This is a House of Commons Committee report, with recommendations to government. The Government has two months to respond.
This is the full report, read the report summary.
1. This is the second report1 of our inquiry into the National Disability Strategy.2 In this report we consider the adequacy of steps the Government is taking to improve the consumer experience of disabled people. We also reflect on the evidence we received on the extent to which businesses take account of the accessibility needs of disabled consumers when designing products and services. Online this may mean ensuring websites can be used by people with impaired vision, motor difficulties, cognitive impairments or learning disabilities, and deafness or impaired hearing. In the physical environment accessibility considerations will include ensuring buildings, services and products are designed or adapted so that they can be used by as many people as possible. Two specific areas in which witnesses raised concerns were the inaccessibility of flat bank cards and information on food packaging, both of which we consider below.
2. The National Disability Strategy—the Government’s long-term plan to improve the everyday lives of disabled people, published in July 2021—contains actions to address some of the common barriers disabled people face when shopping in person and online.3 Notable policies completed or in progress include strengthening guidance to local authorities and other organisations to make high streets more accessible, accelerating the delivery of Changing Places toilets4 in existing buildings, driving innovation in assistive technologies, and expanding the Disability and Access Ambassador programme to more sectors. The Government has also said it “believes there is scope to update building regulations guidance to improve accessibility and inclusive design for buildings other than dwellings, subject to consultation”.5 However, the Disability Action Plan (see below) did not outline any further information on this.
3. The Disability Action Plan published in February 2024—which is separate to the National Disability Strategy and outlines what the Government will do for the remainder of this Parliament—includes a commitment to “help businesses to understand the needs and deliver improvements for disabled people”.6 The Plan requires the Disability Unit, which sits in the Cabinet Office’s Equality Hub, to publish research on the accessibility of private sector products and services in spring 2024. It states, “this will provide more information about the accessibility of different sectors (including retail and leisure) and the end-to-end customer journey for disabled people.”7 It also commits the Disability Unit to improving its understanding of the barriers disabled consumers face, stating that “once complete, we will be better placed to develop policy options to address the barriers faced by disabled customers and improve customer experiences for disabled people.”8
4. Several policies in the National Disability Strategy were paused due to the High Court ruling the strategy unlawful in January 2022 (overturned in July 2023) and are yet to be implemented. Two of those policies were specific to improving consumer choice. The first was establishing an Extra Costs Taskforce by summer 2022—bringing together disabled people, regulators and businesses—to understand the extra costs of being disabled. This objective now appears to be downgraded from a firm commitment to something the Government will explore.9
5. The second policy to be paused was a commitment for the then Department for Digital, Culture Media and Sport to build the evidence base on the inaccessibility of private sector websites and to examine the case for legislative action. That commitment remains under review due to machinery of Government changes since the strategy was originally published.10 As we set out later in this report, the websites of many businesses currently fall short of what is required to make them accessible to disabled consumers.
6. There are an estimated 16 million disabled people in the UK.11 The combined spending power of households with at least one disabled person—known as the purple pound—is worth approximately £274 billion per year to the UK economy.12 During our inquiry we heard that, by failing to consider accessibility from the outset (inclusive design), businesses were underestimating the potential of the purple pound, resulting in lower revenues for them and limiting the choice available to disabled consumers.
