Closed consultation

Equality Impact Assessment

Updated 30 August 2022

Demonstrating Compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED)

Due regard must be shown:

• Decision-makers must be made aware of their duty to have ‘due regard’ and to the aims of the duty

• Due regard is fulfilled before and at the time a particular policy or operational activity, that will or might affect people with protected characteristics is under consideration, as well as at the time a decision is taken. It is not a box ticking exercise.

• Due regard involves a conscious approach and state of mind. The duty must be exercised with rigour and an open mind.

• The duty cannot be delegated to another body and will always remain on the body subject to it.

• The duty is a continuing one.

• It is good practice for the public body to keep an adequate record showing that they have considered their equality duties and considered relevant questions.

Emergency Evacuation Information Sharing + (EEIS+) Consultation

Headline:

The Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) consultation ran from 8 June – 19 July 2021. From responses to the consultation, and follow-on discussion with Responsible Persons already undertaking local initiatives to improve fire safety of disabled people identified through the consultation, we concluded that concerns over the practicality, proportionality, and safety of PEEPs means we are unable to implement them at this time. Instead, we propose to undertake a new consultation on alternative proposals including Emergency Evacuation Information Sharing (EEIS+).

The aim from the EEIS+ consultation is develop a practical, proportionate and safe policy to support the fire safety of mobility-impaired residents. The proposals contained within the new consultation put increased focus on information sharing between residents, responsible persons, and their local Fire and Rescue Service (FRS).

The main thrust of the EEIS+ proposal focuses on residential blocks of flats with a simultaneous evacuation strategy in place. In these buildings, Responsible Persons (RP) would be required to ask residents to make themselves known if they consider themselves as having difficulties self-evacuating in the event of a fire. The RP would then be required to offer a Person-Centred Fire Risk Assessment (PCFRA) and/or connect them with a home fire safety visit from their local FRS. Once completed, the RP would review the risk assessment and consider what interventions might be reasonable for them to implement to mitigate against the risks identified. Information on where residents who could still not self-evacuate would then be shared with the local FRS who would factor it into their operational response. Other measures are also explored in the consultation, including a toolkit (for all Responsible Persons but with a particular focus stay put buildings) and a proposed initiative with LGA and disability groups to explore how neighbours could potentially contribute to fire safety of mobility impaired residents in an effective and safe way, and a call for evidence for PEEPs and other fire safety initiatives being undertaken in residential settings.

The people intended to benefit from the new consultation are those who cannot self-evacuate / have mobility impairment issues. Therefore, we believe it primarily impacts on those with the protected characteristics of disability, age, and pregnancy/maternity. While we continue to consider if there is a potential for disproportionate impacts on people with other protected characteristics, there were no responses to the earlier consultation or any other reason, which suggests this may be the case.

In line with the Public Sector Equality Duty PSED, this Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) considers the likely equalities impacts of consulting on a new policy focussed on EEIS+. With regards to the previous consultation, we do not consider that the decision not to mandate PEEPs at this time can be characterised as a breach of the (PSED) or the Equality Act 2010. This is spelt out in further detail in the EIA connected with that decision, but it is important to note here that that decision did not rule out the use of PEEPs or affect the current position where RPs and residents can still agree and implement a PEEP if they believe it is the best course of action.

1. Summary of the evidence considered in demonstrating due regard to the Public-Sector Equality Duty.

The following evidence has been considered as part of the Public-Sector Equality Duty:

• Grenfell Tower Phase 1 Report, October 2019, including written evidence.

• Responses to the PEEPs Public Consultation, and discussions with groups of stakeholders held during and after that consultation.

• The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005

• Equalities Act 2010 and guidance.

The core evidence for this approach came from the PEEPs public consultation, which closed on 19 July 2021 and received 382 written responses. We also held several well-attended stakeholder meetings with total external attendance of over 300 people, including representatives from Fire and Rescue Services; Responsible Persons; Disability Charities; Local Councils; and other relevant authorities, and many individuals not stating that they were representing organisations.

Further meetings were held with housing associations and local authorities, identified from the PEEPs consultation as already undertaking a fire safety initiative for their mobility impaired residents. These sought to analyse what was currently being done at a local level to support the fire safety of residents unable to self-evacuate.

