Problems with accessiblity for people who use wheelchairs

Barry said:
Yes, I think that is the point. If a councillor is conflicted in doing that for whatever reason, then then there is an issue that at least should be declared. But to presume blindly and naively that an interest will conflict them in performing their duty is where it goes wrong.
Click to expand...

It's the word conflict that's important here I think.

Is it really logical to say that a disabled motorist has a conflict of interest when it comes to parking for the disabled?

That a disabled motorist & councillor is less capable than their able bodied colleagues of balancing the needs of the able bodied voters with those of the disabled voters.

In assuming the disabled councillors may potentially be biased in favour of the disabled to the detriment to the able bodied motorist the council is itself demonstrating bias against the disabled. One could just as easily assume able bodied councillors might hold be biased in favour of the able bodied through lack of understanding.

It is exactly this kind of unthinking bias that means it is important that the disabled are represented because it demonstrates some bias already exists that works against the interests of the disabled.

Sometimes it is when we (humans generally) try to work around potential biases we highlight the ones we aren't even aware of.
 
Barry said:
Yes, I think that is the point. If a councillor is conflicted in doing that for whatever reason, then then there is an issue that at least should be declared. But to presume blindly and naively that an interest will conflict them in performing their duty is where it goes wrong.
Click to expand...
I am not a lawyer :) .. but I think the legal position can be summed up fairly simply. In this case the Council got itself confused between treating the two disabled Councillors as a) members of a protected class (disabled people) and b) two people who as members of a protected class have individual entitlements to services which the Council is legally required to provide.

For the latter case to apply the Committee would have to be considering something personal to the councillors, for example exceptional costs regarding home adaptation or a disabled parking bay outside one of the Councillor's homes - in that case the Councillor should withdraw from any vote.

What is discriminatory is that the Councillors were being asked to withdraw precisely because they are members of a protected class - just writing it like that makes it obvious how stupid the demand to withdraw was.

Anyway it is an instructive case - yes under certain circumstances a disabled person might need to acknowledge a conflict of interest that arises from assistance they receive because of their disability. But being a member of a protected class is in itself NOT any kind of basis from which an accusation of conflict of interest could arise !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom