Memorandum from the Royal National Institute
of the Blind (RNIB) (DDB 81)
1. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
1.1 RNIB welcomes the publication of the
draft Disability Discrimination Bill. The measures in the draft
Bill are vital for blind and partially sighted people in securing;
— greater access to transport services;
— equality in relation to public services;
— access to private clubs; and
— a right to greater provision in relation
to the letting of premises.
We also welcome the inclusion of people with
MS, HIV and cancer as being disabled under the DDA.
1.2 We do though have concerns in relation
to provisions that need improving and others that have not been
included at all.
1.3 Provisions that need improving:
— Transport: Bringing the end
date for rail vehicle accessibility forward to 2017 if possible
and ensuring reviews of aviation and shipping are used to ensure
greater accessibility for disabled travellers. Also, improving
provision of audio-visual information on transport vehicles through
amending part 5 regulations.
— Functions of Public Authorities:
The duty is not sufficiently anticipatory to ensure access is
improved, and the reasonable opinion test remains in place when
it is not appropriate for public authorities.
— Private clubs: Clarification
is required on why the trigger for reasonable adjustments on the
face of the draft Bill is not to be used.
— Premises: Landlords may still
be able to withhold consent unreasonably to a blind or partially
sighted person wishing to make physical changes to premises. We
have concerns that the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 will not prove
effective in ending discrimination in this area.
— Examining bodies and standard
setting agencies: All such bodies should be covered under
the DDA (some are private organisations and therefore will not
be affected by the public sector duty).
— Triggers: Triggers for the
level of disadvantage a blind or partially sighted person must
experience before a reasonable adjustment is required should be
harmonised across the DDA to that used in education and employment
(substantial disadvantage) to avoid further confusion resulting
from different triggers being used across the Act.
1.4 Not included:
— Goods and services cases should be
transferred from the County or Sheriff Courts to be heard in employment
tribunals to improve access to redress for blind, partially sighted
and other disabled people.
— Employment tribunals should have
powers to order the reinstatement or re-engagement of a disabled
person who wins their discrimination case.
— Employment rights should be extended
to provide disability leave, where people who have existing or
new impairments can take time away from work for rehabilitation
and retraining allowing them to remain in work. This is particularly
important for people who experience new or ongoing sight loss
while at work.
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 RNIB is the leading charity offering
information, support and advice to the two million people in the
UK with sight problems. Our pioneering work helps anyone with
a sight problem—not just with braille, Talking Books and
computer training, but with imaginative and practical solutions
to everyday challenges. We fight for equal rights for people with
sight problems and fund pioneering research into preventing and
treating eye disease.
2.2 RNIB welcomes the publication of the
draft Disability Discrimination Bill, which contains many necessary
proposals that are vital to securing the rights of blind, partially
sighted and other disabled people across premises, transport and
access to private clubs. We welcome the inclusion of some measures
recommended by the Disability Rights Task Force which the government
pledged to legislate for in their 1997 and 2001 manifestos.
2.3 The new rights the draft Bill contains
would challenge the discrimination that blind and partially sighted
people face when trying to lease premises, use transport services,
join or use private clubs and access the services of public authorities.
However, we have concerns that some of the provisions in the draft
Bill are not sufficient and in this submission to the Joint Committee
outline the main concerns which we believe need to be addressed
in order to challenge the discrimination that the two million
people with a sight problem in the UK continue to face.
2.4 RNIB, as a member of the Disability
Charities Consortium (DCC), has also contributed to the Consortium's
memorandum to the Joint Committee and fully supports its recommendations.
We are therefore not commenting in our memorandum on some issues,
such as definition of disability in relation to mental health,
as the DCC response has covered these issues in full.
3. TRANSPORT
3.1 We welcome the draft Bill's proposals
to extend the DDA to cover discrimination in relation to use of
a means of transport. This will mean that important rights not
to be treated less favourably, to have reasonable adjustments
made to policies, practices and procedures and to have auxiliary
aids and services provided where they enable or facilitate access,
could all be applied to individual transport modes through use
of the regulatory powers in the draft bill. This would be of great
benefit to blind and partially sighted people travelling with
assistance dogs, or who need help from transport staff in order
to access a means of transport and to assistance in reaching their
destination safely.
3.2 The use of regulations
We are concerned that the impact of the transport
provisions will depend on the contents of the regulations and
when they are introduced. We would urge the government to bring
in the regulations as soon as possible.
