|
||
| About DPTAC | Publications | Site Map | Links | Home
|
DPTAC response to Disability Rights Commission's consultation on a Statutory Code of Practice on the Duty to Promote Disability Equality (England and Wales)
Introduction1. The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) is grateful for the opportunity to comment on this consultation. 2. However, before offering our detailed comments on the consultations, we would first like to make some general points about DPTAC itself, our principles and why we believe it is particularly important to recognise the needs of disabled people in these documents. 3. DPTAC was established under the Transport Act 1985 to advise the Government on the transport needs of disabled people. Between 2000 and 2005 our role was extended, on a non-statutory basis, to advise the Government on the built environment needs of disabled people. 4. DPTAC has identified four overarching principles on which we base our advice to Government, other organisations and disabled people, which are that:
5. These principles are the basis of DPTAC's response to consultations. In this response we set out some general issues before making comments specific to this consultation. 6. DPTAC's principle concern is to ensure accessibility for disabled people. We mean by this inclusive transport systems and built environments that are easy to reach, use and understand by all, in safety and comfort. DPTAC Response Chapter by ChapterChapter One - Introduction7. DPTAC welcome the provisions of the new Act and the statutory duty on public authorities. The new requirements to eliminate discrimination and harassment, to promote equality of opportunity and to take account of disabilities are very much in line with the objectives and principles of DPTAC. The shift from making "reasonable adjustments" to the active promotion of equality of opportunity is a major step forward. However we are concerned that the duty applies only to public authorities - and we would prefer to see a similar requirement extended to private sector organisations. 8. The consultation on the Code of Practice does not definitively establish what bodies would be captured by the specific duties. It would be useful to have more definitive guidance on what bodies and organisations are covered. (see also Chapter Four). 9. We recommend that the Codes for both England and Wales and for Scotland, should clarify the position for cross-border authorities such as DPTAC, which have responsibilities under both Codes. While it is important that organisations take their duties seriously, it would be useful if the DRC could clarify whether bodies in this position could have a single Disability Equality Scheme and report covering their work across the UK. 10. Paragraph 1.9 refers to the need for authorities to take action to deal with the consequences of poor quality decisions made in the past. We welcome this recognition of the need for retrospective action. However this should compliment sand not replace the anticipatory duty at the heart of this new provision. As indicated in paragraph 1.10, it is vital that public bodies get it right first time every time. 11. The example of kerbside collection of recycling boxes (section 1.10) could better address issues of impairment. Had the authority built in disability equality from the outset it would not only have considered disabled residents who are unable to put their boxes onto the street, but also the impact of recycling boxes left at kerbside on the use of the pavement by disabled people such blind and partially sighted people for whom the boxes may be a hazard and wheelchair users for whom they may be an obstruction. The authority should have considered designated collection points which do not obstruct the pavement. 12. In paragraph 1.11. it is not clear why authorities should only be moving towards the desired situation "over time". While we accept that dealing with past mistakes and omissions cannot be achieved overnight, there is no reason why new policies and decisions should not be fully compliant from day one of the new obligation. 13. DPTAC also endorse and agree with the comments in paragraph 1.19 about the Code not being read too literally - it concerns general principles. The same applies to any examples of good practice (see also paragraph 1.21) where it would be inappropriate to expect any case study to be absolutely perfect in every detail. Even if it was perfect at a point in time, the chances are the circumstances would change and the practice would have to be capable of adapting in response to change. Chapter Two - The General Duty14. We would emphasise the importance of the key words "due regard", "proportionality" and "relevance". 15. Paragraph 2.2 outlines an example of poor practice in a local authority. It illustrates one of the problems in giving case studies - should the case studies only be examples of good practice? However, it is helpful in that it illustrates two other aspects. Firstly it is an example of direct relevance to the interests of DPTAC since it is to do with local authority planning and transportation policy and practice. Secondly, it outlines the potential difficulties for public authorities in reconciling different government objectives. 16. The policy of restricting parking provision associated with new development is one that has been adopted by a number of local authorities keen to meet government objectives for improving the environment in general and regarding targets for restraining growth in the use of cars in particular. The suggested solution of providing some dedicated parking spaces for disabled people needs to be expanded to make it clear that this is not the only potential solution. It will also need to emphasise that any policy must allow not just for disabled residents but also disabled visitors. In terms of using this as a case study, one way of giving it a positive spin would be to start by outlining the quandary that the local authority finds itself in when as a result of engaging with local disability groups, it realises that by seeking to meet one government objective, it has compromised the interests of an important section of the community. 17. Again we would endorse the comments about the active promotion of equality of opportunity (paragraph 2.6) and also the mainstreaming of disability equality into decisions and activities (paragraph 2.7). Both are very much in line with our objectives. 