These pages do not apply outside Great Britain.
It has been proposed that an impairment should not need to have a 'substantial' or 'long-term' effect in order qualify as 'disability'. This page outlines the proposal and its importance. The proposal is not currently accepted by the Government.
In April 2009, the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee recommended that the legal definition of 'disability' be widened, except as regards the reasonable adjustment duty. Someone claiming for less favourable treatment would no longer need to show that their impairment has a 'substantial' effect on normal day-to-day activities. The proposal is not currently accepted by the Government.
The existing test of 'disability' is not that difficult to meet for stammering. However, a person may be unsure whether their particular stammer has significant enough effects. In any event, if the employer etc disputes the point, the person will need to bring enough evidence of the effects of the stammer to satisfy the tribunal that the stammer meets the legal test.
If the proposal is adopted, it could be much easier for a person who stammers to feel confident that their stammer is protected by the DDA. Hopefully less favourable treatment related to any stammer (or other impairment) would fall within the DDA. The focus would be on questions such as was the treatment related to the stammer, and if so was the treatment justifiable.
At present we have the odd position that the less severe the stammer, the less likely there is to be a fair reason for unfavourable treatment, but the greater chance the employer etc. has of arguing that the stammer is not protected by the DDA.
Of course the effect of the proposal would depend on various things such as the detailed wording, guidance issued, and how it is interpreted by the courts.
The Work and Pensions Committee recommended as follows:
"84. We believe that for the purpose of direct and disability-related discrimination the social model - protection from discrimination to everyone who has (or has had) an impairment without requiring the effects of that impairment to be substantial or long-term - should apply. The focus should be on whether or not the treatment of an individual was justified, or whether it was on the grounds of their impairment. It is inequitable to protect some disabled people from discrimination but not others because their impairment is less significant.
"85. However, for the third discrimination ground - the failure to make reasonable adjustments - a medical model approach must be retained. This will ensure clarity for business about the extent to which they have to make adjustments and ensures that the most vulnerable receive the support they need."
(Source: Work and Pensions Committee report The Equality Bill: how disability equality fits within a single Equality Act (link to parliament.uk)).
Part of the reasoning behind the Work and Pensions Committee view is evidently the complexity and cost that can be involved in establishing that a person falls within the DDA:
"76: ....Cloisters and the Discrimination Law Association state that where it is unclear whether or not an individual meets the definition - and this is relatively common - they will be "put to proof", which will usually mean an extensive witness statement explaining what they can and cannot do; an expert medical report; and a hearing at which the claimant will be cross examined."
The issue is also considered in a Human Rights Committee report, October 2009 (link to parliament.uk), para 53-55, which however gives greater emphasis to the abolition of the 'long-term' requirement.
|Links for DRC recommendation on definition of disability (July 2006)
The DRC's full recommendation ('Definition of Disability within anti-discrimination law: Recommendation to Government') was on their website but seems to have got deleted in handing over to the EHRC.
However the DRC's views are also stated in their 2007 A Framework for Fairness Response (on archived DRC website), pages 14-16.
The DRC's recommendation followed a consultation, to which the British Stammering Association contributed - Definition of disability consultation document (on DRC website).
The DRC's view, after consulting on the issue, was that disability discrimination law should move away from protecting a group of 'disabled' people and instead protect anyone who experiences discrimination on the grounds of an impairment. If the definition is amended in this way, it would no longer normally be an issue whether the complainant has a disability. The focus would shift to such issues as whether there has been discrimination.
The DRC's recommendation followed a review of the definition which had been requested in 2004 by the cross-party Parliamentary Scrutiny Committee on the Draft Disability Discrimination Bill (link to committee report). The DRC also recommended:
According to the Work and Pensions Committee, the Equality and Human Rights Commission also proposes that the definition of disability should be changed completely, according to the social model (para 74 of Committee's report).
The proposal to extend the definition of disability was raised in Parliament by Labour MP Roger Berry, secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on disability, in the Second Reading debate on 11th May. (communitycare.co.uk article, 12/5/09)
The Government has so far rejected the proposal - though the issue will doubtless be brought up again by MPs in the passage of the Equality Bill through Parliament.
The Government considers that disability discrimination law should only protect those people who are disabled in the generally recognised sense of the term - i.e. because they have a long-term or permanent impairment with substantial adverse effects - and that a substantial change to the definition risks broadening coverage of disability discrimination law too widely
(Source: Government response to the Discrimination Law Review (pdf file, link to equalities.gov.uk), July 2008, para 11.58)
Homepage | Equality Act in outline | Meaning of "disability" | Employment | Goods and services | Education | Human Rights Act | Proposed changes | Advice | Links | What's new | Site index | Privacy (cookies) | Disclaimer
© Allan Tyrer 1999-2009
Last updated 14th May, 2009
[an error occurred while processing this directive]