.
“The government’s refusal to lay disability codes of practice before parliament indicates that it does not support disabled people’s rights.”
I wrote in June 2016 Legal Action 6 about the House of Lords Select Committee on the Equality Act 2010 and Disability’s report, The Equality Act 2010: the impact on disabled people (24 March 2016). It set out a number of practical, low-cost steps that government, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and other bodies could take to make things better for disabled people. As Lord Addington later said in a debate on the report, the current system of enforcement under the Act is ‘a rather pathetic, weedy stick and a carrot that is hidden in a cupboard somewhere’ (Hansard HL Debates Vol 774 col 1003, 6 September 2016).
The reaction to the government’s response (Cm 9283, 7 July 2016) was disappointment as it comprehensively dismissed almost every one of the committee’s recommendations. For example, the committee recommended that the EHRC should take the Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) helpline back in-house (page 48, para 155). The government stated that the EHRC ‘did not express an interest in taking it “in-house”’. This was flatly denied by the EHRC, which instead said in its response to the report (20 July 2016) that it ‘would like to take back responsibility for overseeing the EASS or, at the least, have a greater level of control over its operation’ (page 3, para 7).
The government also objected to the committee’s recommendation (on page 50, para 164) to lay draft codes of practice before parliament. The EHRC consulted on and drafted very useful documents on the public sector equality duty and education. However, the government has declined to lay them before parliament under Equality Act 2006 s14, which would give them the status of statutory codes. As a result, the draft codes remain as ‘technical guidance’, leaving their status uncertain.
The purpose of the recommendation was to clarify the law. As the codes are already published and no primary legislation is needed, the government’s refusal can only be seen as a clear indicator that it does not support disabled people’s rights. Its position here reflects the true nature of the so-called ‘Red Tape Challenge’. As the select committee report says (page 5):
All too often the government has characterised this as red tape, and made changes under the Red Tape Challenge which increase the problems of disabled people. These must be reversed. The government, instead of concentrating on the burden on businesses, should be looking at the burden on disabled people.
The Cameron government showed where it stood. As Baroness Deech said in the Lords debate, ‘it is impossible for any government – except a nasty party – to ignore our recommendations, which have been crafted to be almost cost free’ (col 966).
What will the present government under Theresa May do? It will be interesting to see, given her announcement of an audit of racial disparities in public services. The Women and Equalities Select Committee has also stated (10 August 2016) that it ‘will continue to pursue issues raised by the recent Equality Act 2010 and Disability Committee’ in its new inquiry into disability and the built environment. The call for evidence closed on 12 October 2016.
Pledging to continue the campaign, Baroness Deech concluded the Lords debate by saying: ‘[W]e want the government to give a green light to all these recommendations, which cost so little, or nearly nothing, to make the whole of society work properly …’ (col 1014). But with 20-year-old provisions still not in force, the big issue is when there will be action, not more reviews. ■