Equality Act 2010: The Impact on Disabled People: Follow-Up Report (Liaison Committee Report) Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office

Equality Act 2010: The Impact on Disabled People: Follow-Up Report (Liaison Committee Report)

Baroness Thomas of Winchester Excerpts
Tuesday 21st June 2022

(1 year, 10 months ago)

Grand Committee
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thomas of Winchester Portrait Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD) [V]
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I welcome the chance afforded us by the Liaison Committee taking the Equality Act 2010 and Disability Committee report of 2016 out of the long grass and producing its report, published last July. I was a member of the Equality Act 2010 and Disability Committee and I endorse all the comments of our admirable chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech.

It really is quite shocking that so little has improved for disabled people since our report, which was careful not to advocate remedies that would involve large spending commitments. It is telling that the Liaison Committee reserved its most damning criticism for the Government dragging their feet on bringing into force Section 36 of and Schedule 4 to the Equality Act 2010, which include provisions on reasonable adjustments to the common parts of buildings such as blocks of flats. If those components of the Act had been brought into force, those responsible for the common parts of buildings, such as a landlord in a leaseholder block of flats, would, after consultation, have to agree to reasonable adjustments, the cost of which could be entirely met by the disabled person.

A good example, which is worth quoting, is given in the report:

“An elderly leaseholder has a flat on the second and third floor. There is absolutely no reason why she cannot live independently, save that she has mobility issues. She wants to install a stair lift … She asks the freeholder for permission. The freeholder says no. She offers to pay the installation costs and all the running costs herself”.


The freeholder, quite legally, still says no.

The Government have announced their intention to bring this section of the Equality Act into force. Indeed, in the National Disability Strategy, published nearly a year ago and foreshadowed in the Liaison Committee’s report, they say:

“We will take immediate steps to … extend disabled tenants’ rights on accessibility”.


Now, we are told, it will happen in due course, with no timescale given. The Liaison Committee is not impressed. It says:

“The Committee finds it objectionable that parts of the Equality Act, now over 10 years old, are still not in force. It is an affront to Parliament that its will expressed in legislation has been ignored or set aside by the executive.”


The Government’s response points to the consultation, saying that any change has “significant implementation issues”. Yes, I am sure it does, but a way must be found to improve the housing stock for all disabled people as a matter of urgency. After all, we are told in the National Disability Strategy that nearly half of all disabled respondents had difficulty getting in and out of where they live. I do not know whether yesterday’s Statement on private rented housing will address this point.

I remind the Government that there are 14 million disabled people in the country and that this figure will increase in future years, so more accessible housing is crucial. If levelling up means anything, surely it should mean using the power of the law to make sure that disabled people do not lose out in basic ways such as being able to live, travel and enjoy leisure activities that are accessible. Will the National Disability Strategy make a difference? It is full of commitments to this and that to try to improve the lives of disabled people, but without concrete proposals with timescales, and updates on progress, it is difficult to get excited.

What is needed is someone with a driving ambition to find solutions to some problems that have been left unresolved for far too long. That person should first ask disabled people themselves what should be done.