Letter: Cost of legislation for the disabled
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Your article on the rights of people with disabilities ('Disabled 'under attack from Tory right wing' ', 31 August) covers some important ground, but fails to address properly the issue of the cost of a Disabled Persons Rights Bill. The Institute of Directors, and the Government, placed the highly emotive figure of pounds 17bn on implementation of Dr Roger Berry's private member's Bill. This figure is calculated by adding up the costs of providing access for disabled people to public transport, buildings, etc, if the alterations were made all at once all over the country, and included such things as replacing all railway rolling stock and putting text-telephones into every public phone box in the UK.
This method of calculating costs is flawed, because it fails to recognise that proposed legislation calls for gradual and reasonable accommodation of disabled people's requirements; no one is interested in placing an undue burden on businesses, or creating a backlash.
More importantly, there has not been analysis of the benefit to the economy of ending the exclusion of millions of disabled people. For example, when the US Attorney Robert Mather visited Britain to lecture on the Americans with Disabilities Act, he described it as 'pro-business'. In the US, small businesses have discovered that installing a text-telephone for deaf people can lead to increased orders and business because their services or products are accessible to that segment of the market. There has not been an undue burden on business, and nor has there been a rash of litigation under the Act.
The opponents of comparable legislation in Britain base their objections on inflated costs of achieving total access for disabled people overnight. Surely it is better to begin the process slowly and surely, rather than put it off indefinitely.
Yours faithfully,
STUART ETHERINGTON
Chief Executive
Royal National Institute
for Deaf People
London, WC1
31 August
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments