- Email: [email protected]
The unlocked potential of the European employment policy for blind and partially sighted people
International Congress Series 1282 (2005) 1181 – 1185
www.ics-elsevier.com
The unlocked potential of the European employment policy for blind and partially sighted people Catrin H. Roberts* RNIB, UK
Abstract. This policy study looks firstly at how the European employment initiatives and benchmarking systems can push employment chances of disabled people in the UK upwards— from a campaigning rather than a legal perspective. Secondly, the failure of the European Employment policy to recognise the importance of enshrining the whole of the employment continuum – ranging from social firms and special employment provision to the provision of assistive technology and of personal assistants – is studied. Finally, the study looks at the ways in which disability organisations can engage with the policy-making system to change this situation. As a case study, the difference that RNIB’s (Royal National Institute of the Blind) involvement with the relevant European bodies has made are examined. If specific employment policy proposals are developed by organisations of blind and partially sighted and if these policies are taken up in Europe, blind and partially sighted people who cannot participate in mainstream labour markets will also benefit from European initiatives. D 2005 Published by Elsevier B.V. Keywords: Blind and partially sighted people and disabled; European Union; Employment; Discrimination; RNIB
1. Introduction Since the European Employment Strategy was launched at the Luxembourg Jobs Summit of November 1997 and arising from the employment stream of the Amsterdam Treaty, the EU has had a tool to co-ordinate the employment policies of the Member States. This strategy itself does not explicitly mention disabled people – referring instead to increasing the overall employment rate within the EU – however, it is generally intended to give steer to the employment policies and to combating social exclusion.
* Tel.: +44 207 391 2087. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0531-5131/ D 2005 Published by Elsevier B.V. doi:10.1016/j.ics.2005.05.129
1182
C.H. Roberts / International Congress Series 1282 (2005) 1181–1185
Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty (which entered into force in 1999) also gives the European Council – in consultation with the elected MEPs – the tools to address discrimination within its Member States. This authority is to tackle discrimination on several bases—disability amongst them. Thus the EU has certain jurisdiction over both employment and anti-discrimination issues. Discrimination as mentioned in this legislation is a situation that occurs when someone dis, has been, or would be, treated less favourably than someone else would be treated in a comparable situation,T as a result of their disability or other grounds such as ethnic origin. The EU has taken on these bases with two directives (European laws) being passed in 2000 to be implemented in the Member States by 2nd December 2003. The most relevant of these with regard to blind and partially sighted people was intended to establish equal rights opportunities for people in employment and training, making it illegal for people to be discriminated against in employment or training on the basis of grounds such as their disability within the EU. Both direct and indirect discrimination is covered, meaning that it is the consequence of action rather than the intent that matters. Accommodating the needs of disabled people is a compulsory part of the employment directive—and for obvious reasons. Disabled people could be so discriminated against as to be unable to work at all. The law therefore includes an obligation making it compulsory for employers to make dreasonable adjustmentsT to enable disabled people to work. In practical terms, this could mean providing assistive technology such Jaws to enable blind or partially sighted people to use computers. As a direct result of this EU legislation, a step towards ensuring equal rights for disabled people has been taken in each of the 25 Member States. Whilst the UK was one of the few countries already with some anti-discrimination provision, e.g., the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), the EU laws strengthens this. The Directive puts an obligation on the EU governments to ensure that any one who feels they have been discriminated against [under the law] has a means of redress. Interestingly, the law specifies that the burden of proof is to be shared between the person claiming discrimination and the person against whom the claim is being made – with the result that the onus is on the person being accused to prove that they did not behave in a discriminatory manner – making the invisible visible. The DDA has introduced important legal protection for disabled people in the fields of employment, education and access to goods and services. The UK’s obligation to implement the Directive entailed some changes to the DDA and these were brought into force on 1st October 2004. Some of these changes were the end of exemption for small employers (previously firms with less than 15 employees were exempt); claims are now allowed against former employers; there is no longer a justification for failure to make a reasonable adjustment; Employment Tribunals may now order rather than recommend reinstatement or re-engagement in cases where there has been disability discrimination. Yet though this European impetus to change national legislation is welcome, the definition of disability as a concept is not explicitly defined in it. In addition, given its broader aim of combating the social problems caused by disability discrimination, it is a shame that it mainly focuses on a medical interpretation of disability. Much of the difficulty faced by people wanting to claim discrimination in the UK under the DDA is
