Memorandum from Greater London Action
on Disability (DDB 85)
1. ABOUT GLAD
GLAD is a pan London organisation of disabled
people that has been in existence since 1952. Our member groups
include borough based organisations of disabled people, groups
of Black and minority ethnic and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
disabled people, women's groups, mental health system user/survivor
groups and organisations of people with learning difficulties,
as well as access groups and impairment specific groups. GLAD
also has individual members.
GLAD campaigns for the rights and choices of
disabled Londoners. We do this by:
— Providing information (the starting
point to gaining choices and rights).
— Campaigning and policy work on key
issues of importance to disabled people, such as transport and
employment.
— Supporting a network of representative
local organisations of disabled people across London.
— Working to make the disability movement
more inclusive by working with black and minority ethnic disability
organisations and mental health system user/survivor groups and
organisations of people with learning difficulties and lesbian,
gay, bisexual and transgender people and women's groups.
— Providing consultancy and training
for individuals and organisations on a wide range of disability
issues.
— Providing a range of publications
on disability issues, in particular, London Disability News
(a monthly newsletter), Update, a fortnightly collection
of items on disability from a range of publications, Common
Agenda newsletter (on forging links between mental health
and disability) and Boadicea a newsletter for disabled
women.
— Through the practice and promotion
of use of the social model of disability. This is looking at the
barriers (physical, sensory, legal and attitudinal) and discrimination
disabled people experience rather than looking at the person and
the impairment or medical condition and seeing that as a problem.
2. INTRODUCTION
GLAD welcomes the opportunity to respond to
the draft Disability Discrimination Bill. Although we welcome
the changes to the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act we believe
that even with the draft new clauses the act is still fundamentally
flawed. The disability movement has drafted its own Disability
Discrimination Bill called the Disabled People's Rights and Freedoms
Bill (see appendix a). GLAD has been involved in the drafting
of this Bill and we fully support our Bill.
GLAD believes that all disabled people, regardless
of impairment, must have the choice and the resources to live
in the community. We want the government to act in a positive
way to create the structures and systems required so that everyone
has that choice. Disabled people have been locked away and segregated
in institutions for too long and it is time for this practice
to stop.
The government must adopt a social model approach,
and take the lead from Local Authorities who have seen the value
of adopting such an approach. This focuses on removing the physical
and systematic barriers to disabled people. However, the new draft
legislation fails to take this approach building on the medical/individual
model approach taken by previous governments. The DDA in 1995
used this approach (medical model). The reforms that the government
are proposing have not learnt from the mistakes that were made
in 1995. The government should sign up to "Nothing About
Us Without Us" most local authorities and individual MPs
see the value of doing so and have signed the pledge. The government
must listen to disabled people ourselves and adopt the Disabled
People's Rights and Freedoms Bill. There is little involvement
of organisations "of" disabled people and the government
continues to rely on the advice of major charities such as (say
RNID, RNIB, Mencap, Scope) which run the institutions that oppress
disabled people that we want to close. Organisations of disabled
want to work with the government however the government continues
to exclude us. The Government should see the strength of engaging
with disabled people ourselves and set up a working group which
includes organisations like ours which represent over one million
disabled Londoners.
We welcome the government's initiative in calling
the British Council of disabled people (BCODP) to give evidence
before the committee. However, there is little evidence of other
organisations of disabled people being called to give evidence.
We think that it would be useful to rethink on who the committee
it is going to call to give evidence and GLAD would be happy to
advise the committee of the organisations that it could call.
GLAD would also welcome the opportunity to give verbal evidence
itself as we represent over one million disabled Londoners which
is over 10% of the disabled population.
We are making comments on the 14 Clauses and
they are as follows.
3. Clause 1 amends the DDA's new
provision on discriminatory job advertisements to cover a third
party who publishes a discriminatory advertisement (for example,
a newspaper) as well as the person placing the advertisement;
GLAD welcomes the new provision to legislate
on discriminatory advertisements. This will help underpin the
government's intentions in many cases. However, we are unsure
of the need for section 2(A) and 2(B).
Within the proposed new legislation GLAD believes
that it is not enough to rely upon the ability of the person accepting
the advert for publication to be able to determine whether or
not the advert complies with the proposed legislation or not.