3.3 Prioritising audio-visual information
in transport vehicles
Trains brought into service post 1999 have to
have audio-visual information for passengers with sensory impairments.
However, the end date for inaccessible rail vehicles to be brought
out of service and the requirements for train refurbishment will
be central in increasing the accessibility of pre 1999 rolling
stock in terms of audio visual information. Buses do not have
to feature systems to provide accessible information, such as
where the bus is stopping next or provide information in case
of diversions and delays, even though this is when disabled people
most need such information. We believe this lack of progress on
accessible information onboard public transport vehicles is unacceptable
and would like Part 5 regulations amended to prioritise accessible
audio-visual information in refurbishment programmes for trains
and for buses to also be included.
3.4 End date for accessibility of passenger
rail vehicles
When the Bill proper is introduced into Parliament
it will contain an end date by which all passenger rail vehicles
will have to comply with rail accessibility regulations, including
trains brought into service pre January 1999 that do not have
to comply with Rail Passenger Accessibility Regulations (1998).
In the end date consultation the government expressed its preference
for 2025 as the date by which all passenger rail vehicles must
be accessible.
3.5 RNIB regards this as an unacceptable
delay and asks the Joint Committee to establish why 2020, which
allows for half life refurbishment for trains introduced into
service in the next few years, is not acceptable to the government.
3.6 2017 would be in line with the PSVAR
for buses and would provide disabled people with freedom to move
across the country, having the full choice of transport modes.
Whilst recognising the additional costs that will be incurred
by the rail operators as a consequence of this earlier compliance,
the additional revenue generated as a result of the increased
volume in passengers using the service will, to some degree, offset
such costs. Although this was cited as a benefit that had been
experienced by bus companies complying with similar legislation,
it is not costed in the RIA accompanying the draft Bill. 2017
is the end date we asked for in our response to the consultation.
3.7 Aviation and shipping
Discrimination against disabled people is taking
place on these modes of transport and there is no redress available
under the DDA. The government intends to defer lifting their exemptions
from the DDA until the completion of the reviews in 2004 and 2005.
We are concerned that disabled people should be consulted on the
remit of the reviews and that government gives an indication of
when they will respond to recommendations. Discriminatory policies
that affect blind and partially sighted people still exist, such
as Brittany Ferries' ban on people with assistance dogs travelling
as foot passengers (although a trial with assistance dogs has
been announced to begin in March 2004).
4. DISCRIMINATION
BY PUBLIC
AUTHORITIES
4.1 RNIB welcomes the clarification that
including the functions of public authorities within the DDA would
give to cases that involve bodies whose status as a service provider
is not clear in law. This applies to authorities such as the Highways
and Benefits Agencies.
4.2 However, we have concerns about the
nature of the duties owed to disabled people by public authorities.
4.3 Duty to make adjustments
The draft Bill states that discrimination will
have taken place when a public authority fails to make adjustments
to the performance of a function that causes a very much less
favourable outcome for a disabled person when it would have been
reasonable for it to carry out the function in other ways to prevent
the function having that effect.
4.4 An anticipatory duty?
The wording does not place public authorities
under a sufficiently anticipatory duty. The draft Bill words the
duty in such a way that it focuses on the effects on the individual
in each case. This differs in approach from the anticipatory duty
in Part 3, which is to all disabled persons. This duty has raised
awareness of the DDA amongst service providers who have to assess
disabled people's access needs before they use their services.
The draft bill does not appear to place a similar duty on public
authorities towards disabled persons and therefore we anticipate
that its effects in widening access would be significantly lesser
than that achieved under Part 3. In addition, the positive duty
on public authorities to promote equality and tackle discrimination
demands that the duty to make reasonable adjustments has an anticipatory
element and it is disappointing that the functions of public authorities
have not been dealt with in the same way.
4.5 Reasonable opinion test
We also have concerns that the reasonable opinion
test remains as part of justification for failure to make a reasonable
adjustment when the test itself is not appropriate for a public
authority. When the DDA came into force the reasonable opinion
test existed to allow for smaller service providers who might
have genuine beliefs that the treatment was necessary for reasons
related to health and safety or the costs of equal treatment.
However, a public authority should have policies and training
in place for staff that make a reasonable opinion test unnecessary
because expertise should exist as to the duties the public authority
has and exactly what they can be required to do. In addition,
as a public authority, best practice should be expected in relation
to accessibility of public functions for disabled people, again
showing the inappropriate nature of the test. There is, within
the list of justifications, a general Human Rights Act based justification
(proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim) which is purely
objective: we would wish to see this approach extended to the
other justifications featured. We are also concerned that regulatory
powers exist to add to the list of justifications.
4.6 We would also point out that there is
no rationale for allowing a failure to make a reasonable adjustment;
either an adjustment is reasonable or it is not. If it is reasonable
in all the circumstances of the case then it should be made. Failure
to make a reasonable adjustment in relation to employment will
not be justifiable after October 2004 and we would like this approach
to be extended to Part 3.
5. PRIVATE CLUBS
5.1 We welcome the possible extension of
Part 3 of the DDA to private clubs with over 25 members. However,
we have concerns about the level of disadvantage which blind and
partially sighted people will have to experience before a private
club is required to make a reasonable adjustment for them.
5.2 Trigger in relation to private clubs
The duty to make reasonable adjustments is not
specified, but will be introduced through regulations. The draft
Bill offers the framework for the regulations. Amongst other duties
it states, in particular:
5(1) (new 21G (1)(a))
"a duty to take steps for a purpose relating
to a policy, practice or procedure of the association, or a physical
feature, which adversely affects disabled persons who are, or
might become, members or associates of the association".
5.3 This trigger is significantly more generous
than other triggers used in Part 3 of the DDA and the draft Bill,
which are; "impossible or unreasonably difficult" (goods
and services) and "very much less favourable" (functions
of public authorities).
5.4 However, the explanatory notes qualify
the Government's intentions stating that:
"52. [. . .] It is not expected that the
duties to be imposed by regulations made under new section 21G
will go further than those which providers of goods, services
or facilities are under by reason of section 21 DDA."
5.5 This is disappointing and confusing
given the statement on the face of the draft Bill. This is an
area where clarification of the Government's intentions in relation
to use of regulatory powers would be welcome at an early stage.
We hope that points raised in section 9 will influence how the
regulatory power is used, considering that this high trigger may
not ensure vital rights for blind and partially sighted people,
such as the right to independently access written information
in relation to (in this case) membership or other benefits.
We are also concerned that guests are not covered
by the provisions on the face of the bill, but rather that regulations
may extend coverage to them. We see no reason for guests not to
be covered, and this is of concern to any blind or partially sighted
person who would not be entitled to any adjustments relating to
a policy, practice or procedure of the association or a physical
feature of the premises that places them at a disadvantage.
6. DISCRIMINATION
IN RELATION
TO THE
LETTING OF
PREMISES
6.1 We welcome the inclusion of policies,
practices and procedures and the provision of auxiliary aids and
services in relation to the letting, management or disposal of
premises being brought within Part 3 DDA.
6.2 As the explanatory notes accompanying
the draft bill make clear this would have welcome benefits for
blind and partially sighted people, such as:
— A landlord or letting agent being
required to read out a print tenancy agreement to a blind person,
or provide it in a format accessible to them (auxiliary aid).
— A policy that did not allow assistance
dogs in premises would have to be changed or waived in the case
of a assistance dog user who leases premises.
6.3 However, we have concerns about the
draft Bill's failure to make provision for the Disability Rights
Taskforce's recommendation that landlords not be allowed to unreasonably
withhold consent to disabled people wishing to make changes to
the physical features of premises to facilitate their own access
and enjoyment of the premises.
6.4 Where a landlord has tenants who are
employers, service providers or educational establishments, she
is not allowed to unreasonably withhold consent to the making
of alterations to physical features for the benefit of disabled
people. We see no reason why disabled tenants should be the only
group who are subject to unreasonable refusal by landlords when
physical changes to premises are so important in facilitating
accessibility and therefore the ability of disabled people to
enjoy premises. The ability to make changes is vital in many ways
for blind and partially sighted people:
— Improving colour contrast in relation
to walls, floors and doors.
— Tactile marking for lifts, floor
numbers and other information.
— Nosings and/or improved contrast
for stairs.
6.5 Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927
The government believes that the 1927 Act already
covers the issue of unreasonable withholding of consent by a landlord.
In the case of a contract prohibiting alterations, the draft Bill
covers policies practices and procedures that make it impossible
or unreasonably difficult for a disabled person to enjoy the premises,
meaning that a term of a lease that prohibits alterations by a
tenant would have to be changed or waived.
6.6 However, we have concerns that:
— no cases have been taken by disabled
tenants under the LTA;
— the DRC has no powers to issue Codes
of Practice or assist disabled people in taking cases under it;
— the Act does not apply to Scotland;
— it does not cover changes to the
outside or approach to premises.
