Memorandum from John Grooms (DDB 61)
SUMMARY
John Grooms welcomes the publication of the
Draft Disability Discrimination Bill. The provisions relating
to transport, duties of public authorities and increased rights
for disabled tenants are welcome extensions of the Disability
Discrimination Act. We are concerned at the exclusion of a number
of issues including a definition of what is meant by "reasonable",
the lack of epidemiology, suitable housing and accommodation for
disabled people and the definition of mental impairment.
BACKGROUND
John Grooms is a disability specialist charity
and housing association and is committed to supporting disabled
people to be as independent as possible and to realise their full
potential. We operate nationally providing:
— Wheelchair accessible homes and supported
housing solutions for people who are wheelchair users.
— Residential, respite and nursing
care services.
— Rehabilitation for people with brain
injuries.
— Accessible holidays for disabled
people and their families.
— Education and training.
With all our work we aim to treat everyone as
an individual. John Grooms believes that people are not disabled
by their individual impairments but by physical barriers and those
created by people's attitudes. We support the goal of the Disability
Rights Commission "of a society where all disabled people
can participate fully as equal citizens."
INTRODUCTION
John Grooms welcomes the Draft Disability Discrimination
Bill (DDDB) and its proposals to extend the Disability Discrimination
Act 1995 (DDA) as an important step to a civil society. Within
our submission we have first commented on those areas which will
still be excluded from the DDA and which we feel should be included.
This is followed with comments on specific clauses. In doing so;
our submission addresses the various themes which the committee's
call for evidence outlines.
What is reasonable?
Throughout the DDDB reference is made for service
providers to make "reasonable adjustments" to enable
disabled people to benefit from services or be able to use the
facilities being offered. It is therefore imperative that "reasonable"
is clearly defined, perhaps in accompanying codes of practice
following Royal Assent.
It should make clear that "reasonable"
means anticipating disabled peoples' needs before they experience
a problem accessing the service or facility. Not only will this
promote increased awareness, a vital prerequisite if the legislation
is to have any meaningful impact but it will be a more cost effective
approach than having to make retrospective changes.
How many disabled people are there?
John Grooms recognises that efforts have been
made over the last decade to improve services for disabled people
in order to expand opportunities for personal development, independence
and social integration. However it is our experience that policy
initiatives do not always achieve these goals due to a lack of
reliable information about the number of disabled people, their
expectations, current and future needs.
Somewhere to live?
As has been noted elsewhere, disabled people
have the worst housing circumstances of all social groups in society
(Barnes, 1991, OPCS, 1991, Ackroyd 2003). John Grooms believes
that unless disabled people have somewhere suitable to live, many
of the rights set out in the bill will be superfluous to the reality
of their lives.
John Grooms is concerned that neither the Housing
Bill or Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, both of which are
currently before Parliament, sufficiently introduce measures to
address this shortfall. The recent commitment on behalf of the
Government by Lord Bassam of Brighton[38]
that planning policy guidance will be produced to ensure that
all new planning applications address the access needs of disabled
people is a welcome start to the cultural change needed when designing
or adapting new buildings.
Building suitable housing for disabled people
A survey found that countrywide an estimated
300,000[39]
wheelchair accessible houses are needed to meet current and expected
demand. The Draft Disability Discrimination Bill is an opportunity
to set targets for all new housing developments to be built to
the Lifetime Homes standard to start to address this need. However
a Lifetime Home may not be suitable for all disabled people. Therefore
10% of these new houses should be built to the higher wheelchair
accessible standard which John Grooms advocates to ensure that
every disabled person who so wishes has the opportunity of moving
into a home of their own.
The recently published London Plan incorporates
the 10% wheelchair standard for all future housing provision in
the London area. We believe that it is a planning policy target
which should be adopted countrywide if the vision of a civil society
is to become a reality.
Enforcing Part M
A more inclusive society could be achieved with
the rigorous enforcement of existing standards such as Part M
of the Building Regulations. This has required new housing to
be constructed to minimum standards of access since October 1999.
However it is our experience that Part M is not widely understood
and is variably enforced. This was confirmed in a recent report
published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation[40].
John Grooms would further observe that simply
enforcing regulations is not sufficient and suggest that sanctions
should be applied for failure to adhere to these. The current
Part M regulations do not take account of the increasing use of
electric wheelchairs; which are substantially larger than manual
chairs. We would like to see these periodically reviewed to ensure
they take account of any sociological and technological changes
affecting the lives of disabled people.
