4 The Government's approach to implementing
the UNCRPD |
70. Since the United Kingdom ratified the UNCRPD
in June 2009, much of the legal, policy, administrative and financial
architecture underpinning the right to live independently and
be included in the community has undergone, or is undergoing,
significant reform. This chapter will examine the approach the
Government have taken to developing and implementing relevant
reforms and spending decisions and the role the UNCRPD has played,
with particular reference to the General Obligations in Article
4 of the Convention.
Protecting and promoting the
right to independent living
71. Implementation of the right to live independently
and be included in the community involves the design, implementation,
coordination and maintenance of a complex array of legal duties
and entitlements, benefits services and social and environmental
conditions. A wide range of actors need to be engaged at both
local and national level, across different sectors. In evidence
to us, the Equality and Human Rights Commission explained Article
19 as focussing on "the development of living options and
all associated support services or mechanisms which cumulatively
accord disabled people equal opportunities to be included and
to participate as fully as they wish in the community."
72. As a consequence, implementation of Article 19
demands a strategic and "joined-up" approach. The National
Centre for Independent Living likened support for disabled people
to a house of cards, where removing one card caused them all to
collapse. They argued that the closure of the Independent Living
Fund was an example of this. They cited the case of a woman who,
while still receiving a consistent level of support from the local
authority, no longer received the ILF part of her support. This
resulted in her life being "very restricted".
Independent Living in Scotland cited the case of someone who
could not get funding for a ramp or a wheelchair, and so was unable
to leave her house: "what use is an accessible bus if you
cannot get out of your house to get to it?".
73. The College of Occupational Therapists Specialist
Section-Housing told us that "the areas of legislation and
practice guidance affecting the housing situation and rights of
disabled people are multi-factored, and removing such legislation,
or elements of it, under the banner of reducing regulation burdens,
supporting localism or cutting general public sector costs runs
the risk of substantially reducing the rights of disabled people
to independent living through the possibly unintended consequences
of interacting cumulative impacts."
74. The nature
of independent living strongly suggests the need for coordinated
strategy and action at the national and local level, both cross-departmentally,
between the different levels of government, and with non-governmental
actors, and for careful consideration of both the independent
and cumulative impacts of policy and legislative reform and public
75. We recommend
that the Government consider provision of the means to independent
living in the round. The complex interconnections between services
and benefits mean that changes to one service or benefit may have
unintended consequences for anotherand for the overall
level of outcomes achieved. For instance, changes to housing provision
may have significant impacts on the accessibility of healthcare,
transport, support networks and other rights and opportunities.
Independent Living Strategy:
its effectiveness, and plans for the future
76. Although the Independent Living Strategy (ILS)
was an important milestone on the way to establishing independent
living at the heart of policy making, the use made of the strategy
77. The National Centre for Independent Living told
us that the aims of the strategy were fully supported by the organisations
they represented. However, they expressed concern over implementation
and the fact that, as far as they were aware, the Independent
Living Strategy was "currently lying in someone's in-tray
waiting for a decision about whether it will be picked up and
further work done on it."
78. Tim Cooper, head of the ODI at the time he gave
evidence, said: "One important part of the Independent Living
Strategy was getting wider recognition of independent living being
not just about where you live but about all the changes to society
and the support services that helped you to live a fulfilled and
independent life [...] There is probably more that we can do to
help them to understand that, if they change one area of policy
in their department, there may be knock-on effects for a sister
department down the road. That kind of brokerage is part of ODI's
79. Scope agreed that the Strategy was an important
milestone, but criticised it for not addressing independent living
as a human rights issue.
RNIB and Action for Blind People argued that the ILS no longer
appeared the best tool for implementing Article 19 obligations.
They suggested that the ILS needed "resuscitation".
80. However, the Social Care Institute for Excellence
argued that the failure was in implementation rather than in the
policy documentation, that the gap between policy and real people's
experiences could be filled by "assiduous day-to-day application
of the policies" and that the right to independent living
should be made legally enforceable at the individual level.
81. In the light of these comments, we asked the
Minister for Disabled People about the future of the ILS. She
said that the new Disability Strategy would build on the ILS,
and would take "the UN Convention as a starting point".
82. We welcome
the commitment made by the Minister for Disabled People that the
UNCRPD will provide the basis of the forthcoming Disability Strategy.
