Scottish
Disability Equality Forum���� |
� |
� �
SDEF NEWSLETTER
OPEN
DOOR � Issue 14 �
********************************************************************
July 2004
�
TRIBUTE TO
THE LATE MISS ELMA MITCHELL, M.B.E., WHO DIED ON SATURDAY, 6TH MARCH, 2004, AT
DUNFERMLINE
�
It
was with great sadness that the death of our Convenor, Miss Elma Mitchell, M.B.E.,
was announced at the Access Panels Meeting on Monday, 8th March 2004,
with the following words:-
�
Not �How
did she die?�� But
�How did she live?�
Not
�What did she gain?�� But �What did she give?�
Not �What
was her station?�� But �Had she a heart?�
And
�How did she play her God-given part?�
�
Not
�What was her shrine?�� Not �What was her creed?�
But �Had
she befriended those really in need?�
Not �What
did the piece in the newspaper say?�
But �How
many were sorry when she passed away?�
�
Was
she ever ready with a word of good cheer
To
bring back a smile or banish a tear?
These are
the units to measure the worth
Of a woman
as a lady, regardless of birth.
�
These
words surely summed up Elma�s contribution to life more than any others could.
�
Those
of us who attended her cremation and heard the wonderful tribute paid by the
Rev. Alex Mitchell, B.D., realised that we had lost a valuable friend and that
her passing would affect the whole disability movement for a long time.
�
Elma
had been diagnosed with a progressive illness at an early age and her life story
is one of courage and resilience in the face of everything that came her way.�
She was supported by the love and care of devoted parents and it was
plain for all to see that doors didn�t close for Elma, they only opened.�
She was an able scholar at school and held an exemplary position in
business as a secretary.
Elma
and her colleagues set up Dunfermline Forum on Disability, and one only has to
read the end results of some of the projects undertaken, to realise the
commitment involved.� She was
awarded the M.B.E. for this work.
In
1995, Elma became involved with the aspiration to have a Scottish Forum on
Disability, and was one of the founder members of the steering group.�
Her aim was to make the world a better place for people with disabilities
and she gave unstintingly of her time and energy.�
Through all our bad patches she inspired us to keep going without any
thought of self.
When
the new Parliament Building is finally opened we will be remembering that Elma
had a hand in the access provisions there.�
She was the first non-M.S.P. to be invited to be Vice-Convenor of the
Cross-Party Group on Disability.� This
was all due to the high esteem in which she was held.
At
her service, we were left with a picture of Elma sitting by the Rhine, while her
carers went shopping.� This episode
was to leave us with a lasting memory of the lady who played her God-given part.��
Note:� A full
transcript of the service at Dunfermline can be obtained from the SDEF office.
***
�
THE
SCOTTISH DISABILITY EQUALITY FORUM
(WHERE
DID WE COME FROM)
A
conference was held at Erskine in September 1995, called �The Empowerment of
Disabled People� and attended by service users, service providers and local
authorities.� Three hundred people
attended this conference and strong links were made among several disability
bodies.
In
December 1995 two members of Kilmarnock Forum, who were also office bearers of
Strathclyde Forum on Disability, had a vision for an all-Scotland disability
group and wrote to a great many disability organisations � around five hundred
organisations.
Once
interest was established, a Steering Group of interested parties was set up,
namely Lothian Coalition of Disabled People, Aberdeen Action on Disability,
Disability Alliance in the Scottish Highlands, Nithsdale Coalition of Disabled
People, Stewartry Coalition of Disabled People, Dunfermline Forum on Disability
and Strathclyde Forum on Disability.
A
letter dated 18.7.96, which is on file, from the then Scottish Office to Ms.
Jean Dunlop states:
�I
refer to my letter of 13.5.96 and am now in a position to respond to your
request for support to facilitate an inaugural meeting to set up a national
forum on disability.� I am happy,
therefore, to make �1000 available towards the cost of the inaugural meeting.�
I do, however, see a need for your organisation to work closely with
�Disability Scotland� to get the initiative off the ground.�
Therefore, I suggest that �Disability Scotland� provides ongoing
support to service the national forum.
Please
keep me informed so that I can arrange for the money to be released to your
organisation.
(Signed)
Gavin Anderson�
�
Arrangements
were made for the Inaugural Conference of The Scottish Disability Forum, at the
Scottish Office, Edinburgh, on Wednesday 5th November, 1997.