C.H. Roberts / International Congress Series 1282 (2005) 1181–1185
1183
based around the fact that impairment is central to the definition of disability here and that UK legislation is very much about obtaining a medical definition. The EU view of disability is increasingly that of the social model, which it has officially acknowledged since 1996 with the Commission’s communication on dEqual Opportunities for Disabled People.T1 Yet despite these problems, in implementing the Employment Directive, the UK government argued there was no need to change its definition of disability in the DDA when it was amended in 2003. However, the main focus of any disability related anti-discrimination law should be whether disability discrimination occurs. People who have faced discrimination should not be left without redress if lawyers are debating the definition of any disability they might have. So, despite the DDA, disabled people are still be liable to discrimination at work. This, and concern that the EU laws have not been implemented as fully as they could have been in the UK, are just some of the reasons why RNIB is calling for a European Disability Directive. 2. Employment continuum Yet despite all the good work being done to address discrimination through EU legislation and employment strategies, its Institutions do not necessarily take the broadest approach possible. They need to realise that disability is not a homogenous phenomenon and that there have been changes in the focus on engaging with people with disabilities. In the past, this was often more on engaging people with mobility disabilities. Yet there has since been a shift to engaging all disabled people who might want to work. Precisely because disability is not homogenous, the European Institutions need to realise, and accept, that there is no one-size-fits all solution and this is particularly true of employment situations. Nowadays, the focus can be on getting people into jobs rather than ensuring that those jobs can be supported or maintained. After extensive research, RNIB is convinced of the need to acknowledge an bemployment continuumQ that supports people to take steps to engage with the labour market, however, far away from it, they may be at the starting point. Our research highlighted the need for the EU to broaden its more traditional view on enabling disabled people to engage with the market. It should instead support a co-ordinated programme of employment continuum activity. It is unsatisfactory not to consider that there is a whole spectrum of action that can be undertaken with the aim of including people with disabilities in the labour market. UK policy promotes a dstepping stoneT approach which assumes that people with disabilities will pass from one stone to the next on the way from unemployment to full dopenT employment. RNIB believes that, for some disabled people, certain of these dstepsT may represent the optimum level of their potential engagement with the labour market. They will require support to maintain this level of engagement, and this should be provided. Others may well move on to full-time, long-term employment, and likewise should receive the support to enable this. This is why we also believe that the issue of job retention must be pushed. Too often, where there are assistive or supportive schemes, they concentrate on tackling the problems 1
COM (96) 406, 30/7/1996.
1184
C.H. Roberts / International Congress Series 1282 (2005) 1181–1185
faced by disabled people when taking up jobs, rather than retaining them. Numerous cases that RNIB has taken under the DDA have related to people who have lost their jobs as a result of becoming disabled rather than failing to obtain new jobs. RNIB does not dismiss the need to assist people to take up jobs anew. Rather, we believe that given many people lose their sight and become disabled whilst already in jobs, an equally pressing issue is how to ensure that they can stay in those jobs, receiving adequate retraining in any new skills that will enable them to achieve this. Therefore, the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) should implement cross-board national job retention services. The DWP’s Pathways to Work Pilots aimed to do this, but these unfortunately focused on just 3 main target groups: people with heart conditions; less severe mental ill health and musculo-skeletal problems—mainly back-pain. Another factor that must be taken into consideration is the mistaken belief that a single, defined group of disabled people exists. In reality, the road leading to disability can be a long and difficult one—and more often than not, a lonely one without support. Employers may not understand the difficulties faced by people who develop chronic diseases that can lead to disability, with the result that many people are forced to leave the labour market, often, at the moment when they most need social support. 