The Equality Bill is nearing the end of its Parliamentary
journey. It is likely to be in force in October, at which time it
will replace the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) in England,
Scotland and Wales.
The Government promised that the new law would be easy to read
and understand. Unfortunately it isn't.
The DDA was passed in 1995, the year that Amazon.com and eBay
were launched. The web was young and nobody knew it would grow so
fast. The DDA didn't mention the web specifically, but it did
include "access to and use of information services" among its
examples of services that had to be accessible to people with
disabilities. This meant that websites should be accessible.
All of our anti-discrimination laws are now being replaced by
the Equality Bill. Given the web's ubiquity in 2010, it may seem
odd that it too makes no mention of the web. But of itself, this is
no bad thing. Laws should be technology-neutral whenever possible.
My biggest complaint with the Bill is that it's just too difficult
to follow.
When
Harriet Harman introduced the Bill (40-page PDF) she said: "It
will be written in plain English, so that those who benefit from
the law, and those who need to comply with it, can see the wood for
the trees."
Clearly something went wrong. Here's why you have to build
accessible websites, in the language of the Equality Bill: "A
person (A) discriminates against another (B) if A applies to B a
provision, criterion or practice which is discriminatory in
relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B's."
It also says that you mustn't instruct your developer to build
an inaccessible site. Or at least, it says that once you've worked
out what this means: "A person (A) must not instruct another (B) to
do in relation to a third person (C) anything which contravenes
Part 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 or section 107(1) or (2) or 111(1) (a basic
contravention)".
This construction is a consequence of forcing one set of rules
on a diverse range of 'protected characteristics', namely
disability, age, gender, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual
orientation. This approach saves paper but it risks confusion and
ambiguity, which is good news for lawyers only.
A casualty of the one-size-fits-all approach to legislation was
the DDA's explicit demand for information to be made accessible.
The Equality Bill's generic language at first made no such explicit
demand, though it did require adjustments to any "provision,
criterion or practice" that put a disabled person at "a substantial
disadvantage". It also made explicit reference to the need to
remove physical barriers.
As Lord Low of Dalston observed in the House of Lords, we live
in an information age. "This is as important to the inclusion of
those with print disabilities as the removal of the barriers
created by physical features is to those with physical
disabilities." he said.
Lord Low is blind, and therefore 'print disabled' himself. He
also serves as RNIB's Vice President. This month he succeeded in
persuading the Government to change the Bill.
The Equality Bill now provides that where a service "relates to
the provision of information," the steps which it is reasonable for
a provider to have to take "include steps for ensuring that in the
circumstances concerned the information is provided in an
accessible format."
This is an important change. As Lord Low said, "without it the
Bill would represent a regression from what we have at the
moment".
Accessibility is neglected on most websites, despite the DDA's
long-standing obligations. Lord Low thinks that may change through
enforcement. He told the House that his amendment "will give the
enforcement authorities – the EHRC [Equalities and Human Rights
Commission] – something more substantial to go on."
The EHRC, a statutory body, has prepared a draft Code of
Practice based on a version of the Bill before the amendment. It
makes clear that websites need to be accessible. It gives the
example of an organisation's website on which users cannot change
the font size or use text-to-speech software. "As well as giving
rise to a duty to make a reasonable adjustment to their website,
their practice will be unlawful (unless they can justify it)," says
that draft Code.
Courts will be required to take that guidance into account in
relevant proceedings, as they are required to take its current
guidance into account. But as Lord Low rightly points out, an
explicit reference in the legislation will be more effective in
driving compliance. "I entertain a measure of scepticism about the
efficacy of guidance," he told the House.
Guidance from the EHRC's predecessor, the Disability Rights
Commission, put the DDA's duty on website operators beyond doubt.
But every time I've explained the DDA, I've quoted the legislation
first, the guidance second, because everyone knows that legislation
is more important. The DDA is quotable: short, clear statements
that don't refer to persons A, B or C. Like a politician, a law
with neither clarity nor sound-bites will struggle to resonate.
It's great that Lord Low's amendment has been approved. It's the
sound-bite highlight, but I wish the rest of the Bill was as clear.
It’s too late for that now. The Equalities Bill has its third and
final reading in the House of Lords on Tuesday, after which both
Houses will consider any last-minute tweaks before it gets passed
as an Act. We will get a law that is confusing. That confusion will
be its weakness.
By Struan
Robertson, editor of OUT-LAW.COM. The views expressed
are Struan's and do not necessarily represent those of Pinsent
Masons.
Struan is co-writing BS 8878, the first British Standard to
address web accessibility. He will be ranting about other features
of the Equality Bill on OUT-LAW in the coming weeks. You can also
read his mini-rants at Twitter.com/struan99.
Disclaimer: We hope you find OUT-LAW’s content useful. It’s prepared by the lawyers at Pinsent Masons. Please remember, though, that it’s intended as general information only. It’s not legal advice. If that’s what you’re seeking, please
contact us. See also: our
full disclaimer