There
were about seventy delegates from all over Scotland at what became a rather
heated day.� First, there were those
who did not want to work with Disability Scotland and a number of delegates who
were not aware of the work that had been done by the Steering Group and had not
seen the draft constitution.� There
were those who were calling for an independent body to be Secretariat of the new
Forum.
In
the final summing-up, it was clear that the wish of the majority was that
Disability Scotland be the lead agent in the establishment of the Forum and that
the Steering Group be re-convened and extended and the Constitution finalised.
The
establishment of the Scottish Disability (Equality) Forum will go forward and
its ultimate success will be of lasting benefit to people with disability in
Scotland.
Following
the Conference nominations were sought and the Steering Group extended to
fifteen members.� A suggested date
for the launch of the Forum was 01.04.98 which proved to be unachievable.�
The extended Steering Group was established on 10.02.98 and the first
meeting scheduled for 20.03.98.
The
Constitution was completed by May 1999 and the findings of the Steering Group
were circulated and members were invited to vote on the proposals.�
This resulted (in September 1999) in a clear mandate to establish a
Scottish Forum to finalise the constitution and to support Disability
Scotland�s role as Secretariat.
�
The
voting results were as follows:-� (sixty
four groups responded)
1.�
To see a Scottish Forum established -������������������������������������������������
100%
2.�
To support the draft constitution in principle -��������������������������������������
87.5%
3.�
Support a Forum with Disability Scotland acting as Secretariat
The
above was discussed at a meeting on Tuesday 30th November 1999 in
Glasgow.� At this meeting an interim
committee was formed to consider membership, to send out application forms and
to arrange a meeting in Edinburgh for 15th March 2000.
Miss
Elma Mitchell, M.B.E., was appointed Convenor, (a position she held �till her
untimely death in March 2004), and a Management Committee formed.
A
letter from the Convenor, dated 4th May 2000 states, �We feel it is
essential that policy and important decisions be made at grass roots level and
that the wider membership feels it is involved at the earliest stage�.
A
letter from Disability Scotland, dated July 2000, re their financial suggestions
was short-lived when a press release on 8th September 2000 revealed
that Disability Scotland had a cash crisis.�
This could have spelled the end of S.D.E.F. but for the dogged
determination of the newly formed Management Committee which was not prepared to
let this happen.
So
we entered a period of struggle to survive.�
With no money and nowhere to meet it was dedication that kept us going.�
It was then 27th September 2000 that Elma arranged a meeting
with the Equalities Unit of the Scottish Executive.�
Her comment that until we had money of our own we were strangled and our
real work couldn�t progress.� We
appealed to our membership if they would be willing to give a �one off�
donation.� This gave us a small
income for eventualities.� Finding a
meeting place was impossible (a room could cost �40 to �60), but we had no
money.� Elma�s letter of 16th
September highlighted just how difficult it was.�
However, comment to a City Councillor in Aberdeen resulted in her
arranging a room for us at C.O.S.L.A. so that our meeting with Yvonne Strachan
of the Equalities Unit could go ahead (27th September 2000).�
The Management Committee gave unstintingly of its time and resources,
paying all travel expenses etc.
�
At
all times we had you, our members, in mind and our resolve to do your will never
changed.� S.D.E.F. was there for you
and it was you who made the trials worthwhile.
With
the support of S.C.V.O. we were able to go forward, so, as we neared the end of
their contract, we were in a position to stand alone.� Funding was obtained.� We
moved toward becoming a Company Limited by Guarantee and became the Umbrella
Group for Access Panels.
The
S.D.E.F. Board of Directors is there to serve you, so we need to know what you
want us to do.
The
reason for this potted history of S.D.E.F. at this time is a further tribute to
Elma Mitchell, but for whom we may never have survived since those far away days
of 1995.
�
A NOTE
FROM THE EDITOR
�
First,
I must apologise for the lateness of this edition of� �Open Door�.���
I hope you will find something of interest to you in its content .
Following
the Access Panels� Conference the posts for the additional staff to service
the Access Panels, have been advertised and we are in the process of arranging
interviews, in consultation with representatives from Access Panels.
Our
projects are progressing and some should soon be completed.��
We have our Staff to thank for this.�
There is always work to be done on our Business Plan which needs
monitoring for ourselves and the Scottish Executive.
We
are represented on ReTSAG (Wheelchairs),� B.E.R.G.