We expect the Disability Strategy to be robust, targeted and deliverable,
and co-produced with disabled people. It should cover all aspects
of the Convention, including the right to independent living,
and be specific in terms of how it delivers the Convention articles
in order to aid measurement and transparency. The implementation
process should include clear milestones, monitored by an independent
Coordinating implementation of
the Convention across government departments and the devolved
83. Article 33 of the UNCRPD requires States to implement
a domestic framework to implement and monitor the Convention.
This includes the designation of "one or more focal points"
within government and encourages the designation of a "coordination
mechanism" within government to "facilitate related
action in different sectors and at different levels". In
response to UN Human Rights Council Resolution 10/7, Human
rights of persons with disabilities: national frameworks for the
promotion and protection of the rights of persons with disabilities,
the previous Government advised that the Office for Disability
Issues was both the focal point and the coordinating mechanism
within the United Kingdom Government. It went on to say that "in
the United Kingdom, some policy areas are now the responsibility
of the Devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland. The ODI will therefore work with focal points in each
of those Administrations on issues around implementation, monitoring
84. The UK response placed particular emphasis on
the following mechanisms: "The ODI works with the Minister
for Disabled People and with a cross-Government Ministerial group.
ODI is overseen by the Disability Equality Delivery Board which
is made up of senior officials from a range of other Government
Departments. The Board also has three external members who bring
expertise from outside Government and represent the specific experiences
of disabled people of all ages and bring useful information to
the decision making of the Board. The Board reports to the Improving
the Life chances of Disabled People Ministerial Group, which is
chaired by the Minister for Disabled People."
85. Tim Cooper, of the Office for Disability Issues,
said that ODI had worked with Departments to ensure they were
aware of the provisions of the Convention.
He pointed to the Right to Control initiative as having brought
together the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department
of Health and the Department for Communities and Local Government,
as well as local authorities.
However, he suggested that there was a need to embed the ethos
of the Independent Living Strategy in individual departmental
86. The Minister for Disabled People highlighted
contact with the devolved administrations: "even in areas
like DWP where we have benefit and employment policies which are
not devolved: we still work together on areas where we can join
up our policy".
However, the Minister for Care Services told us that the Department
of Health did not dictate to the devolved administrations how
they should be discharging their duties in terms of the Convention.
Article 4 of the UNCRPD makes clear that "the provisions
of the present Convention shall extend to all parts of federal
States without any limitations or exceptions", but it does
not offer any guidance as to how conformity with the Convention
should be achieved across devolved or "federal" government.
Any adverse finding by the UNCRPD Committee regarding failure
to implement Article 19 would relate to the UK as a whole, even
if the failure related to the jurisdiction of just one nation
within the UK.
87. Although responsibility for the UNCRPD resides
with the State (the United Kingdom) most of the measures required
to make the rights under Article 19 practicable and real will
be implemented by local or devolved rather than national government.
Article 4 requires States "to ensure that public authorities
and institutions act in conformity with the present Convention".
The Convention does not specify the means by which such conformity
should be achieved. Nevertheless, it clearly implies an obligation
of conduct, and the Government should be able to explain the means
by which they comply with this requirement and how the arrangements
for such compliance achieve their "obligations of result".
The delegation of powers by central government to devolved or
local government to take decisions regarding the allocation of
resources relevant to the realisation of Article 19 does not amount
to a delegation of responsibility to ensure the progressive realisation
of the Article (or other Articles in the Convention).
88. While we
acknowledge that the Government should not seek to direct the
devolved authorities or local authorities in the exercise of their
powers, the UK Government should acknowledge their responsibilities
under the Convention to ensure its implementation across the whole
of the UK. Ultimately, the repercussions of any breach of the
Convention will rest with the UK Government.
89. We recommend
that the Office for Disability Issues updates and expands upon
its response to Human rights of persons with disabilities:
national frameworks for the promotion and protection of the rights
of persons with disabilities, explaining its approach
to coordinating implementation of the Convention across Whitehall,
the devolved administrations, public authorities and other sectors.
This could usefully be done in the context of the forthcoming
Implementation of the right to
independent living by the devolved administrations
90. The devolved administrations have each taken
their own approach to implementing the right to independent living.
In Scotland, the Scottish Government, the Convention of Scottish
Local Authorities (COSLA) and Independent Living in Scotland issued
in 2009 the joint statement "Independent LivingA Shared
aims to ensure that disabled people across Scotland will have
equality of opportunity at home and work, in education and in
the social and civic life of the community, based on the principles
of choice, control, freedom and dignity. During the course of
our inquiry the Welsh Government announced that it would develop
a framework for independent living in Wales.