18. The example of good practice in engaging with people with learning difficulties (paragraph 2.8) is one we fully endorse. 19. Three of the four guiding principles given in paragraph 2.14 (effectiveness, involvement and transparency) are ones with which we fully concur. However, the fourth principle of "proportionality" needs further careful consideration. In discussing the issue of relevance, it needs to be made clear that this is not a "get out of jail free clause" and that public bodies should not be able to argue that, because there are no disabled people currently using a service or employed in providing it, the body can ignore the provision. The answer probably lies in the last phrase of paragraph 2.17 which refers to the importance of engaging with disabled people in identifying the relevance of the function and the priority to be attached to dealing with any associated issues. 20. While agreeing the importance of training (paragraph 2.30), we would like to emphasise that the training needs must be ongoing, integral to policies and practices and adapted in the light of experience and monitoring of the effectiveness of policies and practices. 21. Paragraph 2.31 raises another important issue - the importance of joined up action by different organisations. This is particularly relevant in the transport field in dealing with the journey from door to door. Different local authorities need to take complementary action where the journey begins and ends in different areas, local authorities need to work with other public bodies such as health authorities, and action by the local authority in the public realm needs to be complemented by action in the private realm (such as operators of trains, buses, etc). Chapter Three - Specific Duties22. While the general duties will go some way towards promoting a more equitable and inclusive society, it is with the fulfilment of the specific duties that we expect to see the greatest advances. 23. DPTAC is concerned the regulations are too open ended as they currently stand. Meeting the specific duties will require public authorities to introduce a rigorous framework for the promotion of disability equality. However, it will be open to individual public authorities as to how they interpret the rules. The effectiveness of the new Disability Discrimination Act will therefore depend on the enforcement regime. Much will depend on the role of the DRC and the nature of the guidance published by it and its successor body These are matters to which we return in commenting on Chapter 5. 24. Para 3.19 refers to authorities having an overall generic scheme complemented by individual departmental ones. We are aware that the strategy adopted by Manchester 2000 for the Commonwealth Games is one such example of good practice. 25. DPTAC favours the use of Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPIs) to measure progress - nothing concentrates the mind of a local authority than failing to meet such targets. However, the BVPI needs to be meaningful. For example if the introduction of low floor buses is not accompanied by the provision of user friendly bus stop infrastructure, accessible footways with dropped kerbs, appropriate training for bus drivers, and the preparedness of other passengers such as those with child carriers to make the wheelchair space free, the some disabled people will not be able to make full use of the low floor buses. The more appropriate Performance Indicator would therefore be numbers of disabled passengers using low floor buses. 26. Another example is that local authorities have to measure the percentage of pedestrian crossings with facilities for disabled people (BVPI 165). A Disability Equality Scheme could consider the information gathered here, and consider how pedestrian crossings could be improved, involving disabled people. 27. The issues are further illustrated in 3.22 which sets out the steps in the involvement process. The Review of the Blue Badge Scheme carried out by DPTAC is a classic example of an issue raised by disabled people, investigated by a team including disabled people and where the final recommendations to Ministers were specifically based on the outcome of consultation with disabled people. The depth of consultation was a contributory factor to persuading Ministers to accept the majority of our recommendations. 28. As for gathering evidence (3.29), DPTAC has commissioned surveys and research projects which could be given as examples - particularly since we usually do this with a specific aim in mind (see 3.32 and 3.33). This issue also relates back to the use of BVPIs where there are specific requirements laid down by the Audit Commission regarding the manner this evidence is gathered to ensure compatibility between authorities and that it is rigorous. 29. Impact assessments are a feature of much of the work of local authorities. This is particularly relevant in the field of transportation and applies to the various stages a project may go through from initial concept to implementation and subsequent management. While current impact assessments are more concerned with such aspects as impact on the environment, the principle is well established. What should be sought in this case is evidence that local disabled people/groups were fully involved in preparing and agreeing the impact assessment. 30. Local authorities will also have the benefit of Access Officers and local Access Groups in preparing such assessments when they are related to transportation policies and programmes. It will be particularly important to ensure that the Local Transport Plan process incorporates this requirement in future. 31. The DRC has recently completed research into the capacity of local access groups and it is clear from this that they are extremely under resourced and yet their services are in high demand. The demands on such groups which would generate from the public sector duty proposals must be fully considered and resources provided not only to fund such groups but as importantly to consult with such groups and work with them to determine what resources and support would be most useful (in addition to financial) to help them to develop in a sustainable way. 32. Whilst DPTAC agrees public authorities should be required to report annually it does seem anomalous there is no specific requirement for those reports to be submitted to a nominated body for approval. The role of the DRC and or the audit bodies in determining the adequacy of any such reports but this needs to be clarified. 