Recommendations & Conclusions
5 items
9
Recommendation
1st Report - Unequal impact? Coronaviru…
Rejected
Assessing needs and securing provision for children and young people meeting the threshold for EHC Plans was an extreme challenge for local authorities during the peak of the pandemic earlier this year. Local authorities could not have been expected to meet their EHC Plan duties fully in these circumstances; some …
Read more
Assessing needs and securing provision for children and young people meeting the threshold for EHC Plans was an extreme challenge for local authorities during the peak of the pandemic earlier this year. Local authorities could not have been expected to meet their EHC Plan duties fully in these circumstances; some flexibility was needed. It is less clear whether it was necessary for the relaxed “reasonable endeavours” duty to remain in place until the end of July, leaving many children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities with very little or no support for three months. We recommend the Department review the information- gathering and decision-making processes in place with a view to making a faster decision to return to full EHC Plan duties, should flexibilities be introduced again.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government states it kept temporary changes to EHC Plan duties under close review and restored full support by July 31st. They do not intend to issue further notices to modify the EHC duty unless evidence changes, thereby implicitly rejecting the need to review processes …
Read full response →
Government Equalities Office
11
Recommendation
1st Report - Unequal impact? Coronaviru…
Rejected
If the Secretary of State for Education’s power to invoke the “reasonable endeavours” duty in relation to EHC Plans is to remain in place, we recommend the Department for Education update its guidance to local authorities to include the factors which must be considered in deciding how the relaxed duty …
Read more
If the Secretary of State for Education’s power to invoke the “reasonable endeavours” duty in relation to EHC Plans is to remain in place, we recommend the Department for Education update its guidance to local authorities to include the factors which must be considered in deciding how the relaxed duty can best be fulfilled. The guidance should include a set of minimum standards and a range of examples of good practice in supporting children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) when resources are stretched by the pandemic. We further recommend that, should flexibilities in EHC Plan duties become necessary again, notices be issued on a local basis only, in direct response to local effects of the pandemic, instead of the blanket, national approach taken earlier this year. We further recommend that 26 Unequal impact? Coronavirus, disability and access to services: interim Report on temporary provisions in the Coronavirus Act guidance to local authorities operating EHC assessments and Plans under reasonable endeavours be updated to state that they should publish information about what this will mean in practice for children and young people with SEND and the minimum level of provision they expect to be able to provide. We believe the time is right for this change of approach. It would be in line with the more local approach to coronavirus-related restrictions since the end of national lockdown and would offer some reassurance to children and young people with SEND and their families that any changes to support will only occur when strictly necessary as a result of the pandemic.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government states it does not intend to issue any further notices to modify the EHC plan duty unless evidence changes, effectively rejecting the recommendations to update guidance with minimum standards and examples or to issue notices on a local basis only, as they do …
Read full response →
Government Equalities Office
13
Recommendation
1st Report - Unequal impact? Coronaviru…
Rejected
We consider the section 98 arrangements for six-monthly parliamentary review of temporary Coronavirus Act provisions unsatisfactory. The Act prescribes a binary “take all or leave all” vote, which will present MPs with no real choice over provisions which have clear and obvious equality impacts on their disabled constituents and which, …
Read more
We consider the section 98 arrangements for six-monthly parliamentary review of temporary Coronavirus Act provisions unsatisfactory. The Act prescribes a binary “take all or leave all” vote, which will present MPs with no real choice over provisions which have clear and obvious equality impacts on their disabled constituents and which, they may take the view, are no longer justified, either this autumn or later in the two-year lifetime of the Act. Continuing these provisions has the potential to further restrict or curtail important and hard-won rights relied upon by disabled people and deserves proper consideration, separately from the statutory vote. Arranging for the House to express its view on temporary provisions with clear and obvious implications for disabled people would be an opportunity for the Government to demonstrate its commitment to equality. The Government should not only to give MPs the chance to debate the temporary provisions discussed in this Report but should also make arrangements to test, separately from the statutory vote required by section 98 of the Coronavirus Act, the view of the whole House on the merits of continuing different, individual provisions for a further six months and each subsequent six-month period until the sunset provision of the Act. Arrangements should be made for this to happen before the second six-monthly review in spring
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejected the recommendation to arrange separate votes on individual Coronavirus Act provisions, stating that existing mechanisms like the six-monthly review and renewal vote, alongside two-monthly reports, provide sufficient and proportionate parliamentary scrutiny.
Read full response →
Government Equalities Office
4
Recommendation
Fourth report: Unequal impact? Coronavi…
Rejected
We further recommend the Government consider, with disabled people, as part of its consultation on the proposed National Strategy for Disabled People, the steps needed to more effectively adopt a social model of disability in relation to maintaining disabled people’s access to food for the remainder of this pandemic and …
Read more
We further recommend the Government consider, with disabled people, as part of its consultation on the proposed National Strategy for Disabled People, the steps needed to more effectively adopt a social model of disability in relation to maintaining disabled people’s access to food for the remainder of this pandemic and in future crises. This consultation should consider the actions required to eliminate barriers to physical and online food shopping. The Government should consider with disabled people how, in crisis situations, to identify and reach a single category of people, including disabled people who may not have clinical needs and people with medical conditions who may not be disabled, who need food deliveries. It should consider not only the steps required by retailers to meet obligations under the Equality Act but also steps required 42 Unequal impact? Coronavirus, disability and access to services: full Report by the Government to meet its obligation under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to respond to emergency situations in a way which includes consideration of the needs of disabled people.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government explicitly rejects the recommendation, stating that existing law is clear enough and a Code of Practice would not improve the situation regarding disabled people's access to food.
Read full response →
Government Equalities Office
18
Recommendation
Fourth report: Unequal impact? Coronavi…
Rejected
The way the Government has communicated with disabled people has, on occasions, caused confusion and compounded already keenly felt anxiety. The chosen method and timing of communications with people categorised as clinically extremely vulnerable, and therefore likely to be living under very considerable stress, has sometimes been poorly thought out, …
Read more
The way the Government has communicated with disabled people has, on occasions, caused confusion and compounded already keenly felt anxiety. The chosen method and timing of communications with people categorised as clinically extremely vulnerable, and therefore likely to be living under very considerable stress, has sometimes been poorly thought out, with insufficient consideration given to the psychological effects on recipients and their families. We recommend Ministers and officials involved in communicating public health messages to disabled people should undergo training in psychologically informed communications which take fully into account and empathise with disabled people’s lived experience.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the recommendation, stating that training for Ministers and officials is optional rather than a mandatory requirement.
Read full response →
Government Equalities Office