Remove Red Tape

Discrimination on an age basis is an important tool for a number of companies which should be allowed to continue. For the following reasons:

1. Travellers aged over 65 are three times more likely to make a travel insurance claim than those aged 35, and people over 85 are eight times more likely. The average claim made under a travel insurance policy by a person over 65 is nearly three-and-a-half times more expensive than for a person under 50. Without the ability to discriminate on the basis of age insurers will have to charge everyone the same premium. Not fair to young families, young people, or anyone of an employment age.
2. Male drivers aged under 21 are 10 times more likely to have a car accident than male drivers aged 35 or over. Again what happens to everyone’s premium if you take out the ability to discriminate by age.

Simple really, discrimination against age is necessary. If you cut the red tape around this area a specific exclusion needs to be written allowing ongoing age factors to be used in the provision of insurance and financial products.

Nothing would improve this legislation except perhaps more refined specification as to what constitutes unlawful behaviour. Anyone carrying out their role as a public servant, a retailer, a supplier of services should be able to carry out their role without fear of being subjected to verbal or physical abuse or interference because of who or what they are. Keep the legislation as it is.

• Should we scrap them altogether?
• Could their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way (eg through a voluntary code?) How?
No: We consider that these proposals are unwarranted and unrealistic as we have an obligation as a European Community member state to have statutory protection in place to address discrimination in the provision of goods facilities and services.

• Could they be reformed, simplified or merged? How?
The Equality Act is the product of a programme to reform, simplify and merge several pieces of legislation to make a modern framework of equality laws that would reflect the society of the 21st century. The previous legislation contained exclusions with regard to the provision of goods facilities and services that were out-dated and offensive in the modern world; for example the exclusion available to private clubs in the provision of services to the public.

We consider that the current provisions ensure that Fire and Rescue Services are aware of their obligations to provide services to all sections of the community.

The new Act is not yet a year old and no cases have yet been decided on its nascent provisions. We consider that it would be premature and undesirable to propose changes that reduce, diminish or minimise the scope or purpose of the Act.

• Can we reduce their bureaucracy through better implementation? How?
• Can we make their enforcement less burdensome? How?
No: We do not consider that the service provisions of the Equality Act are burdensome or bureaucratic. We consider that they provide a proportionate balance between the rights of organisations and service users.

We consider that there should be a statutory agency (such as the EHRC) which provides authoritative advice and guidance on the proper implementation of the legislation.

• Should they be left as they are?
Yes: We consider that the provisions on service delivery should (and cannot) not be reduced.

The law should protect everyone fairly, including those above or below specific ages. The Red Tape Website does not give results of the consultation in relation to age.

General:

This sections should not be changed, except to make enforcement, redress and change more likely and easier to obtain for the individual victim of illegal discrimination.

One possible “Code of Practice” type action would be to require all providers of Goods and Services who provide any of part of these subsidised or paid for from the Public Purse, to sign an Equality-4-ALL covenant, with contractual financial penalties for non-compliance.

“The Equality Act makes it unlawful to discriminate against, harass or victimise someone when providing services, goods or facilities or when carrying out a public function, such as policing.”

It should be made clear that repeated discrimination is by its very nature, harassment and victimisation.

“Refusal” includes making a service inaccessible to anyone with a Protected Characteristic.
e.g a bank that will only offer an investment by phone is refusing to serve the Deaf

“The Equality Act sets out the different ways in which it is unlawful to treat someone, such as direct discrimination, harassment and failing to make a reasonable adjustment for a disabled person.”

The law should make Directors criminally liable for cases of Prohibited Conduct, and Trading Standards should be required to prosecute where a Company or a Public Body repeatedly acts in this unlawfully way.

Since the DDA 1995 People in employment have Tribunals, but consumers have been left to fend for themselves, unless there is a more general Consumer Protection issue such as displaying a LOGO offering an accessibility aid (e.g. an Induction LOOP) and then failing to provide this in a timely manner.

The above a essential if the EqA 2010 is to function as intended and bring about a change in attitudes among businesses and the public.

I can cite examples of FTSE100 companies and NHS providers who despite agreeing to the validity of complaints about Disability Discrimination, have repeated the same acts of discrimination at the same premisses for several years, in most cases, continuing up to and including June 2011. In another case I first wrote to the Customer Service of a chain of shops on the weekend the DDA was implemented, and have complained in branches on several occasions since, without any noticeable effect.

I have not named names here as I would expect them to be removed during moderation.