7. A 2020 report by the digital agency Inviqa, based on research with over 100 professionals involved in creating digital products and services in the UK, revealed the most common barriers to inclusive design. Those were a lack of clear ownership within the organisation (43% of respondents), not having the right people or skills (16%) and finding it hard to justify the spend (11%).13 The report also found a lack of awareness and understanding within businesses on the scale of access needs: 73% were unable to identify how many people in the UK had a disability or impairment, while 81% were unaware of the value of the purple pound.14
8. Research has found that most sectors of the economy are losing money each month as a result of being inaccessible to disabled people, with banks or building societies (£935 million), supermarkets (£501 million) and high street shops (£267 million) among the worst performing.15 Vivienne Francis, Chief Social Change Officer at the Royal Institute of Blind People (RNIB), told us that disabled people, particularly those who were blind or partially sighted, “are an afterthought and you can see that playing out across packaging and financial services; in fact, some things [such as bank cards which we consider later], are becoming even less accessible”.16
9. The Inviqa report found that only 31% of companies had considered accessibility when researching customers’ needs, with just 19% factoring it into decisions on what products to build.17Eric Harris, Director of Inclusive Research at the Research Institute for Disabled Consumers, suggested that because most of the population were not registered disabled, businesses did not factor disability into their economic forecasts when bringing a product or service to market. As a result, “disability is considered at the end, not at the start”.18 Indeed, research has shown that senior decision makers might not prioritise inclusive design due to budgetary and time constraints, even though retrofitting (re-designing) a product could cost more time and money than if accessibility was considered from the start.19
10. We asked Tammy Jones, Managing Director at Purple—an organisation that works to improve accessibility for disabled consumers—what the alternatives were for disabled people who could not access websites or shop in person. She told us:
This is where the disadvantage becomes very visible. A disabled person has to work harder to find the alternative or the workaround. Sometimes they will have to compromise on the quality of their experience or on what they were intending to procure, purchase or consume. They will have to settle for less. Sometimes there is no workaround, and sometimes it is simply the case that they have missed out, and their experience has been compromised as a result of the physical and online accessibility not being right.20
11. We heard that many businesses needed to change their culture in order to benefit from the spending power of disabled people. Tammy Jones told us that “some organisations, despite how large they are, are not sure what accessibility really means.”21 She called for senior leaders and executive boards to prioritise accessibility and embed it within their organisation’s practices and culture, such as in the recruitment and retention of a diverse workforce:
it has been shown time and time again to be beneficial. If an organisation truly reflects its customer base within its staff and workforce, and within its culture, generally they have a better level of service, and disabled people will tend to be more loyal to those kinds of organisations and brands, because they see themselves reflected there.22
12. A 2018 study by consultancy firm Accenture found that firms that championed disability inclusion had higher revenues, net income and profit margins.23 The value of an inclusive approach by businesses when designing products and services can reach beyond simply increasing the customer base, however, as Eric Harris explained:
If companies see the value of disability in informing the design process and as a resource for design, not a burden on design, you end up with innovative creative solutions to problems that you would not get to otherwise. It is really about putting a different value on disability as something that is changing things for the positive—a process value, rather than an output value.24
13. The Government has appointed ‘Disability and Access Ambassadors’ to promote accessibility for disabled consumers and employees in various sectors of the economy.25 Examples of initiatives orchestrated by ambassadors include:
14. We heard from Angela Matthews, Head of Policy and Research at the Business Disability Forum, however, that the success of the ambassador programme was inconsistent because it depended on individual ambassadors telling the Government what work they wanted to do in their specific sectors rather than a coordinated approach. She suggested that, instead, the Government should provide a “consistent framework for what they want them (ambassadors) to achieve”. This would enable “products and services in those sectors that are represented by ambassadors to move together, rather than having a really inconsistent approach”.27 She explained that ambassadors could then provide vital feedback to the Government on the challenges their sectors faced:
That would indicate what is stopping improvement. Do we need legislation? Do we need more guidance? Is it primary legislation that is needed, or are the barriers sector-wide? In that case, as a colleague previously mentioned, there might be a case for an EHRC (Equality and Human Rights Commission) intervention, if a particular sector shows up as not moving or improving.28
15. The Disability Action Plan calls on the Disability Unit to publish research into the accessibility of private sector products and services in spring 2024 and to improve its understanding of the barriers disabled consumers face. It is right that policy options should be evidence-based However, despite the hold ups owing to legal proceedings, it is unacceptable that three years after the publication of the National Disability Strategy, rather than seeing tangible improvements in their lives, disabled consumers are instead left with further delay while waiting for the Government to undertake research, the need for which has long been recognised.
16. Not all businesses are considering the needs of disabled consumers when bringing products and services to the market. Where accessibility is considered, it is often done so retrospectively, as something to be bolted on to an existing design. Products and services should be inclusive by default. By not embracing inclusive design, businesses risk missing out on the spending power of disabled consumers and restricting the options available to them.
17. The Government should task the Disability and Access Ambassadors with engaging with businesses on inclusive design, to seek out and share best practice and to identify the barriers to making products and services in their sectors accessible to disabled people. The Government should then work with each sector to discuss relevant interventions and develop guidance on best practice.
18. Disabled people face additional costs in their daily lives. These costs are exacerbated by restrictions on their choice as consumers. We support the Government’s commitment in the National Disability Strategy to establish an Extra Costs Taskforce to better understand the extra costs faced by disabled people, including how this breaks down for different impairments. The Government originally planned to set up the taskforce by summer 2022. We recommend that the Government establish an Extra Costs Taskforce as a priority and by no later than summer 2024.
19. The 2019 Click Away Pound report, which analysed the experiences of people with access needs when shopping online, estimated that 7.15 million disabled internet users in the UK have access needs, an increase of more than 1 million since the first Click Away Pound report in 2016.29 However, the report found that 72% of people with access requirements experienced barriers on more than a quarter of websites they visited for the first time.30 The authors ranked the most common website issues that disabled people faced (see Table1 below). All respondents with access needs used some form of assistive technology, for example screen readers (52%), screen magnification (27%) and speech recognition software (23%).31 Vivienne Francis told us of the issues facing many blind and partially sighted consumers:
Even when people do have access to a screen reader, many websites are just not compatible with them and are therefore not accessible. Things like graphics and moving carousels are really difficult for blind and partially sighted people to understand and access. Obviously, it makes online shopping difficult as well.32
Table 1: Ranking of most-common website issues faced by all respondents to the Click Away Pound survey (including those using assistive technologies)33
|
Website issue |
2016 |
2019 |
|
Crowded pages with too much content |
67% |
66% |
|
reCAPTCHA tests |
n/a |
63% |
|
Poor link information and navigation |
61% |
59% |
|
Filling in forms |
58% |
56% |
|
Poor legibility (colour contrast and text layout) |
44% |
55% |
|
Distracting moving images and graphics |
44% |
53% |
|
Poor keyboard access |
45% |
42% |
|
Poor screen reader access |
49% |
35% |
|
Other |
26% |
19% |
Source: Rick Williams and Steve Brownlow, The Click-Away Pound Report 2019 (February 2020)
20. Respondents to a 2020 survey by the disability charity Scope reported being “annoyed,” “anxious,” “stressed” and “deflated” when they could not complete a task online due to a website’s inaccessibility.34 Simple tasks—such as shopping, banking and booking cinema tickets—left disabled people feeling “upset,” “angry” and “stupid”. One respondent said they felt “Isolated. Excluded. Alone. Frustrated. Unimportant to society.” Answers to the survey also suggested that badly designed websites made disabled people feel their disability was the problem and “more disabled” as a result.35
21. The coronavirus pandemic and subsequent lockdowns expedited the movement of services from in-person to online. Tammy Jones explained that this has had mixed results for some disabled people:
Whilst the pandemic has made things more accessible, because sometimes the built environment can be a challenge for some people with disabilities, what it has done is show that, actually, businesses and organisations are not quite as set up as they thought they were with their online spaces.36
22. In 2023, WebAIM, an organisation that examines web accessibility for individuals with disabilities, found that 96% of the 1 million most visited home pages did not meet accessibility standards.37 For example, 84% of home pages failed to provide low contrast text “which makes it almost impossible for some people with visual impairments to navigate them”.38 The WebAIM study also only focused on automatically detected errors, meaning that the actual conformance level to international Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) “was certainly lower.”39
23. WebAIM noted that addressing the most common problems “would significantly improve accessibility across the web”.40 Eric Harris agreed that if developers followed WCAG, they could resolve a lot of problems with websites being incompatible with assistive technologies. However, he observed that the guidance also suggested user testing rather than simply web-crawling—automatically browsing a website—to detect faults.41 While web-crawling might result in good WCAG scores, user testing would highlight different problems often caused by a lack of integration between websites and the assistive tools that disabled people used. Eric Harris continued, “there are lots of tools out there that you can plug into your computers to make them more accessible, but they do not always work; they are not integrated”.42
24. Several witnesses agreed that it would be easier “if website accessibility is designed from the start” rather than as an add-on at the end of the process.43 Angela Matthews told us that private sector businesses would welcome being subject to the same accessibility standards as the public sector. She argued that without the legislative drive, it was difficult for managers “to convince their senior leaders and board that they need to structure their organisation in a way that is fulfilling compliance”.44 She said:
Our private sector members are up for being included in all legislation. Because the private sector is being commissioned to deliver a lot of public services, they need to be in our legislation moving forward.45
25. Public sector websites in the UK must meet accessibility requirements under the Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) (No. 2) Accessibility Regulations 2018.46 The accessibility regulations build upon existing obligations to people who have a disability in the Equality Act 2010. Accessibility regulations also cover public sector mobile apps developed for use by the public. Legislation requires public sector bodies to provide and update an accessibility statement on their websites.47 Although companies should make reasonable adjustments for disabled people under the Equality Act 2010, unlike the public sector there are no specific regulations that require their websites and applications to conform to international web accessibility standards. The National Disability Strategy has recognised the “persistently poor accessibility of private sector websites”.48 However, as mentioned earlier in this report, the Government is yet to proceed with its commitment to address the issue.
26. Although there may not be a legislative impetus to improve the inclusiveness of website design in the private sector, there is an economic case to do so. The annual online spending power of disabled households to UK businesses is valued at £25 billion.49 Businesses are losing out on this potential revenue because their online services are not sufficiently inclusive. The 2019 Click Away Pound report found 69% (4.3 million) of disabled internet users clicked away from websites with accessibility barriers, representing a potentially significant loss of income to those sites.50 The report noted 83% of disabled people limited their online consumer choices to websites they knew were accessible.51 Tammy Jones told us that disabled people:
know quite quickly, or through having to navigate for their particular needs, which websites work for them and which ones are more accessible. Regardless of whether that ends up potentially costing them more money or whatever, they will use those websites instead and stick to them. With those websites that are not accessible, people will tend not to visit them again.52
27. Disabled people should not have to look for alternatives or settle for less when using online shopping and services. Despite the untapped potential of the purple pound, market forces have failed to drive the urgent improvements that are necessary.
28. Given that disabled people increasingly need access to online services, information, and social networks, it is imperative that the Government acts on what it has described as the “persistently poor accessibility of private sector websites” without further delay. As a priority, private sector websites and applications which provide essential products and services should be subject to the same regulations as the public sector. Concurrently, Ministers should work with businesses, the Disability and Access Ambassadors and Disabled People’s Organisations (DPOs) to lay the ground for legislative action across the other parts of the private sector. The Government should provide an update on its progress on this recommendation within six months of the publication of this report.
29. Disabled people face challenges in accessing banking products and services. In addition to problems associated with website inaccessibility—such as poor colour contrast between text and background and incompatibility with assistive technology—Vivienne Francis told us that many blind and partially sighted people felt “designed out” of financial services in other ways, such as with the introduction of flat bank cards and inaccessible automated teller machines (ATMs).53
30. Banks are phasing out the use of embossed bank cards—which are no longer necessary for creating carbon copies of bank details—and replacing them with flat cards. The RNIB described how flat bank cards affected many blind and partially sighted people’s ability to conduct financial tasks independently, especially in an increasingly cashless society. For example, without embossing, people struggled to differentiate between their bank card and other cards in their purse or wallet—which could lead to inputting the wrong PIN, having money deducted from the wrong account (when using contactless), and having cards and accounts blocked. All of these might cause confusion, waste time or incur charges.54 People were also unable to access important information crucial to making a transaction, such as their account number, sort code, expiry date and CVC number.55
31. Various banks and financial providers, such as Mastercard and Visa, have worked with the RNIB “to provide tactile solutions to the problems posed by flat bank cards to blind and partially sighted people”.56 For example, some debit and credit cards now have tactile indicators, such as a series of dots and/or notches, so customers can identify by touch the type of card they are using and which way around to insert it into a card machine or ATM. But there is a lack of consistent design across the sector.57
32. Inaccessible ATMs can also inhibit disabled people’s financial independence, for example by lacking wheelchair access or audio services.58 The RNIB noted that although data from LINK—an organisation that operates the majority of cashpoints in the UK—showed that only 36% of ATMs provided audio assistance, the number could be lower due to a lack of accessibility monitoring.59 A 2021 survey by the consumer organisation Which? found some banks lacked reliable data on the accessibility of their ATMs, which risked customers obtaining false information.60
33. The RNIB also suggested blind and partially sighted people struggled to access the audio services that did exist because of incompatible software updates and faulty headphone sockets, some of which were difficult to locate on different machines. Other problems included the font size, contrast, touch screens, and ATMs being located in places that were either too dark or too bright for people with visual impairments.61 Vivienne Francis told us the above barriers meant people might need to ask for help, “which obviously leaves them open to financial abuse as well.”62
34. Several banks and financial providers have innovated to make their services accessible to blind and partially sighted customers, such as issuing debit and credit cards with tactile indicators. However, this is not standard practice across the banking sector as providers continue to phase out embossed cards. We are also concerned that not all banks properly consider the needs of disabled people in the provision of ATMs. The Financial Conduct Authority should work with the retail banking sector and organisations such as the RNIB to ensure all banks embrace inclusive design from the outset when innovating or phasing out existing services. We recommend that all banks:
35. The RNIB raised another important concern with us which typically affects blind and partially sighted consumers, around the inaccessibility of obtaining information from food packaging.63 Some 90% of the blind and partially sighted people included in RNIB’s research in 2015 said that packaging was difficult or impossible to read.64 As a result, the RNIB argued that many people were unable to access important product information such as nutritional value, cooking instructions, allergens and price information, all of which limit the products disabled shoppers can purchase.65 Vivienne Francis told us “there is a lack of guidance around areas like accessible packaging, which we are not even sure are covered by the Equality Act”.66 Indeed, current guidance on food labelling provides no information on how to make it accessible to people with sight loss or other visual disabilities.67
36. We note there are new technologies and tools to increase the accessibility of food labelling. For example, several manufacturers have incorporated NaviLens into packaging designs so blind and partially sighted customers can access necessary information easily. Anyone with a smartphone can use the NaviLens application to scan optical codes on products by pointing their phone camera in the general direction they want to scan.68
37. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs should review its food packaging guidance in light of new technological approaches being developed and ensure a minimum accessibility requirement on food packaging’s essential nutrition, health and pricing information.
