Posted By Derek Rooney MIOSH MIIRSM Help please, We have recently had DDA surveys carried out at all our locations - however each survey has come back with costs of approx £15,000 per locations (53 sites) to upgrade. My problem being Management of course want to know do we actually have to do this (as they were nieve and didn't plan for it-even after being told). We work with commercials vehicles and have NEVER had any disabled customers and although we employ people with disabilities they are not physically impaired that they require disabled toilets etc. Therefore my question is how far do we have to go?

Posted By BarryS Derek It is also important to look beyond the standard laymans interpretation of what consititues a disability (usually limited to someone with a wheelchair or a guide dog). People can have learning difficulties, problems with strength / grip (important when opening doors), arthritis, colour blindness etc etc that are not immediatley noticeable and fall into the 'disability' bracket. If you find the cost very prohibitive at least have some form of action plan which shows clearly how you plan to mitigate these issues over the coming 1-5-10 years and address the issues which are relatively painless immediately. It's funny that people panic now after October 1st, but they have really had years to get ready for this............

Posted By Kieran J Duignan Derek I would endorse the thrust of the points put by the earlier members, with the additional one that adaptations based on sound ergonomic risk assessments, ie. designed to improve user-friendliness, more often than not reveal a host of unrecognised lack of provision for impairments. Rather than appear to be plugging a purely personal interest, I suggest that you visit the website of The Ergonomics Society (www.ergonomics.org.uk) to identify other members who are also members of both IOSH and the Erg Soc (and perhaps of the British Psychological Society too, as occupational psychologists can often identify need for improved signage, etc. needed by disabled people and their carers. Good wishes.

Posted By Kieran J Duignan Neat touch of humour, John! At the risk of stirring a hornets' nest, I question whether safety professionals (like HR folk) do themselves credit by relying so much on statutory and case law, and failing to develop arguments based on benefit-cost analysis. In my experience as an expert witness, and in studying the legal process around safety and employment law, it's apparent that a. as only a tiny fraction of claims actually go to a full hearing, case law is a very imperfect reflection of behaviour at work b. safety (and HR) professionals are much more effective where they persuade management to SAVE money by upfront ergonomic and edducational investment than in wasting enormous amounts of management time patching up badly designed, even botched, processes and wriggling out of liability I hope that the DDA (and forthcoming ageist legislation) may encourage safety professionals to exercise greater leadership about the real economics of management and labour time by constructing benefit-cost models, as well as keeping up to the mark legally.

Posted By Derek Rooney MIOSH MIIRSM Thanks very much for your help guys. Its just typical that we have had years to sort this out - done nothing. Its now landed on my desk (i don;t see this as a H&S issue - more HR) I'll have to find some guidance documents on this and look into it more before making any recommendations Thanks again

Posted By BarryS Derek I have e-mailed you directly on this matter. Barry

Posted By Kieran J Duignan While I'm sympathetic to the feelings of members who want a firm boundary to their jobs, I question whether there is anything other than convention, custom and practice to define the boundary between H R and OSH. Being a member of both the CIPD and the IOSH, I'm aware that CIPD members generally lack any training in safety management but few of them have adequate training in disability management either. So, what is the rationale for insisting that the DDA is a HR responsibility?

Posted By duncan abbott if a company does not have disabled clients and are unlikely to do so, there is no need to undertake costly adjustments. However, if there is a case where you might have the odd one, you can hold a meeting or whatever off site at a place that is fully accessible. But if there is a need for that client to come to your site, and you do not let them, then a case of discrimination is likely to occur. Reasonable adjustments are precisely that, reasonable - if in doubt check with the Disability Rights Commission. The same goes for your staff. In relation to DDA not being primarily H&S, then you should consider two recent cases. Lane and Farmiloe where the outcome was - disability is subordinate to H&S with relevance to PPE. The other a case of a visually impaired teacher whose conditon deteriorated due to the employer failing to undertake a risk assessment. The ruling went in favour of the teacher. In both cases H&S is primarily involved. HR is unlikely to make the risk assessments and H&S should be in the forefront of ensuring that disabled workers can work safely in their envrironments. The problem of why this has become a grey area is that risk assessors lack the skill to undertake risk assessments for disabled workers. This is something that should be challenged. Duncan Abbott Ergonomist www.enricosmog.com