This does seem to be a fairly simple task, given the clarity of
the definition given in section (1). It may be simpler to administer
the legislation if we rely on the publisher to be aware of the
legislation rather than relying only on those placing the advert
being honest about their motivation in doing so.
4. Clause 2 amends the DDA to make
it clear that discrimination by an insurer in relation to group
insurance provided to the employees of a particular employer is
covered by sections 19 to 21 of the Act (which deal with the provision
of goods, facilities and services to the public);
GLAD welcomes the provisions for general group
insurance in extending protection to disabled employees.
5. Clause 3 clarifies that the current
exemption from sections 19 to 21 for transport services extends
only to transport vehicles themselves, and creates a power to
enable that exemption to be lifted for different vehicles at different
times;
GLAD welcomes the government's intention to
provide for the extension of the DDA to cover discrimination in
relation to the use of a means of transport. At present section
19(5) DDA excludes anything consisting of the use of a means of
transport from Part 3 of the Act. This causes major problems for
disabled people. For example, a disabled mother who uses a wheelchair
found that, despite the availability of accessible buses, drivers
refused to stop. On one occasion when she was going to a school
activity in which her child was taking a leading role, she waited
at a bus stop for two and a half hours trying to get a bus. Each
time a bus did stop at the bus stop she was either told that the
ramp did not work or that the driver did not have time to put
the ramp down because he was running late. She was also told that
the wheelchair space was full although it was full with children's
buggies and there was no wheelchair user on the bus. After 15
buses had passed she decided that she was now far too late to
go to her daughter's school and she went home. When her daughter
came home she was distraught because her mother did not turn up
for the school play and she was the only child in the play that
had no parent there. The consequences of this was that a parent
had been denied her basic human rights to see her child's achievements
and her daughter denied her rights to have her parent see and
celebrate her achievement. She had no redress under the DDA.
The draft Bill removes this blanket exclusion
and replaces it with a flexible framework which allows regulations
to successfully bring into coverage, by Part 3 DDA, all different
modes of transport, including but not limited to: taxis, private
hire vehicles, trams, private rental or car hire, buses, trains,
aviation and shipping. The rights not to be treated less favourably,
to reasonable adjustments to policies, practices and procedures,
to auxiliary aids and services, and to an alternative service
can all be applied to transport services by regulations.
These provisions are essential if disabled people
are to be able to travel with the same freedom as non-disabled
people. Access to transport is such a crucial part of daily life
and one that has been difficult for so long or even denied completely
to many disabled people that some real urgency is now needed to
bring about these changes. However, the impact of this provision
will depend entirely on the content and timing of regulations.
The Government should set out its intended timetable for regulations
to lift the Part 3 exemption from transport operators as soon
as possible.
6. Clause 4 ensures that, with some
exceptions, functions of public authorities not already covered
by the DDA are brought within its scope (so that it would be unlawful
for a public authority, without justification, to discriminate
against a disabled person when exercising its functions);
GLAD welcomes Clause 4 of the draft Bill which
makes it unlawful for a public authority to discriminate against
a disabled person in carrying out its functions. This is something
of a milestone in legislation on rights of disabled people in
recognising that the issue is discrimination rather than disability
itself. Disabled people have long wished for legislation which
outlaws discrimination and this section is an extremely welcome
first step in that direction. It is an opportunity to more carefully
define the areas where discrimination is illegal. Experience with
other rights legislation tends to show that it's sometimes necessary
to define where public authorities need to eliminate discrimination
more precisely to ensure the effectiveness of the legislation.
The McPherson and Morris reports are examples of how this has
been necessary in the area of institutional racism. Similar work
is now necessary in the area of discrimination against disabled
people. We believe that this is also necessary in key areas such
as the highways, the conduct of elections and electoral registration
and the determining of adoption applications.
GLAD notes the common approach between this
draft Bill and the provisions within the Race Relations (Amendment)
Act. The specific duty to produce a Race Equality Scheme undoubtedly
has had a positive impact in raising the profile and mainstreaming
race equality within the public sector organisations. Our view
is that it is important that this clause provides the same level
of protection and, so far as possible, mirrors the approach contained
in the DDA sections relating to discrimination in relation to
goods, facilities and services.
