Council requiring disabled councillors to "register" their disability

Martynh

Hi,
I can't go into the entire specific details, but I am a local councillor that has been pushing for a Substitute system for anyone that is disabled, has long term health condition etc - basically it allows someone that can't attend a meeting due to their health can appoint someone to attend on their behalf and represent them.

The first draft says that in order to be considered for the scheme, a councillor must declare their disability in writing, and each request will be taken on its merits and officers have the final decision, and any absences requiring the use of a substitute must be made based on the "registered disability".

To me, requiring registration of a disability and the details of that disability is in itself discriminatory - am I being over sensitive?
Is it reasonable for a public body to require these details in order to make a reasonable adjustment and for council officers to make a decision on whether that disability meets the requirements of such a scheme?

Would appreciate any advice around the Equality Act and/or Public Sector Equivalent Duty if anyone is knowledgeable.

Thanks a lot.

chiarieds

Hi @Martynh - & welcome to the community. I would look at it this way, the Equality Act 2010 says, 'a disability means a physical or a mental condition which has a substantial and long-term impact on your ability to do normal day to day activities.....'

With that in mind, I'd think you could just say what bit of the emboldened text above applies to you; it doesn't infer you have to say exactly what your disorder is (& some people may not have a diagnosis). If you're not comfortable sharing with others, I don't see how/why this should be imposed, it's nobody else's business but you're own.

As there's no longer a 'register of disability' then I'd question how you could 'register your disability.'

I hadn't heard of the Public Sector Equality Duty (which seems to have been created under the Equality Act in 2011), but found this of interest: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/essential-guide-public-sector-equality-duty       you can download the Word doc.

But first I'd read this: https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/be-councillor-guide-disab-e85.pdf      where the person at the bottom of p5 had just said, 'I have a mobility impairment and am a wheelchair user.' Others had named their disability, &, as I have Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome like the person on p10, I could identify somewhat with her, so I think there may be pros & cons on whether you wish to name your disability. Personally I consider myself a person who just happens to have Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome rather than someone who's disabled (even if I am!)

I agree with woodbine on the difficulty of having a 'stand in.' Perhaps reasonable adjustments could be made so you could contribute by a phone/video call instead if needed?

Martynh

The law changed in May 2021, removing the ability to attend a statutory council meeting via video link (it was introduced for COVID and worked well), so Councillors have to be physically in the room to take part.

Substitute schemes aren't unusual, in fact the vast majority of councils allow the use of substitutes, ours is one of the few that doesn't - in fact, we appoint councillors as substitutes for other statutory bodies, but not our own.

I am totally capable of doing my job as a councillor, but occasionally I have to miss the odd committee meeting due to my progressive illness.

My issue is having to provide details of my health so that a non-medical professional van then judge whether I meet their personal criteria for whether or not I am disabled enough at any point to be permitted to appoint a substitute.

I am pretty open about my health, although I don't tell others about many of the issues it causes - there are some I don't even tell my wife, but we have huge issues in getting people that are disabled, visually impaired, hearing impaired etc to stand for election and them being told that they have to give their personal health details to council staff is going to dissuade them even more.

Hannah_Alumni

When I read the part in your post about the person declaring their disability in writing. I think that creates a whole other discussion about what is perceived as a disability. And who perceives it. 

For example, I have Inflammatory Bowel Disease and when diagnosed there were many businesses I went to or wanted to work for, that wouldn't make reasonable adjustments. Because that company didn't have Inflammatory Bowel Disease listed as a disability to make adjustments for. 

For me, that would be interesting to see. Would there be a list of disabilities, would that list be continuously updated....etc. 

I do also agree with the worries over having a stand in. I think it would be something you'd need to trial to get a fuller picture. If someone was picked to stand in who didn't communicate well or effectively, and something went wrong. Then do they (the stand in) take the blame or the one that sent them to stand in?

Martynh

Ignoring the issue around substitutes, is it acceptable under the Equality Act to ask someone to declare what their disability is and then face questions on that disability and how it affects them?

Hannah_Alumni

I don't think they should face questions. But I do think declaring not all the details but a general idea could help. For example I'd say I have a disability where I need access to a disabled bathroom. It means that say when booking venues for talks, that is accommodated.

If you saw a picture of another councilor and it is that standard look that many councils do of it being from below the shoulders up style of picture of their face. Without meeting them before, how do you know they are not a wheelchair user? or hearing impaired? And need adjustments at the meeting. 

I think the media and society have created this situation where the sick and disabled have to either tell someone their life story to get those adjustments. Or stay quiet and not get involved. 

Where as I think it's a very simple thing of remember so and so needs a venue with ramp access or a disabled toilet or an interpreter. It's not declaring, it's knowing to be mindful to someone else's circumstances that they can't change.

Jimm_Alumni

My own personal thoughts are that it is okay for them to keep a record of who has a disability, but it depends how  detailed those records are. A note that someone has a disability (not what or if there's a diagnosis as it can take a long time to get a diagnosis), perhaps small confirmation that they are facing substantial impact to their day-to-day activities as the Equality Act states. Maybe from their GP or another medical professional like an occupational therapist.

If they know you have a disability then under the equality act they must make reasonable adjustments no? If they know you are covered under the equality act and then have practices that indirectly or directly discriminate they are at fault? I am not a lawyer of course, but it seems better for them and you to know?

I also find it strange that they make physical presence mandatory, is there anything about council meetings that requires the person to physically be there? Can they not contribute and vote via video? It seems strange to not make reasonable adjustments as a workplace would.

