Equality safeguards under attack?

I hate silly rules. I hate being told not to do things that I would never do anyway. Boo to silly patronising rules.

So when the Government say they want to cut red tape and bureaucracy and free up business, who could disagree? Let’s fire up the economy and have a street party!

But hang on a minute. Aren’t some rules there for a reason? Aren’t they there to protect vulnerable people? To make sure that their needs aren’t being overlooked?

Take the Equality Act and (before that) the Disability Discrimination Act. They contain duties seeking to protect disabled people from discrimination. I didn’t get the memo that disability discrimination has now been eradicated. Oh, it hasn’t.

The Act also include duties for public sector bodies: to make sure they assess the impact of their polices on disabled people and consult and involve them in decisions about them. All evidence I’ve seen suggests this leads to better policy-making. It certainly stops you from doing something stupid like halving the number of Teachers of the Deaf and still pretending it will have no impact on the service for deaf children.

Other important duties exist to safeguard the rights of deaf and other disabled children – in particular:
* the right to be assessed and have special educational needs support in schools
* to receive social care support such as short breaks
* to equal access to education
* to investigate where a child may be suffering harm

These duties are important. The last time I looked deaf children were still 35% less likely than all children to achieve 5 GCSEs (incl. English and Maths) at grades A* to C – even though deafness is not a learning disability. Still more likely to suffer mental health problems and be victims of child abuse. Still among the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children in society today. With public spending cuts now starting to bite, these rights and duties are even more important – to make sure that a relatively small group of children are not forgotten about and still get the support they need to achieve their potential.

So why, despite all of this, does the Government seem intent on getting rid of these basic protections? To ask once whether these are important duties would be worrying enough. But to ask thrice would imply seem sort of concerted attack on the rights of disabled children.

Exhibit number one: the “Red Tape Challenge”, asking whether the Equality Act should be scrapped altogether.

Exhibit number two: the Government Equalities Office asking how to reduce “bureaucracy” associated with the Equality Act public sector duty.

Exhibit number three: the Communities and Local Government “informal” review of all statutory duties.

My first response to all of this is: is it a good use of government money to be running three concurrent consultations asking the same sort of questions? Could the money not be better spent on, say, reducing the deficit or protecting deaf children?

My second response to all of this is: are you for real? Are they seriously questioning whether we should just do away with equality duties and duties that protect children? The starting assumption in all three consultations is that these duties are bad, bureaucratic, burdensome. I always thought promoting equality for disabled people was a good thing. Does society really want to be wasting the huge many talents (such as modesty) of people like me? Do they not think I have a right to have a say on decisions that affect me? I might have some good ideas of my own (like fewer consultations). Do we no longer want to make sure disabled children are protected?

To be fair, in the latter consultation, the defendant does recognise that some duties are vital (though they don’t ask whether some duties should be strengthened). But I would argue that some duties are so vital, it’s offensive to even question whether they should be scrapped. It’s also alarming in the extreme to parents of deaf children who, I think, have enough to worry about than participate in some “I’m a bureaucratic regulatory burden, get me out of here!” charade.

A desire to cut red tape should not be at the cost of essential protections for deaf children. End of.


5 thoughts on “Equality safeguards under attack?

  1. Your twitter comment said you were still campaigning for the DDA, are you not aware that it has gone and been replaced ?

    • Yes, am aware DDA has been replaced by Equality Act. Clearly you haven’t read the blog!

      Twitter comment was part of a wider debate around the 1995 Act.

  2. The devil is not in detail but implementation. Deaf suffer the same inequalities now as they did 10 years ago, and the DDA is STILL viable in Ireland. The reason being there are such strong religious divides, they had to accept discrimination is their norm ! Oh well, back to square one… One day we will get a sensible debate on equality, we can but hope…. I can suggest it is never going to happen. Perhaps if the RNID had not scuppered the original DDA draft of 1995 (Which incidentally was MUCH stronger worded than the recent version even), and we had the real deal accepted, we wouldn’t be here now talking about red tapes…. and Cameron wanting equality laws got rid…. I find it annoying deaf are on about his now, when they never turned up to fight for the original DDA… The idea of getting rid of red tape is of course to make it less of an issue if deaf complain, and allow employers etc to pt out easier.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s