The Court of Appeal has overturned the government’s decision to close the Independent Living Fund. The Court found there was insufficient evidence of compliance with the public sector equality duty. This means that until or unless the government revisits the decision more than 19,000 of the most severely disabled people in this country will continue to receive support from the Fund.
The case was brought by five disabled claimants supported by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). The Commission was seeking to clarify what is required for a public body decision-maker to show that proper consideration has been given to the impact of a proposal which affects people with a protected characteristic under equality law.
The Appeal Court judges ruled unanimously to quash the 18 December 2012 decision to shut down the Fund on the grounds that the government had failed to reflect adequately the consultation responses, “indicating that independent living might well be seriously in peril for a large number”.
The judges decided there was insufficient evidence that the ‘very grave impact’ on some of those affected was properly brought to the minister’s attention, despite officials having been clearly informed of the possible impacts on service users and local authorities.
Ministers from the DWP have decided not to appeal the decision but a spokeswoman said: “In light of the guidance provided by the Court of Appeal, ministers will be invited to make a new decision on the future of the Fund based on further advice”.
The EHRC’s Legal Director, Wendy Hewitt, said: “The Court agreed with the Commission that what was needed was consideration of the impact of the proposal on all disabled people and specifically on ILF recipients who would most obviously be adversely affected by it”.
Margaret Cohen, who worked as an assessor for the ILF for ten years, comments: “I am absolutely delighted at the Court’s decision. In addition to the shameful attacks on benefits which enable people with disabilities to live decent lives, the government was determined to abolish an efficient system which helped many to maximise independence with minimal administrative costs. Since the closure was announced recipients and their families have suffered enormous stress and now it appears that unnecessary preparatory work has been carried out to transfer funding responsibility to hardpressed local authorities.
“I fear that a new period of uncertainty about the future of the Fund may now begin. I very much hope that there will be a swift and satisfactory clarification for recipients so they can be confident about the justice of future decisions and can maintain maximum independence”. The ILF – a cut too far?
by Margaret Cohen, Community Living, Volume 25, No. 3.
