Brian the bull terrier, one of series of creations from Aardman Animations, which tackle subjects around disability, discrimination and prejudice. Photograph: Aardman Animations/ PA
____________________________________
Clare Bambra
Society
LONDON, England (Guardian), December 10, 2007:
Research on disabled people in the UK, led by the Wolfson Research Institute at Durham University, has found that since the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), the employment of disabled people has decreased and that this has disproportionately affected the least skilled workers, thereby increasing inequalities.
The DDA was introduced by the last Conservative government in 1995 and was extended by the Blair administration in 2001 and 2003. A key component of the act was to make it unlawful to "discriminate against disabled persons in connection with employment, the provision of goods, facilities and services, or the disposal or management of premises".
This gave disabled and chronically ill people a number of employment rights (similar to those obtained by women and ethnic minorities in the 1970s). Until 2003, the employment provisions of the DDA only applied to businesses with more than 15 employees thus exempting the majority of British companies.
The act made discrimination on the grounds of physical or mental disability or limiting long term illness illegal: since its implementation in 1996, it has been unlawful to "discriminate against disabled persons in connection with employment, the provision of goods, facilities and services, or the disposal or management of premises".
Employers are required to make "reasonable adjustments" to work and premises to cater for people with a disability.
Originally, the employment provisions of the DDA only applied to companies with more than 15 employees. However, since the 2003 amendments, it applies to all employers.
More recent amendments such as the 2001 Special Educational Needs and Disability Act have extended the remit of disability anti-discrimination legislation to other areas with employment opportunity implications such as access to education and training.
Similar legislation is in place in other countries such as the USA, Australia, Sweden, and the Netherlands.
The DDA was in part introduced to help tackle the long-standing association in the UK between disability, poverty, social exclusion, and low employment rates: only around 50% of working age disabled people are in employment compared to 80% for those without a disability.
However, a recent study which investigated the employment rates of disabled people in the UK before and after the implementation of the DDA found that whilst the employment rates of non-disabled people increased over the period 1990 to 2003, the employment rates for disabled people decreased by an average of 7%. Although there were no differences between the employment rates of disabled men and women, the Durham-led study found that the employment rates of disabled people from the lowest occupational groups decreased by 11% after the DDA whilst the employment rates of disabled people in professional occupations did not change significantly during the study period.
The results suggest two things:
1) that the inequality in employment between disabled and non-disabled people has increased since the DDA, and
2) that there are significant social inequalities in the employment consequences of disability in the UK which the DDA legislation has failed to rectify.
What is less clear is why the DDA has failed to close the employment gap between disabled and non-disabled people, and why it has seemingly increased social inequalities between disabled people. The following are possible reasons, although more research is needed:
Firstly, employers may be fearful of the possible enhanced recruitment and retention costs incurred as a result of the legislation. Even standardised costs may well be a disproportionately higher amount of the wage bill for lower occupations than for professional groups. Furthermore, the skills of employees in socio-economic classes I and II may be seen to outweigh the costs incurred.
Secondly, the emphasis in the legislation is very much on the individual person with a disability to assert their DDA employment rights in order to gain or retain employment. They are required to show that they are (i) disabled under the terms of the act and (ii) that they were discriminated against on this basis. It is highly possible that people in classes I and II are more aware and articulate about such rights.
Thirdly, awareness of the DDA is low amongst UK employers: according to the Department for Work and Pensions, only 63% of employers were aware of the DDA. Furthermore as the DDA employment provisions now apply to all companies regardless of size, awareness, implementation (and therefore perhaps employment rates) may increase in the future.
This suggests, that to be more effective in enabling disabled people into employment, anti-discrimination legislation needs to place less emphasis on the individual making the claim and more on the employer to enact best practice. In addition, awareness of the DDA amongst employers needs to be increased and the provisions of the act better enforced.
· Clare Bambra is a lecturer in public health policy at Durham University