1. The Disability Action Plan calls on the Disability Unit to publish research into the accessibility of private sector products and services in spring 2024 and to improve its understanding of the barriers disabled consumers face. It is right that policy options should be evidence-based However, despite the hold ups owing to legal proceedings, it is unacceptable that three years after the publication of the National Disability Strategy, rather than seeing tangible improvements in their lives, disabled consumers are instead left with further delay while waiting for the Government to undertake research, the need for which has long been recognised. (Paragraph 15)
2. Not all businesses are considering the needs of disabled consumers when bringing products and services to the market. Where accessibility is considered, it is often done so retrospectively, as something to be bolted on to an existing design. Products and services should be inclusive by default. By not embracing inclusive design, businesses risk missing out on the spending power of disabled consumers and restricting the options available to them. (Paragraph 16)
3. The Government should task the Disability and Access Ambassadors with engaging with businesses on inclusive design, to seek out and share best practice and to identify the barriers to making products and services in their sectors accessible to disabled people. The Government should then work with each sector to discuss relevant interventions and develop guidance on best practice. (Paragraph 17)
4. Disabled people face additional costs in their daily lives. These costs are exacerbated by restrictions on their choice as consumers. We support the Government’s commitment in the National Disability Strategy to establish an Extra Costs Taskforce to better understand the extra costs faced by disabled people, including how this breaks down for different impairments. The Government originally planned to set up the taskforce by summer 2022. We recommend that the Government establish an Extra Costs Taskforce as a priority and by no later than summer 2024. (Paragraph 18)
5. Disabled people should not have to look for alternatives or settle for less when using online shopping and services. Despite the untapped potential of the purple pound, market forces have failed to drive the urgent improvements that are necessary. (Paragraph 27)
6. Given that disabled people increasingly need access to online services, information, and social networks, it is imperative that the Government acts on what it has described as the “persistently poor accessibility of private sector websites” without further delay. As a priority, private sector websites and applications which provide essential products and services should be subject to the same regulations as the public sector. Concurrently, Ministers should work with businesses, the Disability and Access Ambassadors and Disabled People’s Organisations (DPOs) to lay the ground for legislative action across the other parts of the private sector. The Government should provide an update on its progress on this recommendation within six months of the publication of this report. (Paragraph 28)
7. Several banks and financial providers have innovated to make their services accessible to blind and partially sighted customers, such as issuing debit and credit cards with tactile indicators. However, this is not standard practice across the banking sector as providers continue to phase out embossed cards. We are also concerned that not all banks properly consider the needs of disabled people in the provision of ATMs. (Paragraph 34)
8. The Financial Conduct Authority should work with the retail banking sector and organisations such as the RNIB to ensure all banks embrace inclusive design from the outset when innovating or phasing out existing services. We recommend that all banks:
9. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs should review its food packaging guidance in light of new technological approaches being developed and ensure a minimum accessibility requirement on food packaging’s essential nutrition, health and pricing information. (Paragraph 37)
Caroline Nokes, in the Chair
Dame Jackie Doyle-Price
Kim Johnson
Lia Nici
Kirsten Oswald
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Draft Report (Accessibility of products and services to disabled people), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph. Paragraphs 1 to 37 read and agreed to.