6.7 We are concerned that what is deemed
"reasonable" under the LTA will not be the same as the
DDA and that having fundamental rights in Land Law and not civil
rights legislation is not a consistent or useful way to proceed.
7. DUTIES OF
PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
7.1 We welcome the proposed duty on public
authorities to promote disability equality and to eliminate discrimination.
This will bring huge benefits to disabled people as public authorities
have to build disability equality into their functions, rather
than individuals having to take cases after discrimination has
taken place.
7.2 Our main concern in relation to the
draft Bill's provisions is that a duty to promote good relations
between disabled and non-disabled people is not included. It would
be disappointing if public authorities interpreted this omission
as meaning that disabled people do not experience equivalent issues
that led to the inclusion of such a duty for race.
8. DEFINITION
OF DISABILITY
We fully support the Disability Charities Consortium's
recommendations.
9. HARMONISATION
OF TRIGGERS
ACROSS THE
DRAFT BILL
AND THE
DDA
9.1 The current Disability Discrimination
Act 1995 puts the point at which someone has to make a reasonable
adjustment ("trigger") at different levels across the
law. The draft Disability Discrimination Bill adds a few more.
We believe that the use of different triggers is confusing, and
the law would benefit from a clear and consistent approach across
the DDA.
9.2 Trigger in relation to private clubs
We welcome the extension of Part 3 DDA to cover
private clubs with more than 25 members. The duty to make reasonable
adjustments is not specified, but will be introduced through regulations.
See section 5.2 for discussion of this.
9.3 Trigger in relation to Part 3 DDA
Currently under Part 3 of the DDA when taking
a claim to court, a disabled person has to show that the failure
to make a reasonable adjustment made it impossible or unreasonably
difficult for them to access the service. This is a very high
threshold, and has resulted in cases where lower levels of service
were justified because it was not "impossible or unreasonably
difficult" for them to access the service, just reasonably
difficult.
9.4 In the case of Appleby v DWP,
Mr Appleby, who is deaf, went to a Benefits Agency office to get
a national insurance number. A visual display screen, which would
indicate when his appointment number had been reached, was not
working. He had to rely on other members of the public to advise
him when his number had been called. In respect of this issue,
the district judge stated:
"At no stage in his evidence before me or
in his statement of case or witness statement do I find that he
experienced `unreasonable difficulty' in applying the practice
as required by the defendants to ascertain when it was his turn.
Indeed with commendable imagination and improvisation he enlisted
without apparent difficulty the help of two members of the public,
who, it would appear were more than willing to assist, and he
was thus able to ascertain when it was his turn."
9.5 The high threshold means that a right to
independently access information and services is not guaranteed
in cases such as this. Following this approach, if, for example,
a service provider sends a blind person correspondence in a standard
print format that they cannot read, it would be possible for a
court to decide that, if the person had a relative or friend who
could read the letter to them, it is not impossible or unreasonably
difficult for the person to access the letter.
9.6 Trigger in relation to functions of public
authorities
In addition, the draft Bill proposes that functions
of public authorities are subject to reasonable adjustments only
when the outcome of the function is "very much less favourable"
for a disabled person. This trigger is at the same level as, if
not higher than, "impossible and unreasonably difficult"
and will present the same problems.
9.7 One trigger across all parts of the DDA:
"substantial disadvantage"
Triggers for the duty to make adjustments need
to be reviewed as they vary across the DDA. The trigger for reasonable
adjustments in education and employment, "substantial disadvantage",
is lower than the trigger for goods and services, which is "impossible
or unreasonably difficult".
9.8 Within goods and services the trigger
for reasonable adjustments to policies, practices, procedures
and physical features is "impossible or unreasonably difficult";
but auxiliary aids and services have a trigger that states reasonable
adjustments are needed to "enable or facilitate" access,
which is lower. The trigger for auxiliary aids and services is
lower despite the fact that a claim can only succeed where the
failure to make an adjustment renders it impossible or unreasonably
difficult for the disabled person to use the service.
9.9 The draft Bill is not clear about the
future trigger for private clubs: "adversely affects"
OR a higher trigger that will be brought in via regulations (as
per explanatory notes).
9.10 The DRC's Legislative Review proposed
that a new trigger of "substantial disadvantage" be
set as the point at which a disabled person is entitled to a reasonable
adjustment in relation to goods, facilities, services and premises.