(Built Environment Group of D.R.C.), Cross-Party Group on Disability and the
setting up of Access Audit Training in conjunction with Heriot-Watt University,
to name but a few of the things that are keeping your Directors busy.
We,
in turn, would like to know what you, our Members, are doing and a Newsletter
can only succeed if we have input from you.��
No matter how small or how big your project is, please let us know.��
It might just inspire somebody to do something new.
�
�
Lynn
Waddell � Disability Nurse Advisor
Lynn
is a married to Colin, a police sergeant with Central Scotland Police Force, and
has a nineteen year old son, Colin.
She
is a Disability Nurse Specialist, working within NHS Forth Valley.�
The Disability Service addresses the needs of patients and staff in fifty
seven medical practices and twelve hospitals and advises the contracted
services.� Her role has featured on
the BBC �See Hear� programme and she has been on the radio on several
occasions.� Being brought up within
a profoundly deaf family Lynn has never known a time when she could not sign.�
Lynn
teaches at both Stirling and Queen Margaret University on Disability issues and
worked on a consultancy basis at Carstairs State Hospital and NHS Education for
Scotland.� Lynn also advises on the
Scottish Executive Physical Disability Steering Group and is currently on
placement to the Scottish Executive Health Department to work with the
Disability Rights Commission to develop the current �Fair for All� model.
She
is a registered nurse, lip speaker, deaf blind guide communicator, CACDP Tutor
in Deaf Awareness and Communication Tactics and has completed several courses
with the RNIB.� She also recently
passed with distinction her �Universal Accessibility Auditing Certificate of
Competence� awarded by Caledonian University.
In
April 2004 Lynn�s guidelines for midwives were published by the RNID and
National Childbirth Trust in their recent book on �Pregnancy and Birth� a
Guide for Deaf Women.
�
Honours
& Awards
1995/96
3M Community Nurse of the year for UK
This
was in recognition of the work Lynn achieved within Forth Valley to enable
people with a hearing impairment to access services and the development of a
service to support care staff throughout Forth Valley.
November
2001 �Queens Nursing Institute Awards for Partnership Working�
This
award was given in recognition of the joint working with Central Scotland Police
in ensuring the wellbeing of people with a disability in their own homes.�
This was in particular in relation to �Bogus Callers�.�
Lynn and officers from Central Scotland Police designed an aide memoir
card and tape which has been used successfully by 5000 people within the Central
area.
�
Hobbies
& Interests
Lynn�s
main activities are reading, cooking, retail therapy and cleaning up at the back
of her 19 year old son.
Lynn
may be contacted at:
Disability
Nurse Advisor
Forth
Valley Primary Care NHS Trust
Old
Denny Road
Larbert�
FK3 4SD��������
-�������
or Tel: 01324 404092
�
�
Poor
Service for an Air Passenger with a Disability
All
providers of goods and services should be sensitive to the needs of people with
disabilities.� The requirement,
enshrined in the Disability Discrimination Act, is particularly acute when the
person has a mobility problem and the service provider is in the travel
business.� We recently heard of an
unfortunate incident involving an air passenger from the Isle of Lewis.�
Catherine
Aitken was due to fly from Stornoway to Edinburgh with British Midland Airways (bmi)
in April this year.� She had made
the booking six months earlier and had asked for wheelchair assistance.�
On arrival at the airport, Catherine was delayed by the wheelchair
assistant being otherwise occupied and was the last to reach the departure gate.�
There was no steward at the top of the airline steps to meet her and,
when one appeared, she was told she had been allocated a seat at the rear of the
plane.� Catherine states she,
�then had to make a humiliating, embarrassing and slow walk to the rear of the
plane�, albeit many seats were vacant at the front.
Having
complained, Catherine was told by bmi that she had informed the airline that she
would require wheelchair assistance to the plane, but that she would be fine to
make her own way along the aisle.� Naturally,
this is disputed as a matter of fact and logic.�
British Midland also states that, although there were many vacant seats
at the front of the plane, these wee reserved for Business Class passengers,
adding that, in their opinion, a seat closer to the toilet at the rear would be
more suitable for a disable person.
This
seems odd, when bmi was under the misapprehension that Catherine could negotiate
the aisle without difficulty.� However,
there seem to be more fundamental issues at stake.� Firstly, on all the aspects of this unfortunate incident, the
airline should perhaps look again at its policies.