33. The case study at 3.39 refers to Disability Housing Registers. These could include housing which has been designed or adapted for blind or partially sighted people and also other people with sensory impairments. In this context the DRC might wish to refer to RNIB's Housing Sight publication. These standards go beyond the Lifetime Homes standards which do not fully address issues of access for people with sensory impairments. Chapter Four - Public Authorities34. DPTAC supports partnership working (Paragraph 4.12) to ensure consistent and joined up action across adjacent local authority areas. Fortunately there are numerous examples of this throughout the UK. In some areas of England, an obvious example is the relationship between a County Council and a District Council where the powers and responsibilities relating to transportation are split. A typical example is concessionary fares where the Government funding is given to the District Council whereas it is the County Council that has the general responsibility for delivery of public transport. In other cases, there are splits between who administers what regarding local road and footway networks with powers delegated from County to District. However the transportation service is delivered, it will be essential to ensure that there continues to be joined up action. 35. Even where the highways function resides wholly within a single unitary authority as in the former metropolitan counties, there is a split between the unitary authority and the Passenger Transport Executive for the delivery of highways and public transport. In practice, in these areas the PTEs and the constituent authorities tend to come together to publish a joint local transport plan and this is the ideal vehicle for the promotion of consistent and joined up action across both highways and public transport and across adjacent local authority areas. 36. Other examples of potential partnership working lie in cooperation between local health boards and local authorities/PTEs regarding movement of patients and access to hospitals for out patients, visitors and employees. 37. We also endorse the need to ensure contracts with private sector partners also recognise the need to meet obligations under the DDA. Chapter Five - Enforcement of the Disability Equality Duty38. The success or otherwise of the new DDA rests on the rigour with which the provisions of the Act are enforced. 39. DPTAC is concerned DRC and its successor may not have the staff resources to consider the hundreds of Disability Equality Schemes that will be produced before December 2006, and to take appropriate follow up action within any reasonable time period. This will also apply to subsequent annual reports and three-yearly reviews. 40. It will be essential to ensure the DRC works closely with audit and inspection bodies. This will ensure both that these bodies are complying with their own obligations under the DDA, and that there is no conflict between the views of the DRC and the auditing body regarding the acceptability of published schemes. Much will depend on the proposed guidance publications. It also highlights the need to ensure that the public authorities participate fully in the development of the guidance. 41. Although DPTAC also has limited staff resources we would nevertheless welcome the opportunity to be involved in developing transport related guidance. In addition to local highways authorities and PTEs this will also include guidance for planning authorities, local transport plans, education, impact assessments, and the guidance for and involvement of disabled people. 42. In the context of procurement (4.13) schemes such as the Considerate Contractor Scheme should be encouraged. This is intended to make contractors more aware of those who have to live with the works during the contract process. This is particularly important for disabled people using adjacent footways when works are carried out to roads or buildings in the area. Appendix D - List of DRC Proposed Guidance43. Resources is a theme which runs through a number of the comments above and also applies to involving disabled people. From our experience, although we have the ability to call on the services of some two dozen "experts", we find it difficult to resource the subsequent demands placed upon us. There is a danger of overload and overkill when a number of public authorities seek to engage with disabled people in the same local area at the same time on similar issues, without contributing to building the capacity disabled people and their representative bodies to respond. Conversely there is a danger of not getting a truly representative sample. This is an issue that will need to be addressed in the proposed guidance on involvement of disabled people. 44. However, there is a second reason for referring to this matter and that is to highlight the connection and potential overlap between the various proposed guidance documents. The proposed publications on Guidance for and Involvement of Disabled People have, for example, relevance for the transportation related publications on Local Transport Plans, Highways, Planning, Monitoring and Effective Impact Assessments. 45. There is also a need to ensure that the promotion of disability equality is not compartmentalised but instead recognises the need for a cross-cutting thematic approach with the end result being the delivery of fully inclusive outcomes. The joint Local Transport Plans published in the metropolitan authority areas are, or ought to be, prime examples of how to promote a cross- cutting approach to the delivery of joined up action. 46. With this in mind, (and despite the earlier caveats regarding resources) we would like to see guidance published on topics such as the Built Environment and Independent Living. Further Examples47. The DRC may wish to consider adding further examples and case studies. We suggest that these could include:
Grahame Lawson Tel: 020 7944 8012 Date: 22 April 2005 |
|
|