3. Engaging with the legislative process—RNIB experience And finally, is there any value to an organisation such as RNIB engaging with the policy-making system at an EU level? Here in the UK, the EU is seen as a distant body that is not very understood. Yet an increasing number of national laws derive from Brussels. So there is a duty to ensure that these laws are as beneficial as possible and that the opportunity to ensure improvements to the life chances of blind and partially sighted people is seized. It is vital that organisations like RNIB engage with European bodies to achieve our campaigning aims, inputting into the laws which will ultimately affect blind and partially sighted people. One of the most recent EU campaign successes we had has been that of pharmaceutical labelling. When the EU pharmaceutical laws were recently being reviewed, RNIB noticed an opportunity to improve the provision of medicines to blind and partially sighted people. Currently this group is largely dependent on others to help them with any medicines they have to take, with a huge potential for medicine mix-ups. And this is not just a hypothetical issue: an RNIB recently put superglue in his eye, thinking it was a bottle of eye drops he was holding. Action to stop such accidents was vital. Currently, the European Commission is the body that comes up with proposals for legislation/or updating existing ones. It produces draft proposals for new European laws, which it presents to the European Parliament and the Council for comment. The Parliament and MEPs discuss, amend and adopt a position on them through the appropriate Committee followed by plenary. Depending on the sort of proposal it is, it may go through this process again before being finalised. So in practice, RNIB made contact with the relevant Commission staff dealing with pharmaceuticals to inform them of the concerns that blind and partially sighted people have with taking medicines. We contacted UK MEPs with an interest in blind and partial sight issues, briefing them of our concerns. Certain MEPs then submitted amendments to
C.H. Roberts / International Congress Series 1282 (2005) 1181–1185
1185
the European Parliament’s report on the review, calling for Braille information to be placed on the packaging of medicines and for the Patient Information Leaflets (PILs) to also be made available in alternative reading formats. Colleagues also liaised with the UK civil servants based in Brussels (UK Representation) as the Member States have to accept any changes in the Council. The process was a lengthy one, but eventually with perseverance from RNIB, the European Blind Union (EBU) and the support of our MEP allies, the Parliament adopted the amendments. These amendments now mean that the provision of Braille on the packaging of all new medicines licensed from the end of October 2005 will be obligatory. This will mean a huge change in the way that blind and partially sighted people can take their medicines and will enable people to be a great deal more independent and confident in the knowledge of what medicine they are taking. Hopefully, through educating and engaging with the decision makers at a European Union level, potential accidents such as the superglue incident will not be repeated once the laws are in place.
www.ics-elsevier.com
The unlocked potential of the European employment policy for blind and partially sighted people Catrin H. Roberts* RNIB, UK
Abstract. This policy study looks firstly at how the European employment initiatives and benchmarking systems can push employment chances of disabled people in the UK upwards— from a campaigning rather than a legal perspective. Secondly, the failure of the European Employment policy to recognise the importance of enshrining the whole of the employment continuum – ranging from social firms and special employment provision to the provision of assistive technology and of personal assistants – is studied. Finally, the study looks at the ways in which disability organisations can engage with the policy-making system to change this situation. As a case study, the difference that RNIB’s (Royal National Institute of the Blind) involvement with the relevant European bodies has made are examined. If specific employment policy proposals are developed by organisations of blind and partially sighted and if these policies are taken up in Europe, blind and partially sighted people who cannot participate in mainstream labour markets will also benefit from European initiatives. D 2005 Published by Elsevier B.V. Keywords: Blind and partially sighted people and disabled; European Union; Employment; Discrimination; RNIB
1. Introduction Since the European Employment Strategy was launched at the Luxembourg Jobs Summit of November 1997 and arising from the employment stream of the Amsterdam Treaty, the EU has had a tool to co-ordinate the employment policies of the Member States. This strategy itself does not explicitly mention disabled people – referring instead to increasing the overall employment rate within the EU – however, it is generally intended to give steer to the employment policies and to combating social exclusion.