If
assistance has been requested, it should be available upon arrival and the
individual should not be discriminated against by being the last attended to.�
Appropriate allocation of seats should be reviewed:�
with all the Business Class seats currently at the front, people with a
range of disabilities are forced to walk to the rear, unless they can pay for an
upgrade� It would also be
reasonable, routinely to negotiate with passengers, at the booking stage,
whether a seat near the toilet is preferred.
Having
contacted British Midland Airways, SDEF can confirm that both the captain and
stewards have the discretion to allocate seating on an aircraft, including
upgrades.� It would surely have been
in the interests of both the passenger and the airline, in terms of its formal
responsibilities and its customer relations, to handle this episode with greater
sensitivity.
�
�
Extract
from a Scottish Executive
Debate on
Disabled Parking Spaces 5th May 2004
Motion
debated,�
That
the Parliament notes the difficulties experienced by people within local
communities who have secured disabled parking spaces outside their homes;�
deplores the fact that these spaces can become a focus of conflict within
communities where people seek to sue such a space, despite not having a disabled
parking badge;� notes with equal dismay the figures published by the Baywatch
campaign group that show that over 20% of disabled parking bays in supermarket
car parks are being used by non-disabled drivers;� recognises that the current legal position, which
distinguishes between courtesy parking spaces and those supported by traffic
regulation orders, creates problems for people with disabilities who need to
rely on a designated parking space outside their home��
appreciates, in the case of car parks on private land such as those
belonging to supermarkets, the frustration of disabled drivers where the store
management appears reluctant to enforce its own parking policy;�
acknowledges that, for their part, some store managers are not clear
about their powers to compel drivers to move from specially designated bays;�
notes that this situation leaves supermarkets vulnerable to future legal
action under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (as amended);� therefore believes that the Scottish Executive, local
authorities and all relevant agencies should work together to develop an
awareness campaign to highlight the rights of disabled people and to emphasise
the unacceptability of harassing those who have been allocated disable parking
spaces, and considers that, if a satisfactory solution cannot be found, the
possibility of legislating to address the problem and giving local authorities
the appropriate enforcement powers should be examined.
Mr.
Duncan McNeil (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab):� I thank Johann
Lamont for working with me to secure the debate.� I will focus my speech on the problems that disabled drivers
face in private car parks and on the work that the Baywatch campaign has done.
Let
me give an example.� A young woman
who is the primary carer for her mother came to me at a surgery in Inverkip in
my constituency.� She told me that
the highlight of her mother�s week was her outing to the shops in Greenock �
as soon as she was back in the house after one trip, she was looking forward to
the next. That is a simple pleasure, I am sure members will agree, but it is
made almost impossible to enjoy through selfishness and indifference.�
Fresh from the young woman�s Herculean efforts to get her mother up and
dressed, they get to the shops only to find the disabled parking spaces filled
with the cars of perfectly able-bodied people.�
That is unacceptable, unless sheer bone idleness is counted as a
disability.
When
disabled drivers and their carers make representations, they get a shrug from
the car park attendant or warm words, but no action from the store management.�
That is not a clever move.� Turning
a blind eye could leave stores facing legal action under the Disability
Discrimination Act 1995 � indeed; they are vulnerable to legal action now, not
just in October when the additional rules come into effect.
As
every member here tonight knows perfectly well, the case to which I have
referred is not an isolated one.� A
survey conducted by the campaign group Baywatch shows that the rate of abuse
rose from 18.5 per cent in January 2003 to nearly 21 per cent in January 2004.�
In other words, more than one in five disabled parking bays are being
used by non-disabled drivers.� Although
we might not like to admit it, we in Scotland are the laziest and most selfish
of the lot.� We abuse the system at
a rate of 27 per cent, whereas in Wales only 23 per cent of bays are dishonestly
occupied, and only 19 percent of bays are abused by the far more considerate
English.
A
survey of more than 800 car parks that belong to the big four supermarkets
throughout the United Kingdom showed that in more than a third � 37 per cent
� of stores disabled people were unable to park in a designated space because
of abuse by non-badge holders.� All
supermarkets have seen an increase in abuse levels.� People who complain to stores say that the response they
receive has worsened, with only 30 per cent saying that stores responded well to
complaints, compared with 32 per cent in 2003.
