SDEF newsletter September 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, 8^th March 2004, with the following words:-

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.

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.

Arrangements were made for the Inaugural Conference of The Scottish Disability Forum, at the Scottish Office, Edinburgh, on Wednesday 5^th 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 above was discussed at a meeting on Tuesday 30^th 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 15^th 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 4^th 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 8^th 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 27^th 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 16^th 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 (27^th 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Lynn�s main activities are reading, cooking, retail therapy and cleaning up at the back of her 19 year old son.

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.

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 1^st 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.

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.

On 21^st 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.�

�� 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 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.

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, 25^th 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.

The long awaited boats with wheelchair access are soon to be operational.� We shall include an up-to-date article in our next issue

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.

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

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.

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.

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

SDEF is a recognised Scottish Charity: No. SCO31893