Northern Ireland does not appear to have made progress on developing
a strategy of its own. The independent mechanisms for Northern
Ireland (Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and Northern
Ireland Human Rights Commission) told us that the Promoting Social
Inclusion Disability Working Group (PSI Working Group)
reported to the NI Executive in December 2009 recommending that
the NI Executive undertake a review of independent living and
place it at the centre of its focus on disability issues. The
NI Executive has not responded to this.
91. We were made aware several times in evidence
that the situation in Northern Ireland presented complications
because the Equality Act 2010 does not apply there. One particular
difference between disability legislation in Northern Ireland
and the rest of the UK stems from the 2008 decision of the House
of Lords in Malcolm v LB Lewisham
which overturned the "disability-related less favourable
treatment" principle, which still stands in Northern Ireland.
In the rest of the UK, section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 reintroduced
the principle through the provision of "discrimination arising
92. The Equality and Human Rights Commission told
us that it was "not sure that each of the devolved Governments
has necessarily realised that there is a right of independent
Equality Commission for Northern Ireland argued that people in
Northern Ireland were disadvantaged relative to those in Great
Britain and that
it was entirely within the competence of the Northern Ireland
Executive and Assembly to amend the disability legislation in
the way that has been done in Great Britain.
93. We commend
the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government for their respective
plans to promote independent living. We note with disappointment
the lack so far of an equivalent strategy in Northern Ireland.
It is regrettable that the Northern Ireland Executive has not
yet responded to the proposals of the PSI Working Group made in
94. The Northern
Ireland Equality Act should be amended to address the effects
of the House of Lords judgment in Malcolm v Lewisham, ensuring
parity of protection between disabled people in Northern Ireland
Ensuring that public authorities
comply with the Convention
95. For some, the advent of localism and changes
to the specific duties in England under the Equality Act 2010
call into question the extent to which the independent living
agenda can be carried out effectively at the local level. In
England, the specific duties related to the Public Sector Equality
Duty no longer explicitly require public authorities to carry
out equality impact assessments or to involve disabled people
in the process of meeting the Duty, unlike the predecessor Disability
Equality Duty. Many witnesses reported a lack of joined-up thinking
and a lack of awareness at local level of independent living and
96. The Local Government Group told us that the joining
up of individual initiatives had not worked as well as it might,
and that "the best way to improve locally is to ensure local
government involves users of services as much as possible in the
design of those services".
Their representative, Bob Collins, said the lack of cross-cutting
thinking at both national and local level had been his "greatest
frustration" during his time as a councillor. However, he
argued that the situation was improving and that councils were
better at linking different services than Government.
Scope told us that "Government and local authorities have
a very mixed approach on their understanding of independent living
[...] people from a health background particularly find it more
difficult to understand the social barriers".
97. Witnesses were concerned about the impact that
localism might have on the consistency of service provision.
Housing Options and National Development Team for inclusion (NDTi)
said that, in the absence of national performance indicators and
a lack of clear entitlement to housing and care there was a risk
of localism resulting in a "postcode lottery".
The RNID were concerned that different local authorities would
adopt different priorities for delivery of social care,
while MENCAP argued that localism, in conjunction with reductions
in local authority budgets, would result in non-statutory services
98. Scope argued that, in the social care context,
there was a danger that localism might result in fragmented provision
and lack of effective scrutiny. They were particularly concerned
that no mechanism was in place to ensure that the extra £2
billion of un-ring-fenced funding, announced in the 2010 Comprehensive
Spending Review, would be spent on social care.
99. Many of our witnesses suggested that there was
a lack of awareness of the Convention among service providers.
The Surrey Coalition of Disabled People argued that the Government
should legislate to ensure that public bodies received mandatory
awareness training. The
Wallsall Alliance for Independent Living recommended that the
Government should take steps to ensure that civil society in general
was aware of its obligations under the Convention.
100. We are
unclear how the Government are meeting their obligation to ensure
compliance with the Convention by public authorities, especially
in the light of localism and changes to specific duties in England
under the Equality Act 2010.
101. The Government,
led by the ODI, should work with others including the devolved
administrations, the independent mechanisms, regulators and disabled
people's organisations to promote awareness and understanding
of the Convention among public authorities, especially local government,
and to monitor its implementation.
102. Article 4(1)(c) of the Convention requires states
to take account of the impact of policy on disabled people. "Quick
start guidance" from the Home Office states that the English
specific duties under the Equality Act 2010 "do not require
public bodies to prepare or publish equality schemes, equality
action plans, equality impact assessments, or separate annual
reports on equality".
In Wales and Northern Ireland public authorities continue to be
required to conduct equality impact assessments. Scotland has
yet to finalise its specific duties, but the Scottish Government's
consultation indicates its intention to retain the requirement.
103. Karen Ashton, of Public Law Solicitors, suggested
that there was a conceptual misunderstanding in the Government's
thinking about the new public sector equality duty and specific
duties, arguing that the public sector equality duty was by its
nature an extremely important process duty. Reducing the bureaucracy
involved did not necessarily improve its effectiveness.
104. Witnesses criticised the quality of equality
impact assessments of recent legislation.
RNIB and Action for Blind People discussed the proposal to remove
the DLA mobility payment as a threat to Article 19 and the Independent
Living Strategy which yet nonetheless "seemed to pass through
any screening process [...] The proposal was accompanied by an
Equality Impact Assessment but there now appears to be very little
reference, if any at all, to the aims of the Independent Living
105. Others noted the absence of any consideration
of human rights in impact assessments. Disability Alliance criticised
consultation exercises for a general lack of reference to the
Convention, arguing that this pointed to a lack of awareness among
policy makers of its requirements.
We note that the Government have given a "clear commitment"
to Parliament that it will give due consideration to the UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child Articles when making new policy and
legislation, and in so doing will always consider the recommendations
of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, but that no equivalent
commitment has been given to Parliament in relation to the UN
Disabilities Convention. 
106. The Scottish Human Rights Commission told us
that the development of an integrated human rights and equality
impact assessment would provide a means to ensure that the rights
of disabled people were taken into account. They also suggested
that a fully participatory impact assessment process would "ensure
that the cumulative impacts of a range of different policies and
programmes rather than their discrete impacts can be understood
through the lived experiences of individuals."
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Rt Hon
Kenneth Clarke MP, indicated his willingness to consider the impact
assessment methodology being developed by the Scottish Human Rights
Commission to see if it holds any useful lessons for Whitehall
departments in the way in which they assess the human rights impact
of laws and policies.
107. In evidence to us, Ministers defended the Government's
use of impact assessments. The Minister for Disabled People told
us that the Government had:
"published a full impact assessment in April
2011 around the housing benefit changes [...] That included the
impact on disabled people. The way we considered the Article
19 requirements in terms of independent living was part of that
full impact assessment. It was clear from the impact assessment
that there was impact across the board on people, but that that
did not disadvantage any particular group".
"We have had that impact assessment looked
at, at a judicial level, and it was found to be a very fair and
correct way of assessing the needs".
The Minster for Care Services said that "in
terms of social care, we had an extensive debate about the impacts
of inadequate funding of social care [...]".
108. In our legislative scrutiny Report on the Welfare
Reform Bill we noted criticisms of the impact assessment process
for that Bill. Equality impact assessments were not published
by the Government until the Bill was in Committee in the Commons,
and, while equality impact assessments have now been published
for distinct parts of the Bill, these do not attempt to assess
the cumulative impacts of multiple provisions in the Bill on particular
groups with protected characteristics. This is of concern, since
at least some individuals will experience these changes cumulatively,
and their impact needs to be understood in this way. For example,
a disabled person may find that they lose their lower rate DLA,
and therefore become subject to a cap on their housing benefit
such that they cannot afford to remain in their home. Moving may
disrupt informal patterns of care and support at the same time
as they have increased reliance on these supports.
109. The Equality and Human Rights Commission suggested
that, when the UN Expert Committee on the UNCRPD examines the
UK's implementation of the Convention ,"a failure to be able
to demonstrate having accounted for the likely cumulative impact
of policy and spending decisions may leave the Government exposed
to serious criticism".
110. We are
concerned that the UNCRPD, and Article 19 in particular, does
not appear to have played a central role in the development of
policy. Inadequate attention has been paid to the impact of relevant
policy on the implementation of the UNCRPD, in contravention of
Article 4(1) and 4(3). We recommend that the Government make a
clear and unequivocal commitment to Parliament, equivalent to
that which it has already given in relation to the UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child, that they will give due consideration
to the articles in the UN Disabilities Convention when making
new policy and legislation, and in doing so will always consider
relevant recommendations of the UN treaty monitoring bodies.
if properly carried out, equality impact assessments provide an
important mechanism through which to ensure policy achieves desired
goals and avoids unintended consequences, and help to demonstrate
transparency and accountability. We recommend that they should
be produced early in the policy-making process with the full involvement
of those likely to be affected by the policy.