What
can be done?� First, the anger and
frustration of disabled drivers and their carers must be recognised, as must the
severe impact that the abuse of disabled parking bays has on their quality of
life.� Secondly, I ask for the
minister�s help in getting all the interested parties round the table to
discuss the powers that are currently on the statute book, how they can be used
and by whom.� Thirdly, will the
minister assure me that, if those steps fail, we will examine the possibility of
extending the powers of local authorities to allow parking attendants or
environmental wardens to enforce parking policies in private car parks?�
It is sad that we might need to stop appealing to people�s better
nature and to start appealing to their pockets, but if that is what it takes to
make it �game over� for the space invaders, that is what will have to
happen.
Johann
Lamont (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab):�
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate.�
Our motions deal with designated parking spaces and the disregarding of
the needs of people with disabilities.� Before
going on to the substance of my speech, however, I will simply mention two
related issues that need to be considered � the blocking by cars of step-down
pavements and the abuse of parent-and-child spaces at supermarkets, which can
cause a lot of difficulties.
The
misuse of designated parking spaces and the abuse of people who have been deemed
to be entitled to disabled parking spaces reflect the discourtesy, antagonism
and intimidation that too often is the experience of ordinary people in our
communities.� In demanding action on
the matter, we reinforce our commitment to the creation and sustenance of safe
communities in which people can go about their business free from harassment and
intimidation.� We should not see the
issue as an isolated one;� we should
see it in the context of action against bullying and intimidation in all its
forms.
I
will focus on designated parking bays outside people�s homes, many of which
are courtesy bays that the local authority deems to be appropriately placed.�
Those spaces often do not have traffic regulation orders attached to
them, not least because of the nature of the process that is required to
establish such orders and the cost of enforcement.�
As someone who requires a bus bay to park in, I must confess that it had
never crossed my mind that an enforcement procedure might be required.�
In my innocence, I thought that, if a person was deemed to be entitled to
a space, they would simply be allowed to use it.� I have been shocked by examples not only of spaces being used
by people who do not have a disability, but of people who are entitled to
spaces, being abused, insulted and intimidated by those who resent their having
such a space.
It
is sometimes argued that, because the system for securing a space is weak, that
somehow justifies abusing anyone who has one.�
Fair enough � if the system needs checking, that should be done, but
the fact that some people might be abusing the system does not justify berating
others in the street.� People with
disabilities should not have to negotiate their rights on the street.�
Some people feel that those who have secured a space have somehow got one
over on everyone else and have won a privilege, but the reality is that no one
aspires to a courtesy parking space or a blue badge �they are not a privilege,
but a recognition of need.� As the mother of a disabled daughter said, if people want the
parking space, they can have the disability that goes with it.
Clearly,
there is a particular problem in parts of our cities where parking spaces are at
a premium, which can be used as a rationalisation of selfish behaviour.�
Of course, by definition, areas in which there are more cars than space
are the very areas where disabled spaces are important.�
If an able-bodied person cannot park beside their door, all that happens
is that they need to walk a little further, but if disabled spaces are taken up,
that is much more of a difficulty for people who have mobility problems.� � ����������
What
action should we take?� As the
motion says, we need a hard-hitting, in-your-face campaign to challenge
people�s laziness and self-justification with clear messages about the
consequences of their actions for disabled people.�
However, as Duncan McNeil said, a campaign is not enough;�
it needs to be backed up with enforcement.�
As members will be aware, in other aspects of policy, I am in favour of
persuading first and taking hard action afterwards, but we must recognise that
there should be consequences.� I am
all in favour of winning hearts, but I will settle for hitting pockets.
Members
have been pursuing the issue for some time.�
I seek direct assurances from the minister that he will not simply
reiterate the current position, because that position is unacceptable.�
I urge him to confirm that hard and creative thinking will be done to
address what is a serious problem for people with disabilities.�
The existence of the problem diminishes us all in a society that claims
to be tolerant and fair,
The
Minister for Transport (Nicol Stephen):�
� ��� My mother has a
disabled badge and I know that some incidents at disabled parking spaces are
disgraceful.� Humanity can be seen
at its worst � at is most selfish and greedy � in such situations.
That
most supermarkets are now making parking spaces available for disabled people
and parents is good, but there are still significant shortages at some
supermarkets.� Mike Pringle
highlighted some of his frustrations in that respect.