As Liz Sayce, chief executive of RADAR, stated in her speech on the Single Equality Green Paper July 2007, with only a handful of DDA Part 3 cases (on goods and services) going to court, because of financial disincentives to individuals taking cases, there is inadequate legal power to match the power of discrimination by service providers and regrettably the Equality Bill does not address this issue.

As a piece of social legislation the equality act has not had the same proportional impact on disabled people in the field of the provision of goods and services in the same way that it has had for disabled employees and employers of disabled people. The anticipatory duty and the evolutionary duty are simply not understood well enough by both the private and public sector; and the statutory code of practice supporting part three of the equality act is not a code of practice that is well thumbed by the public sector or the private sector. Therefore, the interpretation of part three and its application in the context of specific operational areas of both the public and private sector is shallow and minimalistic leaving disabled people with a very poor level of service which would not be tolerated by the dominant norm nondisabled people.

The public duty does not address robustly enough the application of part three of the equality act. A policy is only as good as its implementation and there is insufficient quality assurance that the systems, processes, procedures and tools allow members of staff in the public and private sector to provide the goods and services to disabled customers.

What disabled people want is improved customer service and provision of goods and when they are not achieving this theren needs to be an easier mechanism for disabled people to hold public and private sector organisations to account in public through a tribunal like service.

The equality duty is not achieving the improvement in the provision of goods and services the the Equality Act intended and disabled people need to see a step change and acceleration in the delivery of the provision of accessible goods and services in the public sector. And the private sector has essentially stopped improvement because they have done all they need to do to comply with the original disability discrimination act legislation in 1994.

This part of the Act is an essential regulation to ensure that equality happens throughout people daily lives. Not only when specifically requiring equality related services. Anyone should have the freedom to go about their daily lives without fear of being humilated, hurt, or discriminated against in others ways as a result of being different. The introduction of this element of the regulations will need communicating to providers of goods, facilities and service providers to understand that practices they may have previously ‘got away with’ are discriminatory.

The Equality Act 2010 was introduced to do exactly what this Red Tape Challenge is proposing: simplify equalities legislation. The Government should be consulting with community groups to gather evidence about how successful the Equality Act is in tackling discrimination, promoting equality and developing good relations then review the Act to consider how it can be strengthened. The Equality Act should not be scrapped. [Text deleted] provides housing advice and support to over 1,000 lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people each year and over 40% approach us because they are experiencing harassment, abuse or violence because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Without strong protections in the Equality Act then such experiences will only continue. The Government’s role should not simply be to free-up business, it should also be to protect people. A little ‘red tape’ may be needed to guarantee the minimum standard of service that can be expected from all businesses and to prevent real damage to people’s lives and wellbeing through harassment, abuse and neglect.

The Equality Act continues to be required in this area. The concept of service provider extends over public, third sector and private providers ensuring a consistent approach across the board to customer service and is good for business as it promotes inclusion and ensures that there is a consideration of customer need.

There is also a clear need for provision of services to be governed by the Equality Act. Research by the World Health Organisation found people with mental health problems face inequalities in access to physical and mental health care, resulting in lower life expectancy and more chronic health conditions. Mind’s research for our In the red campaign, in 2008 and 2010 found significant barriers to accessing financial services – including mental health history meaning difficulty accessing bank accounts or credit, and activities of bailiffs and debt collectors not taking account of mental health needs in their enforcement practices, resulting in further distress and in some cases suicidal thoughts.

The requirement to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people is therefore particularly important to ensure equal access to services. For people with mental health problems, the Equality Act enables equal access and participation, for example by allowing people to be supported by advocates when they need them, offering alternative channels of communication to meet their needs, or ensuring behaviour due to their condition or medication does not result in services being denied to people. These provisions are not onerous as the concept of reasonable adjustments ensures that the adjustments required by service providers are proportionate. They must therefore remain in place, supported by adequate guidance to clarify how they should operate in practice.

Buying Goods and Using Services
(How consumers and those using public services are protected from unfair treatment.)

 Should we scrap them altogether?
No. The introduction of provisions to protect people from discrimination in accessing services and buying goods has been fundamental to addressing prejudiced and discriminatory treatment of certain groups.

 Could their purpose be achieved in a non -regulatory way?
No – the McPherson Inquiry made it clear that public services are unlikely to be able to deliver fair outcomes without the structure of legislation and enforcement.

 Could they be reformed, simplified or merged?
No. Equality Act has already done this by bringing everything under one piece of statute.

 Can we reduce their bureaucracy through better implementation?
We do not consider the present provisions to be bureaucratic. Rather they provide processes that encourage accountable and evidenced decision making.

 Should they be left as they are?
Yes.