3a. Consideration of limb 1 of the duty: Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act.

As set out above, evidence from the PEEPs consultation leads us to conclude that it is not possible to mandate PEEPs at this time. We are therefore undertaking a new consultation on alternate measures to support the fire safety of vulnerable / mobility impaired residents. We do not consider that this approach constitutes unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation or any other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act.

The FSO currently requires RPs to have regard to the risks to which relevant persons^{[footnote 1]} are exposed^{[footnote 2]} and “where necessary” ensure that it is possible for persons to evacuate the premises as quickly and safely as possibly^{[footnote 3]}. It is reasonable to expect that in buildings which have a simultaneous evacuation strategy in place, that RPs should already be considering the specific needs of residents with protected characteristics. In buildings where stay-put is the evacuation strategy, the advice that residents are generally safer in their own flat applies to all regardless of any protected characteristics.

Our proposals build on this baseline position and whilst we believe they do not constitute unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation or any other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act, there are some important factors to note:

Our shift away from using height as measure to categorise buildings and subsequently the policy that applies to them, to instead, focussing on a risk-based approach, concentrating efforts (in the main) on the riskiest buildings i.e. those with a simultaneous evacuation strategy in place, represents a proportionate way forward, that focuses action and resources where they will add the most value.

However, we accept that there may be individuals in ‘stay put’ buildings, who fall under the disability, maternity / pregnancy and age protected characteristics, who do not have the same provision laid out as they would if they were in a ‘simultaneous evacuation’ building (for both the EEIS proposal and the Evacuation Plans proposal), but we believe it is reasonable, proportionate and lawful to make this distinction given the inherent differences in risk-profile of the buildings. This is touched upon further in the consultation document itself.

It is also important to note that, we retain an open mind as to the viability of extending the proposal to other categories of building (subject to the three tests of proportionality, practicality and safety).

Similarly, we are not ‘closing the door’ on the concept of PEEPs in its entirety. Our calls for evidence are an attempt to garner workable examples, which may lead to future initiatives on top of the EEIS proposal.

We assess that the proposals in consultation lay out a more holistic approach to fire safety for vulnerable residents, not just looking at methods to support their evacuation but also using person centred fire risk assessments and visits from FRSs to make them as safe as possible in their own homes.

We are also conscious that, as drafted, it may not be immediately clear if those with certain conditions (and who fall under a protected characteristic) would be included in the proposals or not. For the avoidance of doubt, the terms used in the proposals e.g. ‘mobility impaired’, ‘those whose ability to evacuate may be compromised’, ‘those unable to self-evacuate’, ‘those who would need help to evacuate’ are designed to cover a broad definition. The intention is that anyone who needs help would be identified via the proposals as laid out. This includes those with cognitive impairments (who may be themselves unable to self-declare) or those with temporary conditions (pregnancy or a relatively short-term illness).

However, in developing these proposals further, we will make sure to take this into account and be clear how these people are catered for.

All of this brings us to the conclusion that, whilst there are important issues raised with regards to the proposals’ effects on those with protected characteristics, these are outweighed by the positive impacts the proposals will bring to those with those protected characteristics. We consider the ‘net change’ to be a positive one.

We believe it is right to explore these proposals via a new consultation, as we believe it is a better way to support the fire safety of members these groups. Whilst we take into account the possible adverse impacts of further delay on individuals with protected characteristics, we consider the risks to such individuals of proceeding ahead with an impractical scheme which may be costly to those same individuals is such that it is preferable to run the new consultation at this time.

We therefore do not consider that the decision to run a new consultation at this time has a material net adverse impact on individuals that could reasonably be avoided and we consider that no unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation or any other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act.

Age

Consideration has been given to the impacts of the proposed change and whether it will or will not be likely to lead to discrimination or disadvantage, based on the protected characteristic of age as specified in the Equality Act 2010. This is one of the three protected characteristics at which the policy is targeted at and aims to provide benefits in fire safety.