�
� �� People must challenge their
consciences and they must be challenged to be more considerate.�
Such people are, in effect, preying on the weakest and most vulnerable
people in our society.� There are parking spaces and for rules to try to support
people with disabilities and make more equal an unequal world.�
If Parliament or I, as the Minister for Transport, have any opportunity
to champion the cause of the disabled and of taking tougher action to enforce
such parking spaces, I am prepared to consider what must be done.
Duncan
McNeil � who, with Johann Lamont, is to be congratulated on lodging the motion
� challenged me earlier to try to pull together individuals and organisations
that have an interest in the matter and to do more.�
I am happy to say that I will do exactly that and will try to approach
supermarkets, local authorities, disabled users and disabled users� groups to
discuss what more can be done with Baywatch to give the issue a higher profile.
However,
more than that will be required.� We
can advertise from now until the cows come home and we can urge people to behave
more responsibly.� That will be
effective with perhaps 90 per cent or 95 per cent of people, but there will be a
core of 5 per cent who � because they are selfish � simply will not respond
to all the urging, advertising and highlighting of problems.�
As other members have said, such people will not respond positively if
they are challenged, whether by supermarket staff or by passing MSPs.�
I suppose that, at the end of the day, supermarkets exist to make profits
from selling their goods rather than to deal with such difficult situations, but
they could be encouraged to work with disabled groups and to think about ways of
doing more.
One
of the problems is that traffic regulation orders can be costly and time
consuming to put in place.� The
Executive supports strongly the use of traffic regulation orders by local
authorities.� We should make it
clear that local authorities can put in place traffic regulation orders in
respect of supermarket car parks, but it is not done because supermarkets do not
ask for it and local authorities do not regard it as being a priority.�
That would be one possible way ahead;�
if it were done, the Executive would support it strongly.
Road
traffic regulation orders are given statutory status by the Road Traffic
Regulation Act 1984, which is legislation on a reserved matter. �To
try to amend the regulations to make them more straightforward and give local
authorities blanket authority to introduce them in supermarket car parks would
require amendment of that legislation.� Finding
solutions will not always be straightforward, but I am happy to approach the UK
Government on the issue if that is what is required.�
The blue-badge scheme is a devolved matter.�
So far, we have tried to have an integrated UK-wide scheme, but if we
were to regard changes to that scheme as a priority, I would be willing to
consider introducing such changes in Scotland.
It
has been mentioned that some of the parking spaces outside people�s homes are
often courtesy spaces that are not covered by traffic regulation orders;�
the same is true of spaces in supermarket car parks. The co-operation of
the public in ensuring that those spaces are not used by people other than
blue-badge holders is important, and in many communities the space outside an
individual�s home is respected.� Nevertheless,
that is not always the case, and there can be fierce arguments between
neighbours about such spaces.� I
believe that we will, in time, have to do more legislatively to ensure
enforcement.� Under civil law,
owners of private car parks can fine drivers and remove their vehicles if they
are determined to take that course of action;�
however, many supermarkets do not wish to take such action against
individuals who are their customers.� Clamping
by supermarkets and others is not allowed under the law in Scotland.
I
agree that the Baywatch survey, which shows that more than 20 per cent of
disabled parking bays in supermarkets are being used by drivers who are not
displaying blue badges, highlights a big problem and a major concern.�
That is one of the reasons why I would be prepared to approach the major
supermarkets for their ideas on how the problem can be overcome.�
There was an early positive start from the supermarket groups and early
enthusiasm for the matter, but something needs to be done to refresh the
momentum and to get focus back on the issue.�
Increasingly, people � particularly disabled people � feel that they
are facing an uphill struggle.
The
Executive has been working directly with Baywatch to identify ways to improve
public awareness.� Following
consultation with the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland, we are in
early discussions with councils with a view to carrying out pilot schemes that
will examine the disabled parking problem and test possible solutions.�
If, following this evening�s debate, members of Parliament want to
suggest possible solutions, or if they know of disabled groups that can suggest
ways ahead, I will be happy to put those suggestions to the group that I intend
to pull together.
I
pledge to everyone here tonight that I am prepared to write to the supermarkets,
to disable groups, to local councils and to others.�
If members believe that there are individuals with expertise in the
subject who should be involved, I would be pleased to receive that information.�
It is time we started to campaign to raise the profile of the issue and
give people some hope that action will be taken.
We
have already introduced new legislation in Scotland.� As recently as 1st January 2004 we gave police,
traffic wardens and local authority parking wardens the powers to inspect blue
badges� Those powers were aimed at
tackling the problem that has been aired this evening;�
abuse of the scheme by able-bodied people who are using badges that are
not their own, or who are forging or tampering with badges.�
Amazingly, all those things happen;�
people forge, or tamper with, blue badges.