9.11 The "substantial disadvantage"
trigger has received widespread support as a realistic and workable
solution to simplify the current triggers and stop counter-intuitive
outcomes where disabled people are denied measures that would
make services accessible to them as independent people who should
not be assumed to be reliant on others.
9.12 It is vital, however, that the definition
of "substantial" is that given by Section 4.17 of the
Employment Code of Practice. This provides that:
"The Act says that only substantial disadvantages
give rise to the duty (S6(1)). Substantial disadvantages are those
which are not minor or trivial."
9.13 We ask that the Government adopt a
uniform and consistent approach to the trigger to make a reasonable
adjustment across the DDA. The trigger should be modelled on the
one used for employment and education, which is "substantial
disadvantage".
10. THE HEARING
OF PART
3 CASES IN
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
10.1 The draft Disability Discrimination
Bill does not address the well researched difficulties that blind,
partially sighted and other disabled people have had and are still
experiencing in relation to taking discrimination cases under
Part 3 of the DDA in the County or Sheriff Courts (The Price of
Justice, RNIB, 2000). We would like government to make provision
that Part 3 cases can be heard in an employment or equality tribunal,
with the power to transfer cases to the courts.
10.2 Currently cases of alleged discrimination
in relation to goods, facilities, services and premises are heard
in the County Court (in England and Wales) or Sheriff Court (in
Scotland). This is different to employment cases, which are heard
in Employment Tribunals.
10.3 The available numbers illustrate the huge
gap between the number of cases heard in the Employment Tribunals
and those taken to the County or Sheriff Courts, demonstrating
the consequences of the expense and risks associated with taking
cases in the courts:
— 8,908 Part 2 cases were issued and/or
decided from when Part 2 came into force up until 1 September
2000.
— 53 known Part 3 cases were issued
from when the DDA came into force up until 1 February 2001.
(Figures from "Monitoring the Disability
Discrimination Act 1995 (Phase 2)", Income Data Services
& DWP, February 2002.)
10.4 Cost of bringing a claim
Unlike Employment Tribunals, the County and
Sheriff Courts require a fee in order to issue a claim and begin
proceedings. This fee varies according to how much and what is
being claimed in the case, and is not payable by people on income
support or in severe hardship. However, knowledge of this exemption
is not widespread and the initial fee is beyond the means of many.
10.5 Allocation of the case to a track
In addition, the track to which a case is allocated
can determine whether or not a claimant pursues the case. Claimants
will want to keep cases in the small claims track where costs
are unlikely to be awarded against them if they lose (unless they
have acted unreasonably). However, it is open for defendants to
argue that the case be heard in the fast or multi-track (costs
are fixed in the fast-track, but potentially unlimited in the
multi-track).
10.6 Where a defendant is successful in
getting the case allocated to the fast or multi-track, in most
cases a claimant without legal aid or support from RNIB or the
DRC, or others, will have to withdraw their claim due to the potential
financial implications of losing the case and having the defendant's
costs awarded against them.
10.7 It is imperative that disabled people
have access to justice. Otherwise the DDA is little more than
a voluntary code. We propose the following measures:
— All discrimination cases should be
commenced in employment tribunals.
— Where the matter does not relate
to employment the tribunal should be designated an equality tribunal.
This is in line with the Independent Review of the Enforcement
of UK Anti-Discrimination Legislation.
— Lay members who are called to hear
cases should have knowledge and experience of the relevant field;
additional members should be appointed with relevant knowledge
in respect of education and consumer affairs.
— The President of Tribunals or a Regional
Chairman should have the power to transfer a matter to the County
Court either on application by a party or of his or her own motion.
— The criteria for transfer should
include:
— whether it would be more convenient
or fair for the hearing to be held in County or Sheriff court,
having regard to the facts, legal issues, remedies and procedure;
— the availability of a judge specialising
in this type of claim;
— the facilities available at the
tribunal and at the court where the claim is to be dealt with
and whether they may be inadequate because of the disabilities
of a party or a potential witness; and
— the financial value of the claim
and the importance of the claim to the public in general.
10.8 Equivalent provisions should be made
for the transfer of cases to the Sheriff Court in Scotland.
10.9 From October this year, and following
the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Amendment)
Regulations 2003, Tribunals will have jurisdiction in relation
to employment businesses, which are currently covered by Part
3 of the DDA and thus heard in the County Court. As a result of
the changes to jurisdiction, the Tribunals will be considering
the full gamut of duties under Part 3 of the Act—including
the reasonable adjustment duties relating to physical features.