Martynh

Jimm_Scope said:

My own personal thoughts are that it is okay for them to keep a record of who has a disability, but it depends how  detailed those records are. A note that someone has a disability (not what or if there's a diagnosis as it can take a long time to get a diagnosis), perhaps small confirmation that they are facing substantial impact to their day-to-day activities as the Equality Act states. Maybe from their GP or another medical professional like an occupational therapist.

If they know you have a disability then under the equality act they must make reasonable adjustments no? If they know you are covered under the equality act and then have practices that indirectly or directly discriminate they are at fault? I am not a lawyer of course, but it seems better for them and you to know?

I also find it strange that they make physical presence mandatory, is there anything about council meetings that requires the person to physically be there? Can they not contribute and vote via video? It seems strange to not make reasonable adjustments as a workplace would.

Unfortunately it is a legal requirement to attend in person, remote attendance was only permitted during Covid and the legislation was removed in May 2021.

I have managed to get changes so that anyone with a disability that misses a meeting due to that disability is not marked as expected and not present as this affects attendance figures (which some people then use for political purposes).

I am slowly getting changes through but they are continually being objected to and delayed.

Jimm_Alumni

@martynh, thank you for informing me about that. I honestly did not know, it seems a little silly considering the technology we have these days. 

I'm glad changes are coming, even if they are slow. Considering how slowly things change in Westminster government, which we're all used to seeing. I imagine things are just as slow if not slower at the local level, since issues can often be ignored or not seen as "important enough".

2oldcodgers

woodbine said:

if I'm honest I see it as perfectly reasonable, if we elect a councillor then we have the right to expect them to represent us and that imho includes attending council meetings, having a "stand-in" again imho would not be acceptable, my disability would stop me doing the job as expected therefore I would never put myself up for election.

Absolutely

It is a 'requirement' that all councillors attend the full council meetings. It is up to the chairman of the council to accept any apologies. Should he refuse to do so then that 'no show' would form the dismissal of that councillor if they do not attend and miss another 5 meetings or more within the same year. 

Jimm_Alumni

I just personally don't see the difference between being at the meeting in person and attending via video. I understand it's the law but for me that would still fall under representing because they are still voting, voicing their position and everything else. 

Martynh

Jimm_Scope said:

I just personally don't see the difference between being at the meeting in person and attending via video. I understand it's the law but for me that would still fall under representing because they are still voting, voicing their position and everything else. 

It's ridiculous that we can't attend remotely - it was good enough during the pandemic.
I'm not an advocate of 100% remote meetings as it is often very useful to be there in person - sometimes a chance 1:1 conversation before a meeting can resolve some issues before a meeting starts avoiding lengthy discussions for instance, but hybrid meetings should be allowed, especially where a councillor can't attend (immunosuppressed, maternity leave, caring responsibilities etc).
Hybrid meetings would negate the need for substituted in many cases too.

Martynh

2oldcodgers said:

woodbine said:

if I'm honest I see it as perfectly reasonable, if we elect a councillor then we have the right to expect them to represent us and that imho includes attending council meetings, having a "stand-in" again imho would not be acceptable, my disability would stop me doing the job as expected therefore I would never put myself up for election.

Absolutely

It is a 'requirement' that all councillors attend the full council meetings. It is up to the chairman of the council to accept any apologies. Should he refuse to do so then that 'no show' would form the dismissal of that councillor if they do not attend and miss another 5 meetings or more within the same year. 

This isn't about Full Council meetings though, just Committee meetings.
You couldn't appoint a substitute at Full Council because all councillors should be there so nobody could attend as your substitute.

However, the 6 month rule isn't an absolute as the time can be extended with agreement of a majority of councillors - we did it not long ago based on someone's health.

What a substitution scheme does allow is someone with a disability or long term health condition the confidence that that can sit on a committee, whatever their circumstances.

I've heard from councillors that feel they can't sit on a committee because they're worried of the negative consequences if they can't attend (even if they think/hope they'd be able to attend all meetings) - such as their/their party's/their residents views wouldn't be represented etc. Substitutes mean that they can confidently sit on committees, safe in the knowledge that someone like-minded can take their place.

Should we only allow the able-bodied and those without health conditions to represent us? That hasn't worked out very well so far.

Before I was elected the council chamber wasn't accessible (it will be shortly), pavement cafes were free to block pavements, public realm developments weren't suitable for all - especially visually impaired people, BSL interpreters would t be allowed in meetings under the constitution and more, but I'm one person.
To meet the needs of everyone we need everyone to be represented, and to do that we have to remove the barriers to standing for election and being an elected representative at all levels.

Out of the 16 local councils I looked at, all but 5 didn't have a substitute scheme in place (and they were for any councillor, not restricted to disabled councillors).

Sorry if it's a long ramble but it has been a long day!

MW123

Hello martynh 

I understand your reservations about requiring councillors to declare their disabilities in writing and the need for detailed information on the nature of those disabilities. Your concerns are valid, and they highlight the importance of striking a balance between accommodating disabilities and respecting an individual's privacy. 

When it comes to the Equality Act and the Public Sector Equality Duty, it's essential to consider the principles of non-discrimination and reasonable adjustments. Requiring councillors to declare their disabilities is not inherently discriminatory if the information is used solely for the purpose of making reasonable adjustments and ensuring fair representation. However, the key is to handle this information sensitively and maintain strict confidentiality.