SUPPLEMENTARY
WRITTEN EVIDENCE
SUBMITTED BY
SCOPE
ABOUT SCOPE
Scope is a leading disability charity that supports
and works with disabled people and their families at every stage
of their life. We believe disabled people should have the same
opportunities as everyone else and we run campaigns with disabled
people to make this happen. Scope operates in England and Wales
and provides localised, individual care and support, residential,
information and advice, employment and education services for
disabled people and their families. As a charity with expertise
in complex support needs and cerebral palsy we never set limits
on potential.
Below we have focused on our views on the key areas
raised by the Committee's questions.
SCOPE'S
RESPONSE
The Government's Equality Strategy
The new cross-Governmental Equality Strategy is at
the heart of the Government's approach to equality.[60]
As part of that, we are pleased about the decision to proceed
with the implementation of the Equality Act, as the new Act provides
increased protection for disabled people from discrimination and
addresses some of the major weaknesses of the Disability Discrimination
Act (DDA). The Strategy has set out the Government's approach
to some of the unimplemented provisions of the Act, but gives
no indication about the intentions with regard to the provisions
relevant to disability equality that remain to be implemented.
There are parts of the Act that would improve equality
for disabled people which have not yet come into force. One of
the, as yet unimplemented, provisions is the one placing a duty
on schools to provide auxiliary aids to disabled pupils. The justification
for this was to fill gaps in meeting the practical needs of disabled
children requiring adjustments or support at school but whose
access requirements in relation to education do not relate to
a special educational need. Given the consensus during the Act's
passage through Parliament about the definite need for legislation
to address the loopholes in the current framework, we would encourage
the Committee to recommend that the Government proceeds with implementation
of the remaining areas in the Act without further delays.
We welcome the focus of the new approach to advance
equality through equal treatment and equal opportunity, and the
specific objectives set out under each themed area in the strategy.
There is much we would commend in the strategy, which has a potential
to promote greater equality for disabled people. Our concern now
is that the strategy is in fact implemented and that disabled
people see improvements in the opportunities available to them.
However, we are less convinced
about the direction of travel of the reforms already underway
and the prospects for delivering the outcomes in the strategy.
For instance, the Government has recognised the importance of
encouraging as many disabled people into sustainable employment
through effective employment support. Despite being a focus of
the strategy, we have concerns about the:
— Access
to Work: Scope has received a growing number of anecdotal reports
that Access to Work is being reduced or question by officials.
There is significant evidence about the clear opportunities that
Access to Work brings and its success in enabling people to stay
in successful employment. Threats to this fund would restrict
the employment opportunities open to disabled people, as the cost
for adaptations would have to be met by employers or disabled
people themselves.
— Work
Choice: The Government has put forward its intention to introduce
a new Work programme and alongside it a targeted Work Choice programme,
which will aim to provide tailored support for disabled people
to get back into work. However, the reduced number of places on
the Work Choice programme will lead to many disabled people missing
out on the support they need to make the transition into employment.
Also, the strategy does not appear to acknowledge
the need to take a holistic approach to achieving equality for
disabled people. For instance, one main area missing from the
strategy is consideration of what the impact of inadequate investment
in social care is likely to be on disabled people's employment.
Coupled with more restricted eligibility criteria, this will affect
disabled people who rely on social care services as a prerequisite
to employment (for assistance with getting out of bed, dressing
and so on) who may be forced to leave their jobs. It is important
that the strategy takes into account how policies in one area
have an impact on the effectiveness of initiatives in other areas.
Part of this is also the need for a robust machinery
for delivery in place to strengthen the commitments to the specific
outcomes in the strategy. We welcome the decision to set up an
inter-ministerial group on equalities reflecting the need for
close working between government departments in delivering the
strategy. The previous Government has produced a Roadmap 2025
which set out plans across government of how it would seek to
enable disabled people to achieve equality.[61]
There has been a definite sense that progress on the Roadmap has
been mixed partly due to a lack of joined up approach and coordinated
action across departments.
We believe that the new inter-ministerial structure,
provided it is well set up and operates efficiently, will be a
critical factor to keep the Government on course to delivering
equality for disabled people. In addition to this, engagement
with disabled people and organisations representing them is necessary
to measure and monitor progress on milestones to deliver the strategy.
Related to the above point on the Roadmap, we hope that the Government
will consider in going forward integrating the different strategies,
as at present these risk being taken forward in isolation, which
would be counter-productive. Finally on this, the UN Convention
on the Rights of Disabled People (CRPD) provides a comprehensive
framework and well elaborated set of standards that are necessary
to achieve equality for disabled people. We hope that the Government
will recognise the importance of developing a strategy that builds
on the CRPD to achieve the change needed.