Direct Discrimination – It is likely that the proposals outlined in the EEIS+ consultation will be more likely to be applicable to older individuals or young children. Therefore, there is the potential for a disproportionate impact on those who share this protected characteristic as opposed to those who do not. However, we believe that the proposals contained within the new consultation, would support the fire safety of individuals with this protected characteristic and offer a practical, proportionate, safe and deliverable benefit.

Indirect Discrimination – It is important to note that not all residents with this protected characteristic will require or want the proposals outlined. Government guidance will assist in ensuring that all residents will have equal opportunity to self-identify if they believe it necessary.

Disability

Consideration has been given to the impacts of the proposed change and whether it will or will not be likely to lead to discrimination or disadvantage, based on the protected characteristic of disability as specified in the Equality Act 2010. This is one of the three protected characteristics at which the policy is targeted at and aims to provide benefits in fire safety.

Direct Discrimination – It is likely that the proposals outlined in the EEIS+ consultation will be more likely to be applicable to disabled individuals. Therefore, there is the potential for a disproportionate impact on those who share this protected characteristic as opposed to those who do not. However, we believe that the proposals contained within the new consultation, would support the fire safety of individuals with this protected characteristic and offer a practical, proportionate, safe and deliverable benefit.

Indirect Discrimination – It is important to note that not all residents with this protected characteristic will require or want the proposals outlined. Government guidance will assist in ensuring that all residents will have equal opportunity to self-identify if they believe it necessary.

Reasonable Adjustments – We will ensure that communications with stakeholders and consultation respondents will be made available in accessible formats.

Gender Reassignment

Consideration has been given to the impacts of the proposed change and whether it will or will not be likely to lead to direct or indirect discrimination or disadvantage, based on the protected characteristic of gender reassignment as specified in the Equality Act 2010. This is not one of the three protected characteristics which the policy was aimed to impact on, and we have had no concerns drawn to our attention with respect to this protected characteristic.

There is nothing, at the present time, to suggest that proceeding with a new consultation will adversely impact upon people based on this characteristic.

Marriage and Civil Partnership

Consideration has been given to the impacts of the proposed change and whether it will or will not be likely to lead to direct or indirect discrimination or disadvantage, based on the protected characteristic of marriage and civil partnership as specified in the Equality Act 2010. This is not one of the three protected characteristics which the policy was aimed to impact on, and we have had no concerns drawn to our attention with respect to this protected characteristic.

There is nothing, at the present time, to suggest that proceeding with a new consultation will adversely impact upon people based on this characteristic.

Pregnancy and Maternity

Consideration has been given to the impacts of the proposed change and whether it will or will not be likely to lead to direct or indirect discrimination or disadvantage, based on the protected characteristic of pregnancy and maternity as specified in the Equality Act 2010. This is one of the three protected characteristics at which the policy is targeted at and aims to provide benefits in fire safety.

Direct Discrimination – It is likely that the proposals outlined in the EEIS+ consultation will be more likely to be applicable to pregnant individuals. Therefore, there is the potential for a disproportionate impact on those who share this protected characteristic as opposed to those who do not. However, we believe that the proposals contained within the new consultation, would support the fire safety of individuals with this protected characteristic and offer a practical, proportionate, safe and deliverable benefit.

Indirect Discrimination – It is important to note that not all residents with this protected characteristic will require or want the proposals outlined. Government guidance will assist in ensuring that all residents will have equal opportunity to self-identify if they believe it necessary.

Race

Consideration has been given to the impacts of the proposed change and whether it will or will not be likely to lead to direct or indirect discrimination or disadvantage, based on the protected characteristic of race as specified in the Equality Act 2010. This is not one of the three protected characteristics which the policy was aimed to impact on, and we have had no concerns drawn to our attention with respect to this protected characteristic.

There is nothing, at the present time, to suggest that proceeding with a new consultation will adversely impact upon people based on this characteristic.

Religion or Belief

Consideration has been given to the impacts of the proposed change and whether it will or will not be likely to lead to direct or indirect discrimination or disadvantage, based on the protected characteristic of religion or belief as specified in the Equality Act 2010. This is not one of the three protected characteristics which the policy was aimed to impact on, and we have had no concerns drawn to our attention with respect to this protected characteristic.