�
��� Executive will continue to
take the issue seriously and, following today�s debate, that we will do
something about it.
List
of contributors to the debate:� Mr.
Kenny MacAskill (Lothians) (SNP)
���������������������������������������������������������
Mike Pringle (Edinburgh South) (LD)
���������������������������������������������������������
Robin Harper (Lothians) (Green)
���������������������������������������������������������
Mrs. Nanette Milne (N.E.Scotland) (Con)
���������������������������������������������������������
Trish Godman (W.Renfrewshire) (Lab)
�
A
copy of the full report is available from the SDEF office.
�
�
PENFIELD
Countryside
Enjoyment for all
If
visiting Dumfries and Galloway, why not visit the Penfield Project, a Centre of
Excellence in countrywide access for all.
Watch
out on the A75 for Penninghame Pond near Newton Stewart, and Whitefield Loch
near Glenluce.
See
www.penfieldproject.netfirms.com
Our Rights
Our Choices
On
21st April 2004, an event was held at Dynamic Earth, Edinburgh to
launch the document, �Our Rights, Our Choices�.� This came at the end of a year in which SDEF had participated
on a steering group looking at the additional problems faced by people with
disabilities from the Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) communities.�
The publication summed up the group�s findings and also reported on
research by the Centre for Education in Racial Equality in Scotland (CERES).
The
executive summary noted that, �Disabled people and non-disabled black people
experience discrimination, but black and minority ethnic disabled people
experiencing discrimination often remain unclear whether they are being
discriminated against on the grounds of colour, race, culture or disability.�
Amongst
the key findings were:
��������
A general attitudinal �negativity� to people with complex
communication requirements
��������
The tendency for some professionals to act as gatekeepers, inhibiting
access to services and service-related information
��������
A �stereotyped� perception that BME families �look after their
own� and therefore do not always access services
��������
A view among some agencies that BME people are non-conformist in their
outlooks, expectations and needs, i.e. they are seen �not to fit� the
services available
��������
A failure of organisations to address the poverty related issues which
disproportionately affect BME people
��������
The failure of service providers to plan for the costs of
translation/interpreting services or alternative formats
��������
A lack of joint working between the public and voluntary sectors
��������
A lack of established networks within BME communities and lack of contact
with disabled white people
��������
A general lack of information in the wider community on disability
matters
��������
Mental health issues being treated as taboo in some sectors of BME
communities and cultures
��������
A perception in some BME communities that an impairment can have
something other than a biological cause, leading to disabled people and/or their
families experiencing exclusion, guilt or blame.
Although
there is equality legislation in force, including the Disability Discrimination
Act, The Race Relations Act and the Race Relations (Amendment) Act, there is
clearly along way to go before people from BME communities overcome many of the
problems highlighted.� The document
gives a good description of where the key problems lie, as well as action points
for tackling the difficulties.� �Our
Rights, Our Choices� is published by the Disability Rights Commission and is
available on their website at: www.drc-gb.org
or from their helpline at 08457 622 633, in a number of formats.
�
Legal
Advice for People with Disabilities
Readers
will recall that SDEF has been participating during the last twelve months in a
�Thematic Pilot Partnership�, looking at some of the difficulties people
with disabilities face in accessing legal advice.�
Our partners have included representatives of the Scottish Executive
Justice Department, the Scottish Legal Aid Board, Citizens Advice Scotland,
Update, other representative voluntary agencies and solicitors in private
practice.
The
work has been one of four partnerships looking at the provision of legal advice
in Scotland, ours being the one taking an equalities perspective.�
The other three have been examining general legal advice in geographical
areas;�� these being Edinburgh,
Fife and Argyll & Bute.� An
event was held in Dunblane, 25th May 2004, to review progress and to
present the various reports.
The
remit of our partnership had been to examine how to enable people with
disabilities to access advice and information in a barrier-free way, in
compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act and with proper respect and
dignity.� We had been asked to
assess how the quality and availability of advice could be improved and look at
the role of national partnerships in bringing this about.
The
first task had been to look at the current supply situation and note the
impediments to full access.� The
findings included:� a lack of
solicitors specialising in disability law;�
general public ignorance of disability rights;�
difficulties around physical access to buildings;�
variable quality standards in service provision;�
and potentially high costs.