* Tel.: +44 207 391 2087. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0531-5131/ D 2005 Published by Elsevier B.V. doi:10.1016/j.ics.2005.05.129
1182
C.H. Roberts / International Congress Series 1282 (2005) 1181–1185
Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty (which entered into force in 1999) also gives the European Council – in consultation with the elected MEPs – the tools to address discrimination within its Member States. This authority is to tackle discrimination on several bases—disability amongst them. Thus the EU has certain jurisdiction over both employment and anti-discrimination issues. Discrimination as mentioned in this legislation is a situation that occurs when someone dis, has been, or would be, treated less favourably than someone else would be treated in a comparable situation,T as a result of their disability or other grounds such as ethnic origin. The EU has taken on these bases with two directives (European laws) being passed in 2000 to be implemented in the Member States by 2nd December 2003. The most relevant of these with regard to blind and partially sighted people was intended to establish equal rights opportunities for people in employment and training, making it illegal for people to be discriminated against in employment or training on the basis of grounds such as their disability within the EU. Both direct and indirect discrimination is covered, meaning that it is the consequence of action rather than the intent that matters. Accommodating the needs of disabled people is a compulsory part of the employment directive—and for obvious reasons. Disabled people could be so discriminated against as to be unable to work at all. The law therefore includes an obligation making it compulsory for employers to make dreasonable adjustmentsT to enable disabled people to work. In practical terms, this could mean providing assistive technology such Jaws to enable blind or partially sighted people to use computers. As a direct result of this EU legislation, a step towards ensuring equal rights for disabled people has been taken in each of the 25 Member States. Whilst the UK was one of the few countries already with some anti-discrimination provision, e.g., the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), the EU laws strengthens this. The Directive puts an obligation on the EU governments to ensure that any one who feels they have been discriminated against [under the law] has a means of redress. Interestingly, the law specifies that the burden of proof is to be shared between the person claiming discrimination and the person against whom the claim is being made – with the result that the onus is on the person being accused to prove that they did not behave in a discriminatory manner – making the invisible visible. The DDA has introduced important legal protection for disabled people in the fields of employment, education and access to goods and services. The UK’s obligation to implement the Directive entailed some changes to the DDA and these were brought into force on 1st October 2004. Some of these changes were the end of exemption for small employers (previously firms with less than 15 employees were exempt); claims are now allowed against former employers; there is no longer a justification for failure to make a reasonable adjustment; Employment Tribunals may now order rather than recommend reinstatement or re-engagement in cases where there has been disability discrimination. Yet though this European impetus to change national legislation is welcome, the definition of disability as a concept is not explicitly defined in it. In addition, given its broader aim of combating the social problems caused by disability discrimination, it is a shame that it mainly focuses on a medical interpretation of disability. Much of the difficulty faced by people wanting to claim discrimination in the UK under the DDA is
C.H. Roberts / International Congress Series 1282 (2005) 1181–1185
1183
based around the fact that impairment is central to the definition of disability here and that UK legislation is very much about obtaining a medical definition. The EU view of disability is increasingly that of the social model, which it has officially acknowledged since 1996 with the Commission’s communication on dEqual Opportunities for Disabled People.T1 Yet despite these problems, in implementing the Employment Directive, the UK government argued there was no need to change its definition of disability in the DDA when it was amended in 2003. However, the main focus of any disability related anti-discrimination law should be whether disability discrimination occurs. People who have faced discrimination should not be left without redress if lawyers are debating the definition of any disability they might have. So, despite the DDA, disabled people are still be liable to discrimination at work. This, and concern that the EU laws have not been implemented as fully as they could have been in the UK, are just some of the reasons why RNIB is calling for a European Disability Directive. 2. Employment continuum Yet despite all the good work being done to address discrimination through EU legislation and employment strategies, its Institutions do not necessarily take the broadest approach possible. They need to realise that disability is not a homogenous phenomenon and that there have been changes in the focus on engaging with people with disabilities. In the past, this was often more on engaging people with mobility disabilities. Yet there has since been a shift to engaging all disabled people who might want to work. Precisely because disability is not homogenous, the European Institutions need to realise, and accept, that there is no one-size-fits all solution and this is particularly true of employment situations. Nowadays, the focus can be on getting people into jobs rather than ensuring that those jobs can be supported or maintained. After extensive research, RNIB is convinced of the need to acknowledge an bemployment continuumQ that supports people to take steps to engage with the labour market, however, far away from it, they may be at the starting point. Our research highlighted the need for the EU to broaden its more traditional view on enabling disabled people to engage with the market. It should instead support a co-ordinated programme of employment continuum activity. It is unsatisfactory not to consider that there is a whole spectrum of action that can be undertaken with the aim of including people with disabilities in the labour market. UK policy promotes a dstepping stoneT approach which assumes that people with disabilities will pass from one stone to the next on the way from unemployment to full dopenT employment. RNIB believes that, for some disabled people, certain of these dstepsT may represent the optimum level of their potential engagement with the labour market. They will require support to maintain this level of engagement, and this should be provided. Others may well move on to full-time, long-term employment, and likewise should receive the support to enable this. This is why we also believe that the issue of job retention must be pushed. Too often, where there are assistive or supportive schemes, they concentrate on tackling the problems 1
COM (96) 406, 30/7/1996.