Summary agreed to.
Resolved, That the Report be the Fourth Report of the Committee to the House.
Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.
Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 134.
Adjourned till Wednesday 20 March at 2.00pm.
The following witnesses gave evidence. Transcripts can be viewed on the inquiry publications page of the Committee’s website.
Fazilet Hadi, Head of Policy, Disability Rights UK; Svetlana Kotova, Director of Campaigns and Justice, Inclusion London; Lord Shinkwin, Chair (2020–2021), The Centre for Social Justice Disability CommissionQ1–14
Martin McLean, Senior Policy Advisor, National Deaf Children’s Society; Fran Springfield, Co-Chair, Chronic Illness Inclusion; Nil Güzelgün, Policy and Campaigns Manager, MINDQ15–32
Tim Nicholls, Head of Influencing & Research, National Autistic Society; Maya Stretton, Young Ambassador, National Autistic Society; Jackie O’Sullivan, Executive Director of Communications, Advocacy & Activism, The Royal Mencap Society; Ciara Lawrence, Engagement Lead, The Royal Mencap SocietyQ33–59
George Appleton, Head of Policy, Care England; Jim Blair, Consultant Nurse and Associate Professor (Hon), Learning DisabilitiesQ60–79
Angela Matthews, Head of Policy and Research, Business Disability Forum; Tammy Jones, Managing Director, Purple; Eric Harris, Director of Inclusive Research, Research Institute for Disabled Consumers; Vivienne Francis, Chief Social Change Officer, Royal National Institute for Blind PeopleQ80–113
Tom Pursglove MP, Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, Department for Work and Pensions; Maria Caulfield MP, Minister for Mental Health and Women’s Health Strategy, Department of Health and Social Care; David Nuttall, Deputy Director of Neurodiversity, Diversity and Learning Disability, Department of Health and Social Care; Marcus Bell, Director of the Equality Hub, Cabinet Office; Jennifer Heigham, Deputy Director for Strategy and Briefing for Work and Health Unit, Department for Work and PensionsQ114–182
The following written evidence was received and can be viewed on the inquiry publications page of the Committee’s website.
NDS numbers are generated by the evidence processing system and so may not be complete.
1 Anonymised (NDS0009)
2 Anonymised (NDS0007)
3 Anonymised (NDS0008)
4 Anonymised (NDS0002)
5 Blair, Jim (NDS0043)
6 Bouhfadi , Mrs Vanessa (NDS0004)
7 British Psychological Society (NDS0016)
8 Care England (NDS0014)
9 Central YMCA (NDS0031)
10 Cresswell-Plant, John (NDS0038)
11 Culverwell, Mrs Teresa (Carer) (NDS0005)
12 Cystic Fibrosis Trust (NDS0025)
13 Dance Syndrome (NDS0042)
14 Disability Charities Consortium (NDS0024)
15 Disability Rights UK (NDS0021)
16 Equality and Human Rights Commission (NDS0039)
17 Family Fund (NDS0019)
18 Harris, Eric (NDS0044)
19 Healthwatch Solihull (NDS0006)
20 Inclusion Gloucestershire and Barnwood Trust (NDS0029)
21 Inclusion London (NDS0030)
22 Liberation (NDS0034)
23 Mencap (NDS0027)
24 Muscular Dystrophy UK and SMA UK (NDS0028)
25 National Association of Disabled Staff Networks (NADSN) (NDS0011)
26 National Autistic Society (NDS0022)
27 National Deaf Children’s Society (NDS0040)
28 National Deaf Children’s Society (NDS0036)
29 Nethercot, Patrick (NDS0003)
30 New Bold Hope (NDS0045)
31 Pryer-Vaz, Mrs Rosie (Parent, carer and landlady) (NDS0018)
32 Royal National Institute for Blind People (RNIB) (NDS0046)
33 Sharp (NDS0020)
34 Shaw Trust (NDS0015)
35 The British Toilet Association Ltd (NDS0035)
36 The Challenging Behaviour Foundation (NDS0037)
37 The Trades Union Congress (The TUC) (NDS0017)
38 United Response (NDS0033)
39 Voluntary Organisations Disability Group (VODG) (NDS0023)
40 Whizz-Kidz (NDS0010)
41 Working Together with Parents Network - University of Bristol (NDS0013)
42 Zeyen, Dr. Anica (Senior Lecturer in Entrepreneurship and Sustainability, Royal Holloway University of London); and Branzei, Professor Oana (Professor of Strategy, Ivey Business School) (NDS0026)
All publications from the Committee are available on the publications page of the Committee’s website.