Thus Tribunals will already be used to dealing with "goods
and services issues"—giving added weight to Tribunals'
abilities to consider goods and services cases, where the reasonableness
of an adjustment to a physical feature is also central in determining
the merits of cases.
11. POWER OF
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
TO ORDER
RE-INSTATEMENT
OR RE-ENGAGEMENT
11.1 Currently an Employment Tribunal, when
ruling in favour of a blind or partially sighted person who has
taken a disability discrimination case against an employer, does
not have powers to order the reinstatement of that person in their
job or re-engagement if requested. This is unlike cases of unfair
dismissal, where the power of reinstatement already exists.
11.2 75% of blind and partially sighted
people of working age are not in employment (Work Matters, RNIB,
2002). They face additional barriers to gaining and retaining
employment, such as inaccessible and discriminatory adverts (additional
measures relating to which the draft Bill addresses), discrimination
at recruitment stage, an inaccessible transport system and inaccessible
workplaces. For these reasons it makes sense to offer blind, partially
sighted and other disabled people who win disability discrimination
employment cases, the same option of reinstatement available to
people who win unfair dismissal cases, so they can go back to
their job or be re-engaged if that is an option they wish to take
up.
11.3 In some cases a breakdown in employer-employee
relations will have occurred prior to the case being heard that
will make reinstatement an unattractive proposition. However,
we feel that the option of reinstatement should exist and legislation
should be harmonised.
11.4 Currently there is no limit on the
compensation that can be awarded in cases of disability discrimination.
With unfair dismissal cases there is a £50,000 ceiling. It
is imperative that giving tribunals powers of reinstatement in
relation to disability discrimination does not lead to limiting
compensation awards. As an employer could defy a reinstatement
order, leading to a further compensation claim, such a limit to
compensation awards would act against the interests of disabled
people who have faced disability discrimination. In addition,
those for whom reinstatement or re-engagement is not appropriate
need unlimited damages to be maintained.
11.5 The DRTF recommended this and the government
agreed.
12. DISABILITY
LEAVE
12.1 Disabled people are nearly five times
as likely as non-disabled people to be out of work and claiming
benefits. Of the 2.8 million disabled people on state benefits
and not in work nearly a million would like to work. In the case
of blind and partially sighted people the statistics are more
shocking, with 75% of blind and partially sighted people of working
age not in employment.
12.2 85,000 blind and partially sighted
people of working age are facing exclusion from the labour market
due to employers' negative attitudes towards people with sight
loss (50% would not employ someone who has difficulty seeing)
and a lack of support. (Work Matters, RNIB, 2002).
12.3 To improve job retention we have been
forwarding the idea of disability leave as a right that government
should support and include in Part 2 of the DDA or the Employment
Rights Act, 1996. We now see the draft disability discrimination
bill as a further opportunity to highlight the potential of this
important right.
12.4 What is disability leave?
Disability leave would enable newly disabled
people, and those whose existing impairments change, to retain
their employment through the provision of a limited period away
from the workplace for rehabilitation and/or retraining that allows
them and their workplace to make adjustments for their impairment,
allowing them, when ready, to return to work. Whilst the scope
of reasonable adjustments in the employment provisions of the
Act can—and often is—interpreted to permit disabled
people to have time off in relation to their disability, it is
not a right and depends on the circumstances of the case. We would
wish to see a firm right to return to work embedded in legislation.
12.5 4,000 people in employment lose their
sight each year and of these around 25% leave work quickly, moving
into unemployment. These people could have remained in employment
had they been able to take disability leave for:
— low vision assessments;
— independent living assessment and
training;
— training in the use IT access technology.
12.6 As with maternity leave, disabled people
who take disability leave would have a right to return to work
in the same or an equivalent position.
12.7 During the course of leave disabled
people would be on disability benefits, thereby meaning that their
employer would not be financially disadvantaged by the period
of leave.
12.8 Disability leave would allow the 4,000
people in employment who experience sight loss each year to have
the time and support to adjust and remain in work, rather than
slipping into unemployment. This is desirable considering the
increased tax revenue it ensures through people remaining in work
and the reduced cost to the state in the form of benefit payments.
12.9 Disability leave is needed not just
for people who experience sight loss, but for anyone who needs
training and rehabilitation resulting from a new or changed impairment.
12.10 We ask the Government to consider
the benefits of providing a right to disability leave and consult
on its introduction amongst all stakeholders.
February 2004
| 
