A Tale of Two Duties
By Andy Shipley
On 11th November 2025, project researcher Andy Shipley participated in a webinar organised and hosted by the Housing Learning and Improvement Network (Housing LIN), called “30 Years on: Reflecting on the Disability Discrimination Act and the road ahead”.
This blog is based upon Andy’s presentation.
You can view and listen to a full recording of the webinar online.
In April, Sensing Climate shared our first Working Paper, called “Why is Bristol City Council’s resolution to make the city accessible for disabled people the exception, not the norm?” In the paper, we reflected on examples of the inconsistent approach towards the inclusion of disabled people’s perspectives and priorities in policy development in England, specifically in the areas of housing and transport.
We then went on to look at the framework of equality legislation as it has evolved over the last 30 years, and how this may have influenced the shaping of climate-related policies that will have a direct impact upon disabled people’s lives. We cited examples of progress achieved under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, and in particular the Disability Equality Duty (DED).
The working paper sets out the substantive differences between the requirements of the DED and those of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) introduced by the Equality Act 2010. We sought to illustrate, by referencing the findings of several parliamentary select committee inquiries, how the PSED is failing to deliver equality for disabled people in the policy areas of housing and transport.
Building upon this analysis during the Housing LIN webinar, and drawing on evidence that has emerged over the last few months, Andy explored how the PSED may also have impacted, with very real-world consequences for disabled people, the area of emergency preparedness policy and planning.
Fire Safety for Disabled People in general needs residential buildings
In 2011, the Coalition Government published guidance for managers (called ‘Responsible Persons’) of general needs residential blocks, titled ‘Fire Safety in Purpose-Built Blocks of Flats’. Produced by the Local Government Association, and referred to as The LGA Guide, it sought to clarify the responsibilities of those Responsible Persons under fire safety legislation following the Lakanal House fire in 2009.
Whilst the guide acknowledges that disabled people are likely to be present in general needs residential buildings, it notes in Paragraph 79.9, that ‘in “general needs” blocks of flats, the physical and mental abilities of the residents are likely to vary but suggests that it is usually unrealistic to expect the responsible person to plan for that or to have in place special arrangements, such as personal emergency evacuation plans’ (as noted on page 185 of the 2024 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Volume 3 report).
The guide continues in Paragraph 79.1 to state that, ‘in the case of a “general needs” block it is not realistic to expect the responsible person to hold information relating to residents with mobility or other conditions affecting their ability to escape in a way that enables it to be made available to the fire and rescue services’ (as also noted on page 185 of the 2024 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Volume 3 report).
Significantly, this LGA guidance was drafted without input from disabled people or Disabled People’s Organisations (DPOs).
Many years on, the Grenfell Tower Inquiry came to very different conclusions regarding measures that those Responsible Persons should be taking to improve the fire safety of disabled residents of general needs accommodation.
Volume 4 of the 2019 Phase 1 report recommends (page 777):
“that the owner and manager of every high-rise residential building be required by law to prepare personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) for all residents whose ability to self-evacuate may be compromised (such as persons with reduced mobility or cognition);
“that the owner and manager of every high-rise residential building be required by law to include up-to-date information about persons with reduced mobility and their associated PEEPs in the premises information box”.
Volume 3 of the 2024 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 report concludes (page 185) that:
“We do not think it is impracticable for the responsible person to make available to the fire and rescue services by digital or other means reliable information about those with chronic disabilities whose ability to evacuate the building without assistance in an emergency is known to be compromised”.
Although critiqued as ‘watered-down’ and limited to Responsible Persons of high rise, high risk buildings, the Government has accepted a version of these recommendations. In July this year, they published new regulations introducing the use of residential Person-Centred Fire Safety Risk Assessments and Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans.
According to the Government Factsheet on Residential PEEPs, the new Fire Safety (Residential Evacuation Plans) (England) Regulations 2025 aim to: “improve the fire safety and evacuation of residents in specified residential buildings in England who would have difficulties evacuating a building by themselves in the event of a fire (relevant residents). This may be due to a physical mobility issue, some other disability such as having a sight or hearing impairment, or a cognitive condition. The Regulations also mandate building emergency evacuation plans in these buildings”.
Also listed in the Factsheet are the measures included in the Residential PEEPs process:
The responsible person (typically the building owner or manager) identifying residents who need Residential PEEPs;
A person-centred fire risk assessment – a conversation between the responsible person and the resident, if one is requested by the resident – to understand their particular risks and identify how their fire safety and evacuation can be improved;
An emergency evacuation statement of what the resident should do in the event of a fire (if agreed between the responsible person and the resident);
Information for the Fire and Rescue Authority to help inform any operational response and in case they need to undertake evacuation (but only if the resident explicitly agrees to that information being shared);
An ongoing duty to review the person-centred fire risk assessment / emergency evacuation statement, and the building emergency evacuation plan.
Emergency Preparedness
When it comes to wider emergency preparedness policy and plans, however, there seems to be some catching up to do.
The 2004 Civil Contingencies Act requires agencies, known as ‘Category 1’ responders (including emergency services, local authorities, the National Health Service, the Environment Agency etc.), to develop plans to both prevent emergencies from happening and minimise the risk of adverse impacts when they do occur. Local Resilience Forums (LRFs) are multi-agency partnerships that coordinate action by Category 1 responders.
In 2025, new Government guidance was published for Local Resilience Forums for ‘Identifying and supporting persons who are vulnerable in an emergency’. While more comprehensive than previous iterations, this guidance reproduces earlier attitudes seen in the 2011 ‘Fire Safety in Purpose-Built Blocks of Flats’ LGA Guide in advising that: “It may be unrealistic for many LRFs to have any other approach than compiling a list of data holders, as data will change too frequently to have a single compiled list of vulnerable persons” (page 24).
The 2025 Government guidance does not consider the value of person-centred risk assessments nor of personalised emergency plans in improving the safety of disabled or ‘vulnerable’ people in emergencies.
To be clear, it took the lives of 15 disabled people on the night of 14th June 2017 to bring about reforms to fire safety regulations. If the PSED had any influence in that shift, it would be to the extent to which it permitted the persistent neglect of the fire safety needs of disabled residents at both national and local levels, with the tragic consequences that we saw play out in Grenfell Tower that night.
Were the Disability Equality Duty requirements still in place, coupled with the Secretary of State duty to report on progress in their policy sectors, it is hard to see how such a critical piece of guidance as ‘Fire Safety in Purpose-Built Blocks of Flats’ could have been produced without the involvement of disabled people or DPOs. It’s also questionable whether this situation could have been allowed to persist across the wider civil emergency sector for all this time.
Without a person-centred approach, there are risks that, as with the Grenfell Tower disaster, disabled people will continue to be left behind. We can only hope that it won’t take further tragedies, in extreme weather events for example, for emergency preparedness and resilience planning to prioritise person-centred risk assessments and personal emergency plans that protect the lives of disabled people.