability.
We had to wait nearly two months after the publication
of the draft Bill for an accessible version. This does not give
us confidence that the Government is interested in what people
with a learning disability have to say. We hope the Joint Committee
is willing to listen to us.
We welcome the principles behind the draft Bill.
The measures will help improve equality and respect for people
with a learning disability and reduce discrimination but only
if the point at which discrimination occurs (the trigger) is not
set too high.
How far the Bill will improve the lives of people
with a learning disability will depend largely on its detail rather
than its principles. In some areas of the Bill—particularly
transport—the Government has not gone far enough and in
other areas, our concerns are not addressed at all.
People with a learning disability want equality,
opportunity and respect. We recognise that this Bill cannot deliver
all this by itself but we will not get another chance for a Disability
Bill for quite some time. So we feel the Government should do
more in this Bill to improve things.
We also think that changing people's attitudes
is as important as new laws and the Government must do something
about this too.
Recommendations
— We welcome the Disability Rights
Commission's idea that the point at which discrimination occurs
(the trigger) should be set at "substantial disadvantage"
throughout the Disability Discrimination Act and the new Disability
Discrimination Bill. This would mean that a person with a disability
would be discriminated against if they were put at a substantial
disadvantage when they tried to use a service. At the moment we
think the trigger is unfair because people would have to prove
they had found it "impossible or unreasonably difficult"
to use a service which is much harder.
— The draft Codes of Practice should
be published as soon as possible.
— We want this new law to happen as
soon as possible so that the Disability Rights Commission is able
to decide exactly how things will work before the Commission for
Human Rights and Equality takes over.
— The Government should set aside money
to tell people about the Bill.
Provisions of the Draft Bill
4. TRANSPORT—CLAUSE
3
Transport is the thing that people with a learning
disability are most worried about in this Bill.
We feel the draft Bill does not go far enough
in making sure that people who provide public transport do not
discriminate against people with a learning disability.
This is also a very difficult area of law to
understand. It should be easy. The aim of legislation should be
for disabled people to have the same rights to access public transport
as everyone else. Instead we have a Disability Discrimination
Act which is confusing and a draft Bill which will make things
even more difficult to understand.
Access to public transport is very important
to everyone. It determines whether we are able to hold down a
job, see our friends and family, shop, or take part in leisure
activities. For disabled people in particular, it represents the
difference between social inclusion and exclusion.
We feel the main reasons why little has been
done to make transport easier for people with a learning disability
to use are:
— a poor understanding amongst decision
makers about what "accessible transport" means.
— because transport providers haven't
really thought about the needs of disabled people or because they
see meeting their needs as too expensive.
In 2003, Mencap did a survey of its members
to find out what difficulties people with a learning disability
had when using public transport. The National Autistic Society
did a study as well. Both organisations agreed that what matters
most to people with a learning disability are:
— signs and travel information that
can be easily understood. Timetables, for example, are very difficult
to understand.
— audio and visual announcements to
say where the bus or train will be stopping next and if there
has been any change to the route.
— proper disability awareness training
for transport staff.
From 1 October 2004, under the current Disability
Discrimination Act, transport providers may have to change places
like stations and airports—including signs and travel information—but
only if it makes it "impossible or unreasonably difficult"
for someone with a disability to use them.
The draft Disability Discrimination Bill would
see transport services included in Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination
Act for the first time. However, the physical features of vehicles
would still be dealt with under Part 5 of the present law.
The Government has said that putting transport
services under Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act is
likely to mean that people like bus and taxi drivers would need
to have proper disability awareness training. This would be good
for all passengers, not just those passengers who have a disability.
Everyone needs help sometimes and disability
awareness training is really about making sure transport staff
understand how to help better. As such, it would save the transport
companies money in other types of training, like customer care
training, and in dealing with complaints.
Many transport providers say they already have
disability awareness training. But our surveys showed people with
a learning disability are still discriminated against all the
time. Learning disability is often not understood and drivers
sometimes wrongly think that someone with a learning disability
is being anti-social. Many people may have difficulty speaking
or working out the right money to pay for their fare and this
can lead to drivers and passengers being rude to them, especially
when they try and take the bus.
Transport providers should have to develop proper
disability awareness training which includes training on the specific
needs of people with a learning disability. We know we would need
to help with this training and would be happy to do so.
The Government has not said yet what else transport
providers are likely to have to do to meet the new law. Nor has
the DRC which will say how the law should be explained through
the Codes of Practice. We would like this to happen as soon as
possible.
However, given that the physical features of
vehicles will remain under Part 5 of the Disability Discrimination
Act, we do not think putting transport services under Part 3 of
the DDA will place too much burden on transport providers and
it should be done immediately for all of them.
If the Government decides that the Part 3 law
should apply to different types of public transport at different
times, then it should say exactly when this will happen for each
type of transport. We are concerned that some transport providers
may not have to do what the new law says for many years unless
the Government says now what it wants to do. But we would stress
that proper disability awareness training for all transport providers
should be happening now.
Under the draft Bill, the physical features
of transport vehicles would remain under Part 5 of the DDA and
many transport providers would still not need to put in new audio-visual
information systems for their vehicles for many years. Buses,
for example, would still not have to say onboard where the bus
was going or what the next stop was, even though this is when
people with a learning disability most need this information.
We think this is wrong.