112. Given the
breadth of the current reforms, the Government should publish
a unified assessment of the likely cumulative impact of the proposals
on independent living, and set out any relevant mitigations through
the Disability Strategy. The relevant strategies in the devolved
administrations should also include such mitigation plans.
113. We regret
the exclusion from the English specific duties under the new Public
Sector Equality Duty of the requirement to conduct equality impact
assessments. The Government should either revise the duties accordingly,
or promote equality impact assessments as a matter of good practice,
with the assistance of other expert bodies such as the Equality
and Human Rights Commission, Scottish Human Rights Commission,
Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland
Human Rights Commission. We
welcome the willingness of the Secretary of State for Justice
to consider the impact assessment methodology being developed
by the Scottish Human Rights Commission and we look forward to
the outcome of that consideration.
114. Our evidence
suggests that equality impact assessments have not played an important
part in assessing the impact of recent policy on disabled people
in the context of the UNCRPD, because of poor quality, or untimely,
EIAs. There also appears to be some confusion over the requirement
to conduct EIAs, which the Government should clarify.
115. The Equality
and Human Rights Commission, Scottish Human Rights Commission,
Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland
Human Rights Commission should monitor and publish an assessment
of the degree to which due regard appears to have been paid to
Article 19 in the most relevant policy developments and decisions
in this Parliament. The findings should feed into the development
of the Disability Strategy and relevant plans for each jurisdiction.
Consultation and involvement
of disabled people
116. The UNCRPD specifically requires the Government
to involve disabled people in the implementation of the Convention.
The Disability Discrimination Act 2005 introduced the Disability
Equality Duty which, among other things, required public authorities
to involve disabled people in decision making in meeting their
duty. The new specific duties under section 149 of the Equality
Act 2010 do not require English bodies to involve disabled people,
unlike the equivalent duty in Wales.
117. Witnesses regretted this change. Breakthrough
UK said "local disabled people who are trying to influence
what is happening in the locality and trying to be a part of the
Big Society and so on, previously had a way of taking local statutory
bodies to task if they were not doing proper consultation. That
has been removed".
Scope said that the requirement to involve disabled people had
had a great impact in achieving greater equality. They were concerned
that these duties had been removed in the name of lightening the
118. Some witnesses pointed to particular problems
with consulting disabled people. Breakthrough UK told us that
disabled people as a group had different communication needs,
and that consequently effective communication required a certain
amount of bureaucracy.
119. While some witnesses suggested that the Government
were good at consulting the "usual suspects", some suggested
that such consultation rarely went any wider, to involve disabled
Leicestershire Centre for Integrated Living advocated greater
consultation with user-led organisations.
Although members of Choices and Rights Disability Forum and North
Bank Coalition suggested that consultation did take place, they
were concerned that it was not taken into account in decision
argued that deafblind people were rarely involved in consultations.
In supplementary written evidence, Doug Paulley also argued that
consultation should involve "user led organisations instead
of charities or other bodies. Charities do not effectively represent
their beneficiaries and in any case as service providers themselves
have different vested interests than ULOs".
KeyRing suggested that there was particular difficulty in enabling
some disabled people, for instance those with autistic spectrum
disorders or learning difficulties, to take part in community
projects. They argued that this risked alienating those most in
need of services from the consultation process.
The Coalition of Neurodiverse Organisations argued that the format
of some consultation documents needed to be better designed in
order to take the needs of neurodiverse people into account.
120. The Government gave examples of the involvement
of disabled people. The Minister for Care Services pointed to
health and well-being boards within local authorities as "being
placed under duties to involve service users right from the outset,
and throughout that process" and argued that "the places
that are doing best are the places that are involving most; the
places that are damaging people the most are the places that are
ignoring people the most".
The Minister for Disabled People said that Right to Control Trailblazers
had been instructive: "there are a couple of things we have
learnt already. The first is that co-production with disabled
people, right from the beginning, has been a very successful part
of this whole process, from policy development through to implementation
[...] The other lesson I would draw [...] is how empowering the
process is, being able to take the funding streams available and
use them in innovative ways".
She also noted that 5,000 people took part in the consultation
on the reform of DLA and argued that consultation on Personal
Independence Payment was "demonstrably influencing policy".
121. The UNCRPD
specifically requires disabled people to be involved in the implementation
of the Convention, and the Government have acknowledged the importance
of such involvement. We recommend that the Government aim to
involve disabled people in the development of policy, rather than
simply consult them, and to ensure that timescales and methods
are used which enable a full range of disabled people and their
representative organisations to be involved.