We are concerned that on present drafting the
functions clause provides different, weaker, protection than the
services sections: in particular, it sets a very high threshold
for making reasonable adjustments, and fails to establish an anticipatory
duty. The wording of reasonable adjustments duty must be amended
so that it makes it clear that public authorities have a clearly
stated anticipatory duty to make reasonable adjustments.
7. Clause 5 brings within the scope
of Part 3 of the DDA private clubs with 25 or more members;
GLAD welcomes the proposals to include private
clubs because the DDA only applies to services to the general
public, clubs which are only open to members are not covered.
Under Clause 5 of the draft Bill, any club with 25 or more members
will be covered by the Act. We welcome this proposal which makes
discrimination unlawful for private clubs. We further welcome
that clubs will be prohibited in the way in which membership is
given or benefits are afforded. We warmly welcome this Clause
which is necessary to ensure disabled people have equal access
to leisure and sporting opportunities, opportunities for social
interaction and equality within political parties. However, we
fundamentally believe that any discrimination on the grounds of
an individual's impairment must be eliminated so therefore we
would argue that all clubs, including clubs who have fewer than
25 members, must be included. We are also concerned that there
are no specific reasonable adjustment provisions (changing policies,
practices and procedures, providing auxiliary aids and changing
physical features) contained on the face of the Bill.
Finally, GLAD believes that the government is
missing the chance to include guests from the outset. We understand
that costs are an issue. However, many private clubs may have
considerable resources of their own. For those where resources
are an issue, we will argue that Grants from the government through
local authorities, under their duties as public bodies, should
set aside funding for this purpose. Private clubs can then apply
to their local authority to get grant aid in order to ensure that
disabled people using their club as members or associate members
will not be discriminated against.
8. Clause 6 extends aspects of the
duty to provide reasonable adjustments to landlords and others
who manage rented premises;
GLAD welcome provisions in Clause 6 of the Bill
which places a duty on landlords to make reasonable adjustments
to policies, practices and procedures; and a duty to take reasonable
steps to provide an "auxiliary aid or service" which
would enable or make it easier for a disabled person to rent the
property or to facilitate a disabled tenant's enjoyment of the
premises. The Government needs to clarify what kind of aids would
be covered. However, the effectiveness of these provisions will
be undermined without the inclusion in the Bill of the Task Force's
other key recommendation on letting of premises:
We are concerned that the draft Bill does not
include a provision that landlords should not be allowed to withhold
consent unreasonably from a disabled person seeking to make changes
to the premises. We further believe that the cost of these adaptations
must lay with the landlord and not the disabled person themselves.
"Adaptations to housing are a matter of equal opportunities
in the most basic aspects of human life. In a well adapted house,
a disabled person can move about, cook, or go into the garden,
turn on lights, have a shower or bath or put a child to bed—when
and how they want to, with minimum help from other people. Without
adaptations, these people may be condemned to isolation and frustration."
9. Clause 8 introduces a new duty
on public authorities requiring them, when exercising their functions,
to have regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination
against and harassment of disabled persons, and to promote equality
of opportunity for such persons;
GLAD welcomes the new duty on public authorities
to promote disability equality. All the evidence tells us it is
impossible to remove discrimination by relying solely on individuals
by challenging discrimination by taking legal cases through the
courts. Most legal challenges usually take place after discrimination
has occurred and preventing discrimination in the first place
is preferable to retrospective justice. The new duty places the
onus on public services to ensure that any systematic bias is
removed from the way in which services are delivered. This change
will bring enormous benefits to disabled people
GLAD notes the common approach between this
draft Bill and the provisions within the Race Relations (Amendment)
Act. The specific duty to produce a Race Equality Scheme undoubtedly
has had a positive impact in raising the profile and mainstreaming
race equality within the public sector organisations. However,
we should learn from the mistakes and build on the positive practices
on the implementation of this act.
Placing a duty on public bodies to promote disability
equality will have an impact on private, commercial and voluntary
sectors. Public bodies will have an impact by bringing communities
together, addressing issues of harassment and violence ensuring
proactive strategies at local level to tackle hate crime against
disabled people—the subject of new provisions in criminal
justice legislation and by promoting general understanding and
awareness in the community which would ensure that local disabled
people and disability groups were fully included in local community
cohesion initiatives, rather than being ignored or isolated as
presently tends to happen, thereby improving civic participation
whilst combating social exclusion and deprivation.