Reform of the Equality and Human Rights Commission
(EHRC)
The objective of reform has been made clear in the
Government's Equality Strategy which, building on the Public Bodies
Review, states that the EHRC will be reformed "so that it
concentrates on its key roles as a modern regulator and as a national
human rights institution".[62]
Our understanding is that the Government Equalities Offices is
planning to undertake a formal consultation on the reform proposals
looking at how the current functions of the Commission should
be delivered in the future, but that there has been some delay
in launching the consultation.
We believe that a starting point for any reforms
to the EHRC needs to be a recognition of the important role that
the Commission plays in promoting disability equality. The Commission
needs to be equipped to enforce equalities legislation, to scrutinise
evidence of discrimination among disabled people and measure and
report on progress made towards equality. The expansion of anti-discrimination
legislation, coupled with introduction of the single equality
duty, give the Commission potentially effective tools to promote
greater equality for disabled people. In drawing up proposals
for reform, we believe that while there is room for debate about
the performance of the Commission in so far it has made best use
of the powers available to it, it should be acknowledged that
without having sufficient enforcement powers and appropriate levels
of resources, the Commission would not meet the needs of disabled
people.
While awaiting further details on the plans for reform
from the Government, the vision for the future of the Commission
has been recently outlined in a speech by the Chair of the Commission,[63]
which set out an aspiration to move away from an approach that
is "slow, overly legalistic and inadequate to the scale of
the challenge" and "take a more systemic and preventive
course".[64]
We fully support a preventative framework that minimises the likelihood
of disabled people being discriminated in the first place and
also agree that more than just litigation is necessary to deliver
far-reaching systemic change that will lead to greater equality
for disabled people. The greater use of regulatory functions and
encouraging a culture change that promotes best performance beyond
statutory compliance has the potential to deliver such change.
At the same time, there is an extremely important
need to ensure that a balance is struck on this and we would be
concerned if the Commission were to concentrate only on taking
legal cases against "the Really Bad Guys, like the BNP"
rather than on "individual cases, courtroom battles and remedies
after something has happened".[65]
Taking legal action provides a useful tool
for the Commission to clarify the law in strategic cases, particularly
with regards to new and untested provisions in the Equality Act,
and seek to establish positive legal precedents. It is important
for the Commission to maintain a focus on supporting potential
cases of disability discrimination, especially as a means to keep
the working of the Equality Act under review and prevent negative
outcomes from undermining protection under the law, as well as
to address the difficulties disabled people face in using the
law to enforce their rights. This is already
an area where evidence suggests that by comparison, the record
of the Disability Rights Commission's (DRC) litigation work was
more successful at an average of 55 fully funded cases per year.[66]
Like the DRC before it, the EHRC is able to use enforcement
powers where necessary to guarantee disabled people's equality
and protect their human rights. It is important to recognise that
tackling the barriers, disadvantages and inequalities that disabled
people experience will need the full enforcement powers of the
EHRC. The Commission's enforcement powers are crucial and need
more emphasis. The Government should be careful to avoid any weakening
of these powers and a key principle underpinning the reforms should
be ensuring that the Commission will be able to carry out its
statutory functions effectively in the future. Having said that,
there is a perception across the sector that the Commission has
not made use of the full extent of its enforcement powers and
we would agree with the need for the Commission to focus more
on more active enforcement.
In relation to enforcement, we think it is vital
that there is an explicit recognition of the challenging current
context. We would want to see the Commission make greater use
of the powers to ensure effective enforcement of the equality
act, eg vis-a-vis local authorities and the disability duties.
This is key in the context of budget reductions and particularly
as there is a risk that with local authorities facing difficult
budget decisions, disabled people and their families will be disproportionately
affected. The launch of a formal investigation (an enforcement
power) to assess compliance by the HM Treasury in relation to
the measures proposed in the Spending Review represents an important
first step, but the enforcement powers provide a useful means
to ensure accountability across all levels of government.
Hate crime policy
Scope has had a continuing interest in this agenda.
We welcome the current focus on ensuring better data collection
of disability hate crime, as the Government is seeking to implement
the commitment to this end in the Coalition Agreement and the
Cross-Governmental Equality Strategy. These are important steps
as they will help provide a more accurate picture on the prevalence
of disability hate crime and the progress made to increase reporting
as well as build disabled people's confidence in the police's
commitment to tackle hate crime. Our report, "Getting Away
with Murder",[67]
highlighted that efforts to tackle disability hate crime have
been hampered by a lack of comprehensive data, with no clear picture
about how to improve reporting and with continuing low levels
of confidence among disabled people.