|
Number |
Title |
Reference |
|
1st |
The National Disability Strategy |
HC 34 |
|
2nd |
Misogyny in music |
HC 129 |
|
3rd |
Health barriers for girls and women in sport |
HC 130 |
|
1st Special |
Attitudes towards women and girls in educational settings: Government, Ofsted and Office for Students responses to the Committee’s Fifth Report of Session 2022–23 |
HC 258 |
|
2nd Special |
The National Disability Strategy: Government Response to the Committee’s First Report |
HC 563 |
|
Number |
Title |
Reference |
|
1st |
Menopause and the Workplace |
HC 91 |
|
2nd |
The rights of cohabiting partners |
HC 92 |
|
3rd |
Black maternal health |
HC 94 |
|
4th |
Equality and the UK asylum process |
HC 998 |
|
5th |
Attitudes towards women and girls in educational settings |
HC 331 |
|
6th |
So-called honour-based abuse |
HC 831 |
|
1st Special |
Ethnicity pay gap reporting: Government response to the Committee’s fourth report of session 2021–22 |
HC 110 |
|
2nd Special |
Equality in the heart of democracy: A gender sensitive House of Commons: responses to the Committee’s fifth report of session 2021–22 |
HC 417 |
|
3rd Special |
The rights of cohabiting partners: Government response to the Committee’s second report |
HC 766 |
|
4th Special |
Menopause and the workplace: Government response to the Committee’s first report |
HC 1060 |
|
5th Special |
Black maternal health: Government Response to the Committee’s Third Report |
HC 1611 |
|
6th Special |
So-called honour-based abuse: Government response to the Committee’s Sixth Report |
HC 1821 |
|
7th Special |
Equality and the UK asylum process: Government response to the Committee’s Fourth Report |
HC 1825 |
|
Number |
Title |
Reference |
|
1st |
Levelling Up and equality: a new framework for change |
HC 702 |
|
2nd |
Appointment of the Chair of the Social Mobility Commission: Katharine Birbalsingh CBE |
HC 782 |
|
3rd |
Reform of the Gender Recognition Act |
HC 977 |
|
4th |
Ethnicity pay gap reporting |
HC 998 |
|
5th |
Equality in the heart of democracy: A gender sensitive House of Commons |
HC 131 |
|
Number |
Title |
Reference |
|
1st |
Unequal impact? Coronavirus, disability and access to services: interim Report on temporary provisions in the Coronavirus Act |
HC 386 |
|
2nd |
Appointment of the Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission |
HC 966 |
|
3rd |
Unequal impact? Coronavirus and BAME people |
HC 384 |
|
4th |
Unequal impact? Coronavirus, disability and access to services: full Report |
HC 1050 |
|
5th |
Unequal impact? Coronavirus and the gendered economic impact |
HC 385 |
|
6th |
Changing the perfect picture: an inquiry into body image |
HC 274 |
1 Our first report, The National Disability Strategy, was published 6 December 2023. Our third report will focus on the inequalities that people with learning disabilities and autism face.
2 Following a call for evidence, the Committee published 42 written submissions, including evidence from disabled people’s organisations (DPOs); charities; disabled people and carers; the Equality and Human Rights Commission; and other stakeholders such as Trade Union representatives, academics, and professional organisations. The then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions wrote to the Committee on 18 July 2022 to notify MPs that the Government would not submit evidence on the terms of reference, citing an ongoing legal dispute over the strategy and its consultation process. In consultation with Mr Speaker, the Chair waived the sub-judice rules on legal cases to ensure other organisations and individuals could speak freely. The Committee held 4 oral evidence sessions between 29 March and 5 July 2023 with disabled people, DPOs, charities, and the Minister for Disabled People Health and Work, Tom Pursglove MP and the Minister for Mental Health and Women’s Health Strategy, Maria Caulfield MP. In addition the Committee undertook two visits in June 2023: Oslo, Norway, to examine how another country is implementing a disability strategy; and to the Hamelin Trust, a charity for people with learning disabilities, in Billericay, in June 2022 to speak to people with lived experience.
3 Disability Unit, Equality Hub, Department for Work and Pensions, National Disability Strategy, CP 512, July 2021
4 Changing Places Toilets enable anyone, regardless of their disability, to go to the shops, attend hospital appointments, enjoy community life, socialise and travel.