Announcements can already be made on most trains
but drivers often do not bother or their announcement isn't loud
enough to be heard. It should not be up to the driver whether
or not they say where the train is going and where it is going
to stop next. This shows a lack of management will to help disabled
people. The Disability Rights Commission should say that transport
providers that already have audio-visual information facilities
in their vehicles must use them. Furthermore, these facilities
should be in all bus services and other forms of public transport
as quickly as possible.
This could be done by changing Part 5 of the
Disability Discrimination Act to prioritise accessible audio-visual
information in transport refurbishment programmes.
We would like to see all buses and trains made
fully accessible by 2017 with suitable targets set before this
date to ensure that transport providers do not wait until the
last minute to make the changes needed.
We do not think voluntary codes will work for
certain transport providers as they do not have a very good record
in making travelling easier for disabled people voluntarily.
For example, on 9 June 2003, EasyJet refused
to allow 13 students with a learning disability from Pengwern
College, Rhuddlan, North Wales, to board a plane to fly them back
from an international soccer tournament in Geneva. EasyJet said
they could only fly if they had one carer for every two disabled
people. The team had five carers with them. EasyJet eventually
allowed them on to the plane after other passengers said they
would act as carers but the team was still forced to wait to board
the plane until everyone else had got on.
There have, of course, been other recent well-documented
incidents of discrimination against disabled people involving
airlines. All these changes will mean nothing if the trigger for
when discrimination occurs is set too high. We are worried that
a court may rule that a person with a learning disability could
be escorted by a carer when they use public transport so transport
providers would not need to make things accessible. This would
not only double the cost of travelling for someone with a learning
disability but would strip them of their independence when making
decisions about their daily lives.
Recommendations
— All transport services should be
included in Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act immediately.
— The draft Codes of Practice, setting
out exactly what this would mean in practice for transport providers,
should be published as soon as possible.
— Accessible audio-visual information
to customers onboard vehicles should be made a priority by changing
Part 5 of the Disability Discrimination Act.
— We would like to see all buses and
trains made fully accessible by 2017.
— The trigger for when discrimination
occurs should be lowered to "substantial disadvantage".
5. FUNCTIONS
OF PUBLIC
AUTHORITIES—CLAUSE
4
The draft Bill says there must be a "very
much less favourable" outcome. We are concerned that this
trigger is likely to be too high.
Recommendation
— The trigger for when discrimination
occurs should be lowered to "substantial disadvantage".
6. PRIVATE CLUBS—CLAUSE
5
We welcome this idea but it is the regulations
which will say how important this change is for disabled people.
We are concerned that the Government wants to set the trigger
at the same level as current Part 3 triggers ("impossible
or unreasonably difficult").
We also want to say that clubs, in particular,
are a place where changing people's attitudes to disabled people
is as important as changing the law.
Recommendations
— The trigger for when discrimination
occurs should be lowered to "substantial disadvantage".
— Money should be given to help change
people's attitudes.
7. HOUSING—CLAUSES
6 & 7
We welcome this idea. It is really important
that all disabled people have accessible and affordable housing
in which they can live.
Recommendations
— We would like any definition of an
"auxiliary aid" to include accessible tenancy agreements
and other signage.
— Landlords should not be allowed to
withhold consent unreasonably from a tenant who wishes to make
changes to the physical features of their home.
8. DISABILITY
EQUALITY DUTY
FOR PUBLIC
AUTHORITIES—CLAUSE
8
We warmly welcome this new idea and think it
could have a number of good outcomes for people with a learning
disability.
We hope it will mean that local authorities
will do more to end the regular harassment of people with a learning
disability.
We would like the Government to say more clearly
how it will monitor specific employment duties. If people with
a learning disability are still finding it difficult to get a
job within public bodies, we would like to see positive measures
to help them.
It is not clear whether the new duties will
remove the current gap in the law around the health needs of some
pupils in education. At the moment, local education authorities,
schools and governing bodies are responsible for the health and
safety of pupils in their care. Part 4 of the Disability Discrimination
Act is intended to solve the problem of discrimination against
pupils. However, schools have not necessarily had to meet pupils'
health needs all the time.
We would like schools, further education and
higher education institutions, the Qualifications and Curriculum
Authority and general examination bodies to be included in any
definition of a public authority. We would also like the Government
to set out in more detail what specific duties will be applied
to each of these public bodies.
We would like the Government to provide further
details on how these duties will work with other laws, particularly
the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.
Recommendations
— The Government should write a list
of public authorities. This should include schools, further education
and higher education institutions, the Qualifications and Curriculum
Authority and general examination bodies. It should also say what
a public authority is so that other bodies which the Government
does not put in the list, but which match the description of a
public body, would also be included under the new duties.
— The Government needs to say more
clearly what the disability equality duties will mean for each
public body, particularly in relation to education and employment.
— We want this new law to happen as
soon as possible so that the Disability Rights Commission is able
to decide exactly how the duties will work before the Commission
for Human Rights and Equality takes over.
What's Missing from the Draft Bill?
We think the following issues should also be
included in the draft Bill:
9. VOLUNTEERS
Volunteering is one way for people with a learning
disability to eventually get a paid job. Volunteers should therefore
be covered under the Disability Discrimination Act powers.
10. DISABILITY-RELATED
ENQUIRIES
Less than 10% of people with a learning disability
are in employment. A person should not have to say they have a
disability when they fill out a job application. An employer should
only be allowed to ask if someone has a disability before a job
is offered if it is absolutely necessary.
11. PART 3 ENFORCEMENT
One way to help people with a learning disability
speak up against discrimination would be to have accessible tribunals
rather than courts which are often too expensive and scary for
people with a learning disability to use.
February 2004
| 