10. Clause 12 deems people with
HIV infection, multiple sclerosis or cancer to be disabled for
the purposes of the DDA;
The changes to the definition of disability
originally contained within the Disability Discrimination Act
of 1995 are entirely welcome in extending the range of the Act.
However, the inclusion of 6(A) (2) and 6(A) (3) in section 12,
the meaning of disability, is not at all welcome. There seems
little reason to provide for future regulations determining exactly
which cancers are to be included and which cancers are not to
be included within the definition of the Bill. We will want to
argue that everyone with cancer is likely to face discrimination
as a result of their condition and so should be provided with
protection under the Bill.
In the same way, we would point out that the
disabled community have long argued that the definition of disability
needs to be extended to cover users and survivors of the mental
health system and people with learning difficulties. These groups
should be included in the definition of disability, as they will
also experience discrimination because of their physical or mental
differences from others.
Given these last two groups are often among
the most vulnerable, there seems additional reasons why we should
take this opportunity to include more disabled people within the
protection of the Bill. If we are going to attempt to eradicate
discrimination completely then beginning with a more inclusive
definition of disability is important.
11. SUMMARY
GLAD welcomes the changes proposed in the New
Draft Disability Discrimination Bill. However, we believe that
the proposed changes would still leave the DDA fundamentally flawed.
GLAD recommends that the Government communcate
with the disability movement on the Disabled Persons Rights and
Freedoms Bill which has been developed by disabled people ourselves.
GLAD recommends that more organisations of disabled
people are called to give verbal evidence to balance the views
of "for" organisations and individual organisations
not representing disabled people's views. GLAD would welcome the
opportunity to give evidence itself.
GLAD recommends the government adopt the social
model of disability (the model that the disabled people's movement
want) instead of the Medical model that it continues to use.
GLAD Welcomes Clause 1 however there
are still serious weaknesses in the proposals and we recommend
that the government takes notice of our concerns as well as the
concerns that the DRC have indicated http://www.disability.gov.uk/dda/bill/
GLAD welcomes Clause 2.
GLAD welcomes Clause 3 as accessible
transport is very important for disabled Londoners and the timing
of the implementation of the duties is crucial therefore the government
should set out its intended timetable for regulations to lift
the Part 3 exemption from transport operators as soon as possible.
GLAD welcomes Clause 4. However, we are
concerned that on present drafting the functions clause provides
different, weaker, protection than the services sections: in particular,
it sets a very high threshold for making reasonable adjustments,
and fails to establish an anticipatory duty. The wording of reasonable
adjustments duty must be amended so that it makes it clear that
public authorities have a clearly stated anticipatory duty to
make reasonable adjustments.
GLAD welcome Clause 5 but we believe
that the provisions do not go far enough. We fundamentally believe
that any discrimination on the grounds of an individual's impairment
must be eliminated so therefore we would argue that all clubs,
including clubs who have fewer than 25 members, must be included.
We are also concerned that there are no specific
reasonable adjustment provisions (changing policies, practices
and procedures, providing auxiliary aids and changing physical
features) contained on the face of the Bill.
GLAD believes that the government is missing
the chance to include guests from the outset.
GLAD welcomes Clause 6 however the Government
needs to clarify what kind of aids would be covered. Or the effectiveness
of these provisions will be undermined.
We are concerned that the draft Bill does not
include a provision that landlords should not be allowed to withhold
consent unreasonably from a disabled person seeking to make changes
to the premises.
We further believe that the cost of these adaptations
must lay with the landlord and not the disabled person themselves.
GLAD welcomes Clause 8 and notes the
common approach between this draft Bill and the provisions within
the Race Relations (Amendment) Act. The specific duty to produce
a Race Equality Scheme undoubtedly has had a positive impact in
raising the profile and mainstreaming race equality within the
public sector organisations. However, we should learn from the
mistakes and build on the positive practices on the implementation
of this act.
GLAD welcomes Clause 12 However the definition
does not go far enough and still excludes some disabled people
from the definition. We would argue that the definition of disability
needs to be extended to cover users and survivors of the mental
health system and people with learning difficulties. These groups
should be included in the definition of disability, as they will
also experience discrimination because of their physical or mental
differences from others.
25 February 2004
| 