There is nothing, at the present time, to suggest that proceeding with a new consultation will adversely impact upon people based on this characteristic.

Sex

Consideration has been given to the impacts of the proposed change and whether it will or will not be likely to lead to direct or indirect discrimination or disadvantage, based on the protected characteristic of sex as specified in the Equality Act 2010. This is not one of the three protected characteristics which the policy was aimed to impact on, and we have had no concerns drawn to our attention with respect to this protected characteristic.

There is nothing, at the present time, to suggest that proceeding with a new consultation will adversely impact upon people based on this characteristic.

Sexual Orientation

Consideration has been given to the impacts of the proposed change and whether it will or will not be likely to lead to direct or indirect discrimination or disadvantage, based on the protected characteristic of sexual orientation as specified in the Equality Act 2010. This is not one of the three protected characteristics which the policy was aimed to impact on, and we have had no concerns drawn to our attention with respect to this protected characteristic.

There is nothing, at the present time, to suggest that proceeding with a new consultation will adversely impact upon people based on this characteristic.

3b. Consideration of limb 2: Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it.

The FSO places requirements on RPs regardless of the protected characteristics of the residents of the buildings they are responsible for or the RPs themselves. The consultation proposals are intended to ensure that all residents who are unable to self-evacuate from buildings in an emergency, receive the same level of care and attention to those who are able.

Age

Our proposals would focus on individuals who are unable to self-evacuate / have mobility issues. Therefore, we expect there to be some impact on those with this protected characteristic. Any action taken forward as a result of this new proposed policy would pay due regard to age inequalities, and in our view, benefit these individuals and advance their equality of opportunity.

Disability

Our proposals would focus on individuals who are unable to self-evacuate / have mobility issues. Therefore, we expect there to be some impact on those with this protected characteristic. Any action taken forward as a result of this new proposed policy would pay due regard to age inequalities, and in our view, benefit these individuals and advance their equality of opportunity.

Gender Reassignment

Our proposals would focus on individuals who are unable to self-evacuate / have mobility issues. We therefore do not expect this new proposed policy to impact on those in this protected characteristic group.

Maternity and Pregnancy

Our proposals would focus on individuals who are unable to self-evacuate / have mobility issues. Therefore, we expect there to be some impact on those with this protected characteristic. Any action taken forward as a result of this new proposed policy would pay due regard to age inequalities, and in our view, benefit these individuals and advance their equality of opportunity.

Race

Our proposals would focus on individuals who are unable to self-evacuate / have mobility issues. We therefore do not expect this new proposed policy to impact on those in this protected characteristic group.

Religion or Belief

Our proposals would focus on individuals who are unable to self-evacuate / have mobility issues. We therefore do not expect this new proposed policy to impact on those in this protected characteristic group.

Sex

Our proposals would focus on individuals who are unable to self-evacuate / have mobility issues. We therefore do not expect this new proposed policy to impact on those in this protected characteristic group.

Sexual Orientation

Our proposals would focus on individuals who are unable to self-evacuate / have mobility issues. We therefore do not expect this new proposed policy to impact on those in this protected characteristic group.

3c. Consideration of limb 3: Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and persons who do not share it:

In the EIA for the PEEPs consultation, we noted that introducing PEEPs could lead to poor relations between people who share a protected characteristic and persons who do not share it due to significantly increased costs to other residents.

The proposals in the new consultation (both the EEIS and Evacuation Plan proposals) are expected to have minimal increased cost to leaseholders, but do not rule out the possibility that costs could be passed on to leaseholders.

For example, the costs of identifying affected individuals; carrying out PCFRAs; implementing adjustments/interventions on the back of the PCFRA (or a Home Fire Safety Visit from the FRS) and the costs of creating, storing and updating the list of vulnerable residents.

However, it is envisaged that these costs to leaseholders would be relatively minimal (in terms of extra administrative costs) and relatively rare (in terms of costs of adjustments/interventions, in comparison to the costs involved if PEEPs were to be mandated. See more detail in the Impact Analysis.

Age

We believe our proposals could slightly impact on the relations between people who share this protected characteristic, and those who do not share it.