5 Disability Unit, Equality Hub, Disability Action Plan 2023 to 2024: consultation document, 18 July 2023.
6 Disability Unit, Equality Hub, Disability Action Plan, CP 1014, 5 February 2024
7 Ibid
8 Ibid
9 Disability Unit, Equality Hub, Disability Action Plan, 5 February 2024.
10 DEP2023–0744, 18 September 2023
11 Department for Work and Pensions, Family Resources Survey: financial year 2021 to 2022 (23 March 2023)
12 Scope, ‘Accessibility and disability: UK research and statistics’, accessed 21 December 2023
13 Inviqa, Digital accessibility: achieving great CX for all (2020) p 14
14 Ibid, p 15
15 See wearepurple.org.uk, ‘The Purple Pound - Infographic’, accessed 18 December 2023. The breakdown is estimated as: High street shops—£267 million; restaurants, pubs and clubs—£163 million; supermarkets—£501 million; energy companies—£44 million; phone/internet providers—£49 million; transport providers—£42 million; banks or building societies—£935 million.
16 Q90
17 Inviqa, Digital accessibility: achieving great CX for all (2020) p 19
18 Q85
19 Mieczakowski, A et al, Inclusive Design and the Bottom Line: How Can Its Value Be Proven to Decision Makers?. In: Stephanidis, C., Antona, M. (eds) Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Design Methods, Tools, and Interaction Techniques for eInclusion (2013)
20 Q112
21 Q101 [Tammy Jones]
22 Q101
23 Accenture, Getting to equal: the disability inclusion advantage (2018)
24 Q91
25 Disability Unit, List of Disability and Access Ambassadors, 28 July 2021
26 Disability Unit, Equality Hub, Department for Work and Pensions, National Disability Strategy, CP 512, July 2021
27 Q88
28 Ibid
29 Rick Williams and Steve Brownlow, The Click-Away Pound Report 2019: Revisiting the online shopping experience of customers with disabilities, and the cost to business of ignoring them (February 2020) p 5
30 Ibid, p 14
31 Ibid p 17
32 Q99
33 Respondents could choose more than one answer. The 2019 survey added reCAPTCHA tests to the list of options for the first time.
34 Scope, ‘Research: frustrated, the ‘F’ word of inaccessibility’, accessed 14 February 2024
35 Ibid
36 Q92
37 WebAIM, ‘The WebAIM Million, The 2023 report on the accessibility of the top 1,000,000 home pages’, accessed 14 February 2024
38 Q102 [Tammy Jones]
39 WebAIM, ‘The WebAIM Million, The 2023 report on the accessibility of the top 1,000,000 home pages’, accessed 14 February 2024
40 Ibid
41 Q100
42 Ibid
43 Qq100, 108
44 Q107
45 Q107
46 Made Sis: The Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) (No. 2) Accessibility Regulations 2018, (2018 No. 952)
47 Central Digital and Data Office, Understanding accessibility requirements for public sector bodies, 9 May 2018
48 Disability Unit, Equality Hub, Department for Work and Pensions, National Disability Strategy, CP 512, July 2021
49 Scope, Accessibility and disability: UK research and statistics, accessed 29 February 2024
50 Rick Williams and Steve Brownlow, The Click-Away Pound Report 2019: Revisiting the online shopping experience of customers with disabilities, and the cost to business of ignoring them (February 2020) p 6
51 Ibid
52 Q111
53 Q104
54 Royal National Institute for the Blind (NDS0046)
55 Ibid
56 Ibid
57 See for example, Mastercard, ‘Mastercard introduces accessible card for blind and partially sighted people’, accessed 14 February 2024; RNIB, ‘RNIB works with Nationwide to create accessible cards’, accessed 14 February 2024
58 Which?, ‘Banks failing to support disabled customers’, accessed 14 February 2024
59 Royal National Institute for the Blind (NDS0046)
60 Which?, ‘Banks failing to support disabled customers’, accessed 14 February 2024
61 Royal National Institute for the Blind (NDS0046)
62 Q104
63 Royal National Institute for the Blind (NDS0046)
64 RNIB, My Voice 2015, The views and experiences of blind and partially sighted people in the UK (November 2016)
65 Royal National Institute for the Blind (NDS0046)
66 Q86
67 Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, Food Standards Agency, Food labelling: giving food information to consumers, 27 April 2015