122. We are
disappointed that the English specific duties under Section 149
of the Equality Act no longer encourage the involvement of disabled
people. This is a retrogressive step. The Government should actively
promote involvement to public authorities as a means of meeting
their Equality Duty and in order to comply with the UNCRPD.
Awareness of the UNCRPD
123. The evidence we received suggested that awareness
of the UNCRPD among disabled people was low. Disability Action
suggested that such a lack of awareness resulted in a weakness
in the disability rights movement
and, referring to work they had carried out for the Equality Commission
for Northern Ireland, argued that awareness-raising was essential
to ensure adequate monitoring of compliance with the Convention.
John Evans argued that the Government should commission disabled
people's organisations to carry out awareness-raising and capacity-building
Paulley pointed to a particular problem in residential settings,
where "empowerment of service users and raising their awareness
of their rights can only happen through changing the culture of
the institutions where they live". He argued that "institutional
environments consciously or unconsciously train their 'customers'
into expecting and accepting lower standards of quality of life"
and that people in residential care often had "little concept
of rights and what might be expected in an independent living
situation outside of 'careland'".
124. Our evidence
suggests awareness of the Convention among disabled people is
low. It is important that disabled people are aware of their
rights in order that they can access them. We recommend that
the Government work in partnership with disabled people's organisations
in order to increase awareness.
59 IL 62, para 13 Back
Q 9 Back
Q 28 Back
IL 78 Back
Q 10 Back
Q 203 Back
IL 85 Back
IL 25 Back
IL 42 Back
Q 246 Back
UK response to UN Human Rights Council Resolution 10/7, September
Q 197 Back
Q 202 Back
Q 204 Back
Q 243 Back
See, for example, IL 124.In May 2011, the Welsh Assembly Government
was renamed as the Welsh Government. We received written evidence
from the Welsh Assembly Government in April 2011, before the name
change (IL 61), which is labelled as such. For simplicity, in
the body of this Report, we refer to the "Welsh Government"
The PSI Working Group was established in 2004 to identify the
main barriers to participation experienced by people with disabilities
and to make recommendations on how these could be removed. The
Working Group was made up of representatives from various disability
organisations, the Equality, Children's and Human Rights Commissions
and officials from Government Departments Back
London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm (2008) Back
Q 41 Back
Q 47 Back
Q 55 Back
Q 175 Back
IL 47 Back
IL 56 Back
IL 57 Back
IL 85 Back
RNIB IL 25; Disability Rights Partnership IL 116 Back
IL 52 Back
IL 77 Back
Equality Act 2010: Specific Duties to Support the Equality
Duty: what do I need to know? A quick start guide for public sector
organisations, June 2011, p.4 Back
Consultation on revised draft Regulations for the public sector
equality duty specific duties, Scottish Government, 9 September
Q 66.See also D and S vs Manchester City Council EWHC 17
(Admin)Case No: CO/5169/201 ' para 67There is a theme to the submissions
made by the claimants which is that the evidence they seek and
which they submit is absent is that of decisions made to promote
equality of opportunity and steps taken in that regard i.e. practical
measures. That is not the same as having due regard. The duty
is to have due regard not to achieve results. Back
The consultation and impact assessment process on the DLA reforms
have recently been criticised in a report, widely known as the
"Spartacus Report", by Dr SJ Campbell and others. The
report argues that the impact assessments did not appear to take
account of the views of respondents, and that the consultation
process breached the Government's own guidelines, in particular
in not being open for the standard 12 week period, and in concluding
two weeks after the Welfare Reform Bill was introduced in the
House of Commons. Responsible Reform, SJ Campbell et al,
January 2012. Back
IL 25 Back
IL 106A Back
Sarah Teather MP, Minister of State for Education, Written Ministerial
Statement on the Children's Commissioner Review, HC Deb 6 Dec
2010 col 7WS. Back
Q 51 Back
Oral evidence, 20 December 2011, HC1726-i, Q34. Back
Q 236 Back
Q 236 Back
IL 62 Back
Q 137 Back
IL 85 Back
Q 134 Back
IL 1 Back
IL 24 Back
IL 27 Back
IL 36 Back
IL 117 Back
IL 83 Back
IL 71 Back
Q 243 Back
Q 245 Back
Q 249 Back
IL 106A Back
IL 115 Back
IL 117 Back