One of the problems highlighted was the fact that
police forces do not always recognise and identify crime reported
as disability hate crime. The more recent statistics by the Association
of Police Officers show that there remain important inconsistencies
across the forces and low levels of hate crime reported to local
police forces. The extent of under-reporting is very high—in
2009, seven of the 44 police forces in England and Wales reported
two or fewer disability hate crimes in 2009 and three reported
none.[68] These figures
are clearly not reflective of the reality of disability hate crime
and reveal the extent of the remaining challenge to ensure this
is collated or recorded consistently.
The HMIC (Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary)
review identified disability as a significant issue as one in
five of repeat victims identified themselves as being a disabled
person.[69] The review
highlighted some weaknesses including challenges to effective
partnership working in tackling the issue of anti-social behaviour.
Our hate crime research also highlighted particular discrepancies
in the perceived responsibilities of different agencies in tackling
hate crime.[70] The responsibility
does not sit with the police alone and other authorities need
to better recognise their responsibilities with regard to this.
The review also pointed to a failure of the information systems
that the police use which cannot identify and prioritise repeat
callers. Leading on from that, eight police forces have started
to pilot a new multi-agency anti-social behaviour pilot scheme
as a means to address repeat victimisation and put in place a
system to share information with other agencies.[71]
While we very much support the development of multi agency responses
and of a simple way of sharing information, it is important at
the same time that police forces see beyond the easy label of
"anti-social behaviour" and fully recognise disability
hate crime and record it as such.
We are further concerned that the Government does
not intend to continue delivering the recommendations in the Hate
Crime Action Plan. The Under-Secretary of State responsible for
crime prevention, James Brokenshire, confirmed in a response to
a parliamentary question that "a number of these have been
completed and while work on some of the others will continue,
we think a new approach to tackling hate crime, that reduces burdens
while empowering local areas, is needed".[72]
We would encourage the Committee to seek reassurances from the
Government on how it will ensure the achievements made to date
would not be undermined. In particular, we would emphasise the
need for whatever is put in place to be comprehensive and that
engagement with disability organisations will continue to ensure
that responses to tackling hate crime will be effective.
Set against the changes in terms of how policing
is organised and delivered, there is a growing need disabled people's
voices will not be lost in future democratic arrangements (for
example, crime and police panels or elections for police commissioners).
It is important to ensure that the pursuit of localism will not
come at a cost of a reduced focus on disability hate crime and
that action on hate crime at a local level does not slip further
down the agenda is crucial.
March 2011
60 HM Government, December 2010, The Equality Strategy-Building
a Fairer Britain, www.equalities.gov.uk/pdf/GEO%20Equality%20Strategy%20tagged%20version.pdf Back
61
Office for Disability Issues, 2009, Roadmap 2025, odi.dwp.gov.uk/roadmap-to-disability-equality/index.php Back
62
HM Government, December 2010,The Equality Strategy-Building a
Fairer Britain www.equalities.gov.uk/pdf/GEO%20Equality%20Strategy%20tagged%20version.pdf Back
63
Why Equality and Human Rights are essential to economic recovery,
Trevor Phillips, 8 February 2011, www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/speeches/tp_why_equality_and_human_rights_are_essential_to_economic_recovery_policy_exchange.pdf
Back
64
Ibid Back
65
Ibid Back
66
Disability Rights Commission (2007), DRC legal achievements 2000-07,
www.celebratingthejourney.org/files/DRC%20Legal%20Achievements-2000-07-screen.pdf Back
67
Scope, 2008, Getting Away with Murder, www.scope.org.uk/help-and-information/publications/getting-away-murder Back
68
ACPO, 2011, Total of recorded hate crime from regional forces
in England, Wales and Northern Ireland during 2009, www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/084a_Recorded_Hate_Crime_-_January_to_December_2009.pdf Back
69
HMIC, 2010, Overview of the findings of our ASB review-"Stop
the Rot" www.hmic.gov.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Anti-social_behaviour_2010/ASB_SPE_20100923.pdf
Back
70
Scope, 2008, Getting Away with Murder, www.scope.org.uk/help-and-information/publications/getting-away-murder Back
71
HMIC, 2010, Re-thinking the policing of anti-social behavior (Cardiff
University),
www.hmic.gov.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Anti-social_behaviour_2010/ASB_ACA_20100923.pdf.
Back
72
Ibid Back
| 
