Spending cuts spark equality act challenges

Council spending cuts that impact on minority or disadvantaged groups may face diversity law challenges from special-interest groups.

Lawyers from the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) have already demanded equality assessment papers from councillors in Stoke-on-Trent in a row over scrapping a £13,600 a year subsidy.

The money helps the RNIB run a door-to-door Talking Books scheme for 173 blind and partially-sighted people in the Staffordshire city.

The council decided to stop the subsidy last year and the cash runs out on March 31, 2011.

RNIB legal policy officer Paul Hackney has written to the council urging a rethink and pointing out the charity believes the council has breached the Equality Act by failing to consult people using the 18,000-title audio book service.

From April 1,2011 the blind and partially sighted will have to pay £82 a year for the service or make do with deliveries of a reduced selection of audio books from the city’s Homelink library service.

The RNIB’s letter says: “For many Talking Books subscribers, Homelink will be inadequate.

“The Homelink service does not allow people to choose their own books, it will not offer enough titles, the format and quality of the recording will cause difficulties and the service will be unable to cope with demand.

“The council has failed to consult service users before withdrawing the service. The individual contact made with affected individuals was not consultation but merely informed them of the decision.

“We believe that blind and partially sighted people forced to access the council’s library services through the Homelink service are being placed at a substantial disadvantage.
If blind and partially sighted people wish to access a library service which more closely approximates the service offered to sighted readers they will have to pay for it.”

A Stoke City Council spokesman said: “Financial pressures have affected our support for the RNIB’s Talking Books service, but this decision wasn’t taken lightly and the equality impact of the decision was considered.”