1184
C.H. Roberts / International Congress Series 1282 (2005) 1181–1185
faced by disabled people when taking up jobs, rather than retaining them. Numerous cases that RNIB has taken under the DDA have related to people who have lost their jobs as a result of becoming disabled rather than failing to obtain new jobs. RNIB does not dismiss the need to assist people to take up jobs anew. Rather, we believe that given many people lose their sight and become disabled whilst already in jobs, an equally pressing issue is how to ensure that they can stay in those jobs, receiving adequate retraining in any new skills that will enable them to achieve this. Therefore, the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) should implement cross-board national job retention services. The DWP’s Pathways to Work Pilots aimed to do this, but these unfortunately focused on just 3 main target groups: people with heart conditions; less severe mental ill health and musculo-skeletal problems—mainly back-pain. Another factor that must be taken into consideration is the mistaken belief that a single, defined group of disabled people exists. In reality, the road leading to disability can be a long and difficult one—and more often than not, a lonely one without support. Employers may not understand the difficulties faced by people who develop chronic diseases that can lead to disability, with the result that many people are forced to leave the labour market, often, at the moment when they most need social support. 3. Engaging with the legislative process—RNIB experience And finally, is there any value to an organisation such as RNIB engaging with the policy-making system at an EU level? Here in the UK, the EU is seen as a distant body that is not very understood. Yet an increasing number of national laws derive from Brussels. So there is a duty to ensure that these laws are as beneficial as possible and that the opportunity to ensure improvements to the life chances of blind and partially sighted people is seized. It is vital that organisations like RNIB engage with European bodies to achieve our campaigning aims, inputting into the laws which will ultimately affect blind and partially sighted people. One of the most recent EU campaign successes we had has been that of pharmaceutical labelling. When the EU pharmaceutical laws were recently being reviewed, RNIB noticed an opportunity to improve the provision of medicines to blind and partially sighted people. Currently this group is largely dependent on others to help them with any medicines they have to take, with a huge potential for medicine mix-ups. And this is not just a hypothetical issue: an RNIB recently put superglue in his eye, thinking it was a bottle of eye drops he was holding. Action to stop such accidents was vital. Currently, the European Commission is the body that comes up with proposals for legislation/or updating existing ones. It produces draft proposals for new European laws, which it presents to the European Parliament and the Council for comment. The Parliament and MEPs discuss, amend and adopt a position on them through the appropriate Committee followed by plenary. Depending on the sort of proposal it is, it may go through this process again before being finalised. So in practice, RNIB made contact with the relevant Commission staff dealing with pharmaceuticals to inform them of the concerns that blind and partially sighted people have with taking medicines. We contacted UK MEPs with an interest in blind and partial sight issues, briefing them of our concerns. Certain MEPs then submitted amendments to
C.H. Roberts / International Congress Series 1282 (2005) 1181–1185
1185
the European Parliament’s report on the review, calling for Braille information to be placed on the packaging of medicines and for the Patient Information Leaflets (PILs) to also be made available in alternative reading formats. Colleagues also liaised with the UK civil servants based in Brussels (UK Representation) as the Member States have to accept any changes in the Council. The process was a lengthy one, but eventually with perseverance from RNIB, the European Blind Union (EBU) and the support of our MEP allies, the Parliament adopted the amendments. These amendments now mean that the provision of Braille on the packaging of all new medicines licensed from the end of October 2005 will be obligatory. This will mean a huge change in the way that blind and partially sighted people can take their medicines and will enable people to be a great deal more independent and confident in the knowledge of what medicine they are taking. Hopefully, through educating and engaging with the decision makers at a European Union level, potential accidents such as the superglue incident will not be repeated once the laws are in place.