Mental Impairment
John Grooms is concerned by the retention in
Schedule 1 of the DDA that mental impairment only counts as a
recognised disability if it is as the result of a "clinically
well-recognised illness". As the Law Society, Mind and the
Disability Rights Commission have observed, people with mental
health problems who experience discrimination are unable to bring
cases under the DDA due to the narrowness of the definition. Many
of John Grooms' clients experience significant perceptual, emotional
and cognitive problems due to sustaining a brain injury but do
not have a "mental impairment" as currently defined
by the DDA.
COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC CLAUSES WITHIN THE DRAFT
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION BILL
Clause 1—John Grooms welcomes this provision
which strengthens the existing legislation and places a duty of
care on the publisher.
Clause 2—John Grooms welcomes the initiative
that insurers should not be allowed to treat disabled employees
less favourably. However we would be concerned if, as a result,
insurance cover was withdrawn from all employees or the premium
increased for providing insurance cover. John Grooms would recommend
that regulations are introduced which will prevent this from happening.
Clause 3—The lack of access to suitable
transport is a major cause of social exclusion for disabled people.
John Grooms therefore welcomes the commitment to bring in regulations
to include various modes of transport within the DDA rather than
just the infrastructure as at present.
We are disappointed however at the long timescale
set out for the regulations to be introduced—particularly
for passenger rail vehicles—and call for them to be brought
in as soon as possible. It is also vital that the regulations
do not just cover physical access to the vehicle but accessible
toilets and visual signage. We hope that the Government will work
with international partners to bring aviation and shipping industries
into line.
Bringing in these regulations sooner will address
the Government's policy priority area of getting people back to
work where appropriate. As the recent survey of disabled people
by Leonard Cheshire[41]
discovered, almost a quarter of the respondents had turned down
a job partly due to inaccessible transport.
Clause 4—John Grooms welcomes the DDDB's
proposal to place a duty on public services to ensure that any
systematic bias against disabled people is removed from the way
services are delivered and people are employed. Explicit reference
should be made to those public authorities which deliver health
care services.
Within the duty on public authorities; there
should be a requirement that they are required to fund advocates
to provide support for disabled people who may require this service
to ensure their voice is heard. Legal protection against discrimination
should be at the same level as existing powers relating to access
to goods, facilities and services already covered by the DDA.
Clause 5—John Grooms welcomes this provision
but would recommend that clubs and societies of all sizes be included.
Clauses 6 and 7—John Grooms welcomes the
commitment to extend the DDA to cover the duties of landlords
and managing agents towards disabled tenants. We would welcome
clarification of what auxiliary aid or service is considered to
be reasonable. We would also welcome details on the enforcement
measures proposed and how a disabled tenant can access them where
a landlord or managing agent refuses consent to a reasonable alteration.
Clause 8—John Grooms welcomes this proposal.
It is our experience that unless consideration of the needs of
disabled people are included at he heart of the policy making
process, they will not be adequately addressed.
Clause 9—John Grooms welcomes the extension
of the Disability Rights Commission's remit to include the production
of Codes of Practice to support public sector bodies promoting
disability equality.
Clause 10—John Grooms welcomes the extension
of the questionnaire procedure to cover Part III claims.
Clause 11—John Grooms welcomes the proposal
that Chief Police Officers will be liable for any discrimination
by their officers against disabled people.
Clause 12—John Grooms welcomes the inclusion
of progressive disabling conditions within the definition of disability
where it is likely that the condition will inhibit a person's
ability to function.
February 2004
REFERENCES
Barnes, C (1991) Disabled People in Britain
and Discrimination, London: Hurst and Company.
Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS),
The 1991 census of Great Britain: General Report, London:
HMSO.
Ackroyd, J (2003) Where do you think you're
going?, London: John Grooms.
38 Committee Stage, Planning and Compulsory Purchase
Bill, 2 February 2004, Hansard Column 454, Back
39
The estimate is based on research carried out in the last decade
and partly derived from the comprehensive study carried out by
the Housing Corporation, Housing for People with Disabilities:
the needs of wheelchair users (1991), which identified 330,000
wheelchair users living in unsuitable dwellings in the social
sector. Back
40
Imrie, R (2003), The Impact of Part M on the Design of New Housing. Back
41
Mind the Gap. Back
| 