From
the perspective of the prospective user of services, it was considered important
that they know;� that a right
exists;� that they qualify and where
to go to access their rights.� In
many cases it is important too that people persist and receive support from
others.� Volunteer agencies and
advice givers should also, therefore, be better informed about how to access the
legal system and when a case becomes �justiciable� (i.e. subject to
resolution by a court or tribunal).
It
was clear that there were problems both from the point of view of the service
provider and the service user.� The
group made a number of recommendations, including;� better training for solicitors and law students on disability
equality issues;� standard setting
by the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Legal Aid Board;�
an insistence, through funding criteria, that such standards and training
be mandatory; a requirement on all bodies seeking public funds that they include
a strategy on accessibility;� greater
access auditing to examine the gamut of issues including, physical access,
information formats, induction loops, lighting and the availability of BSL
translators;� the production of directories n where to find legal services;�
greater publicity to inform people of their rights and where to locate
advice agencies;� and steps to raise
general public awareness of disability rights, such as courses in schools.
At
this stage, there is also a recommendation that an agency be established to
provide support to local advice-giving agencies, to ensure the needs of people
with disabilities are met.� This
would require public resources and will be the subject of further discussions.�
We will keep readers informed of developments.
***
�
FALKIRK
WHEEL
The long
awaited boats with wheelchair access are soon to be operational.�
We shall include an up-to-date article in our next issue
�
THE
CAIRNGORMS
Turn
now to the Highlands and head for Cairngorm.�
What better than a run along Loch Morlich culminating in a trip on the
Funicular Railway.� Booking may be
advisable in high season.
To
book call:� 01479 861261
�
ONE
COMMISSION
FOR
EQUALITY
AND HUMAN
RIGHTS
�
The
government has decided to bring together the Commission for Racial Equality, the
Disability Rights Commission to create a single body.�
In 2006 the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights will be formed
to promote equality for all in society, combat discrimination for specific
groups, and tackle barriers to participation.
Internet
fans may also be interested in visiting the DRC�s interactive website
www.drc.org.uk/open4all/
which
campaigns to improve access for disabled people to local services, provides
information on the Code of Practice for service providers, and welcomes stories
from the public of discrimination and good practice.
***
contact
a family
for
families with disabled children
Parents and Paediatricians Together
Contact
a Family launches a major new partnership with
the
Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health
�
�
ReTSAG � Rehabilitation, Technology, Service Advisory Group
S.D.E.F.
is involved with this Group.� The
present situation is that a draft copy of �Wheelchair Standards� for
wheelchair services in Scotland will be put to the Board for comment in July.
We
are informed that NHS Lothian has an excellent leaflet on wheelchairs in their
area.
�
European
Year of Disabled People
�
The
report of the Steering Group has just been published.� S.D.E.F. was represented on the Steering Group from its
inception.
Now
that the �Year� is over it is time to reflect on where we�ve got to, where
we need to go next and how we are going to get there.
While
celebrating its many achievements there�s still a long way to go.�
The report of the Scottish E.Y.D.P. Steering Group aims to publicise
achievements, identify learning points and provide a forum for future action.
Quote
� �E.Y.D.P. brought together various disability groups and forums which may
not traditionally have worked together.� As
a result we found much consensus arising around disability issues and problems
and a shared service of working together.�
The
Report concludes with the suggestion that there might be events in 2005 and 2006
for disabled people to consider progress.
�
�
Articles
submitted are not necessarily the views of Scottish Disability Equality Forum
CONTACT
US!� If you would like your
organisation to feature in the next Newsletter.�
�Please send your article of interest to:
�
The
Editor, Mrs. Agnes Stewart, �either
c/o SDEF, or directly to:
72
Riverside Drive, Aberdeen AB10 7LE
�or
e-mail to : [email protected]
�
Scottish
Disability Equality Forum, 12 Enterprise House, Springkerse Business Park,
STIRLING, FK7 7UF
or
e-mail to : [email protected]
or
�
�
Tel: 01786
446 456�����������������������������������������������
���������Fax:
01786 450 902 ��email:[email protected]�������������������
��������������������������www.sdef.org.uk
�
Scottish Disability Equality Form
Working together with people affected by disability
� |
� Scottish Disability Equality Forum Working together for the disability movement SDEF is a recognised Scottish charity no. SC031893 end of page |