Disability

We believe our proposals could slightly impact on the relations between people who share this protected characteristic, and those who do not share it.

Gender Reassignment

We do not believe our proposals will impact on the relations between people who share this protected characteristic, and those who do not share it.

Maternity and Pregnancy

We believe our proposals could slightly impact on the relations between people who share this protected characteristic, and those who do not share it.

Race

We do not believe our proposals will impact on the relations between people who share this protected characteristic, and those who do not share it.

Religion or Belief

We do not believe our proposals will impact on the relations between people who share this protected characteristic, and those who do not share it.

Sex

We do not believe our proposals will impact on the relations between people who share this protected characteristic, and those who do not share it.

Sexual Orientation

We do not believe our proposals will impact on the relations between people who share this protected characteristic, and those who do not share it.

4. Summary of foreseeable impacts of policy proposal, guidance or operational activity on people who share protected characteristics

Protected Characteristic Group	Potential for Positive or Negative Impact?	Explanation	Action to address negative impact
Age	Likely overall positive impact.	Our proposals seek to improve the fire safety of residents who are unable to self-evacuate. Therefore, despite issues identified, elderly residents who have mobility impairments or the very young are likely to benefit from any proposals that result from a new consultation.	Outlined on page 4
Disability	Likely overall positive impact.	Our proposals seek to improve the fire safety of residents who are unable to self-evacuate. Therefore, despite issues identified, disabled residents who have mobility impairments are likely to benefit from any proposals that result from a new consultation.	Outlined on page 4
Gender Reassignment	No foreseeable impact	The proposed approach focuses on those unable to self-evacuate and therefore does not have an impact on this group characteristic.	None required
Marriage and Civil Partnership	No foreseeable impact	The proposed approach focuses on those unable to self-evacuate and therefore does not have an impact on this group characteristic.	None required
Pregnancy and Maternity	Likely overall positive impact.	Our proposals seek to improve the fire safety of residents who are unable to self-evacuate. Therefore, despite issues identified, pregnant and maternal residents who have mobility impairments are likely to benefit from any proposals that result from a new consultation.	Outlined on page 4
Race	No foreseeable impact	The proposed approach focuses on those unable to self-evacuate and therefore does not have an impact on this group characteristic.	None required
Religion or Belief	No foreseeable impact	The proposed approach focuses on those unable to self-evacuate and therefore does not have an impact on this group characteristic.	None required
Sex	No foreseeable impact	The proposed approach focuses on those unable to self-evacuate and therefore does not have an impact on this group characteristic.	None required
Sexual Orientation	No foreseeable impact	The proposed approach focuses on those unable to self-evacuate and therefore does not have an impact on this group characteristic.	None required

5. In light of the overall policy objective, are there any ways to avoid or mitigate any of the negative impacts that you have identified above?

We believe that working up the EEIS+ consultation is the most promising way to arrive at a deliverable, safe, and proportionate way to improve fire safety for individuals who are unable to self-evacuate, benefiting those with the protected characteristics of disability, age and pregnancy/maternity, with no impacts on those with other protected characteristics which we have yet had drawn to our attention. The mitigation activities have already been outlined throughout the document. Our intent is that any potential negative impacts will be identified during the consultation and subsequently mitigated against.

This EIA will be reviewed and updated following the conclusion of the EEIS+ consultation.

6. Review date

10th August 2022

7. Declaration

I have read the available evidence and I am satisfied that this demonstrates compliance, where relevant, with Section 149 of the Equality Act and that due regard has been made to the need to: eliminate unlawful discrimination; advance equality of opportunity; and foster good relations.

SCS sign off: Zoe Wilkinson

Name/Title: Deputy Director

Directorate/Unit: Fire Safety Unit

Lead contact: Ollie Burrows (Ollie.burrows@homeoffice.gov.uk)

Date: 20/04/2022

For monitoring purposes all completed EIA documents must be sent to the PSED@homeoffice.gov.uk

Date sent to PSED Team: 20/04/22

1. Relevant persons are those lawfully on the premises. ↩

2. Article 18 (3) Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 ↩

3. Article 14 (2) (b) Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. ↩