Posted By Kieran J Duignan I'm curious about Merv's assertion that 'DDA is an HR responsibility.' I have not been able to find any evidence in the Act itself for this opinion. What is the basis for it? From a business and organisational standpoint, safety and health professionals (including occupational psychologists) generally have a superior basis for dealing with the DDA responsibilities than most HR folk. As a (corporate) member of the IOSH and the CIPD and the BPS, I don't have a primary allegiance to either the OSH or HR profession. My own opinion is that the division between them is basically a historical anomaly. OSH education and training is more scientific, with the strengths and limitations associated with conventional scientific education and training in Britain.

Posted By Mark Bywater Some interesting views here recently. I think we all have to remember that the act is about discrimination and the refusal or inability of a company to provide services equally to able bodied and disabled people. Disability can be something like dyslexia or colour blindness, not just people in wheelchairs. Access audits are fine but look at Section 21 of the Act - you have only got to do what is "reasonable". If you can prove you did that much you will be fine, hopefully. Who can put hand on heart and say they are complying fully with all the regs that are in place or even HSWA? Flavour of the month? Mark

Posted By Phil Grace We must be careful and get our facts right... furether back up this discussion soemone said that a diaabled person does not have to complain to the employer/property owner they can just go to court. I'm not sure that is totally correct. As I understand it a complainant can go to the Disability Rights Commission who can then investigate the alleged discrimination. If they, the DRC are satisfied they can issue an Statutory Notice requiring "change" - think Improvement/Prohibition Notice. If action is not forthcoming then the DRC can take "offender" to court to get legal decision that changes must be made. If it's an employment scenario then individual can take employer to Tribunal but I believe that for other cases the individual can sue the "discriminator" - but how that works in practice I don't know. Too little experience/cases to date. Whilst a civil court decision would/could result in an award of damages I wonder what compensation would be owed. But who knows.

Posted By David J Bristow Hi All It is worth pointing out that changes to the DDA 95 are now going through the House of Lords and the following is an extract from the DRC website. The Disability Discrimination Bill will: · make it easier for mental health service users, people with cancer, HIV and multiple sclerosis to claim their rights under the DDA; · create new rights to use public transport and set an end date for all rail vehicles to be accessible; · tackle institutional discrimination through a duty to promote disability equality for the public sector (paralleling the race equality duty); · extend the DDA to cover most functions of public authorities (there is presently a lack of clarity, for example, relating to disabled prisoners, elections, planning and access to pavements and highways); · give disabled tenants and leaseholders a right to reasonable adjustments and auxiliary aids and services; · give disabled people (including guests) new rights in respect of private clubs with 25 members; · protect disabled councillors against discrimination for the first time. 2. Survey of English Housing 2001/2 reported that 18,000 disabled people are living in unsuitable accommodation. 3. Housing case study: Usha Chande is a wheelchair user who is available for interview. Her mobility is deteriorating and she wants to move closer to her family yet has found it very difficult to find a suitable property. She is now buying a ground floor flat. Despite offering to pay for the work herself, she is having difficulty gaining approval from the management company regarding the installation of a ramp at the entrance to her flat. She is experiencing unreasonable delay and anxiety and has no guarantee she will be able to install a suitable ramp that meets her needs. The Disability Discrimination Bill, as currently drafted, would be of no help to her on this. The proposed change to the Bill would require a landlord to not unreasonably refuse consent to a disabled tenant making adaptations. Food for thought!. Regards David B

Posted By Ken Taylor Whilst agreeing that we are only required to do what is reasonable - as the offence is to unreasonably discriminate, I am concerned that there seems to be a view around that, with regard to employment, you only have to provide for existing employees. My understanding (from the DRC literature) is that you have also to do what is reasonable for job applicants and to prevent obstacles to the future employment of disabled persons. So if disabled people could not get into or work in your workplace at present you should have done what is reasonable to enable them to do so. In view of the need for physical adjustments to be safe and without risk (sfarp)to all who may be affected by them (including affects upon emergency egress, access to machinery, etc, etc, I consider that H&S have an important role to play in DDA matters as well as others.