TOWARDS EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY- MAKING IT HAPPEN

A RESPONSE FROM THE EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION

EXTRACT FROM EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY- MAKING IT HAPPEN A RESPONSE FROM THE ASSOCIATE PARLIAMENTARY GROUP ON SEX EQUALITY

SCOTLAND AND WALES
Question 7: The Government intends to establish any new equality machinery for the whole of Great Britain, reflecting the devolution settlement. What arrangements need to be in place to meet the distinctive economic, political, legal and cultural circumstances in Scotland and Wales?
Assuming that equality issues continue to be retained functions under the devolution settlement, the APGSE considers that the current arrangement operated by the EOC and the other commissions would be a good model from which to start. At present, the offices in Scotland and Wales are part of the overall Commission, but have separate directors, staff and at least one Commissioner (sitting on the main Commission) with particular responsibility for each. Offices have a degree of autonomy, within an overarching framework; for example, the activities of EOC Scotland and EOC Wales take place within the context of a single set of corporate priorities for the whole EOC.
Of course, different emphases and different ways of working are and will continue to be needed in different places. In some cases wholly different policy might need to be developed to take account of the needs of the devolved countries.
In particular, both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly already have a positive duty to promote equality as part of the devolution settlement, and this is likely to mean that equality issues have a different impact on those responsibilities that are devolved from the impact is has in England. This is particularly the case for those issues where a different kind of social agenda is developing, such as education and health, where the commission offices need sufficient autonomy to respond appropriately. We would like to see a similar duty in the rest of the UK.
At the moment, there is no monitoring mechanism for this duty to promote equality. The establishment of the new commission would provide an opportunity for an independent review to take place on a regular basis, with the monitoring being the responsibility of the commission's Scotland and Wales offices.
Although the current commissions work closely with the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament, amendments to the establishing legislation should be considered, to make the link between the devolved institutions and a single commission stronger and more formal - though still also retaining links between the commission and Westminster.
In Wales, the commission's office would need the capacity to ensure that Welsh language issues are fully taken into account.

EXTRACT FROM TOWARDS EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY-MAKING IT HAPPEN A RESPONSE FROM THE EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION

SCOTLAND AND WALES
53. Question 7 asks what arrangements need to be in place to meet the distinctive economic, political, legal and cultural circumstances in Scotland and Wales. The EOC welcomes the relative openness of the consultation at this stage and the promise of involvement in discussion of more detailed options later on in the process. We believe that the key test for designing new arrangements in Scotland and Wales is what arrangements will be most effective in promoting and enforcing equality and achieving change in Scotland and Wales. It will also be important to ensure that arrangements for Scotland and Wales contribute to effective GB-wide work.
54. In forming its views on this question the EOC has carried out extensive consultation with stakeholders in Scotland and Wales, in partnership with the CRE and DRC. The key messages of this consultation are:

A very strong emphasis on the need to design arrangements that reflect and are based on the distinctiveness of the contexts in both Scotland and Wales. This distinctiveness includes not just the existence of the devolved institutions but also: the operating environment for the commissions (demographic, economic, cultural and institutional); D the increasing divergence of the Scottish and Welsh public policy agendas from the Westminster agenda; the enhanced political scope for achieving change. The need for future arrangements to take full account of the practical significance of specific legislative provisions concerning equality in Scotland and Wales including the respective duties to promote equality, the wide definition of equality in the Government of Scotland and Wales Acts and in Wales the Welsh Language Act. In both Scotland and Wales, the equality agenda clearly has more than the six strands currently covered by existing or proposed GB antidiscrimination law. A desire for formal institutional links with the devolved administrations and legislatures, but alongside rather than instead of links with GB and EU institutions.

Mixed views about the relevance of the institutional integration agenda for progress in Scotland and Wales. In Scotland, there has been less emphasis on the question about whether there should be a single equality body per se, probably because the institutional integration across the strands is assumed and the focus is ensuring that the institution can operate effectively and deal with all the grounds of discrimination set out in the Scotland Act. In Wales, the debate

President:   Baroness Lockwood; Vice Presidents: Lord Dholakia, Baroness Miller of Hendon, Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

Chair: Julie Morgan MP; Vice-Chairs: Peter Bottomley MP, Patsy Calton MP, Vera Baird MP;

Secretary:   Baroness Gould of Potternewton; Treasurer: Stephen Hesford MP

Response from the Associate Parliamentary Group on Sex Equality to Equality and Diversity: Making it Happen
Introduction
The Associate Parliamentary Group on Sex Equality (APGSE) is a cross-party group of 81 MPs and peers, whose purpose is "to campaign for the achievement of sex equality in the UK". The APGSE is registered as an All-Party Group with the- Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
In May 2002, Barbara Roche MP, now Minister for Women in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, announced that a Government project to consider in detail possible models for a single equality body. The result of that project was, of course, the publication of the consultation document Equality and Diversity: Making it Happen on 23 October 2002.
Given the importance of this issue to the future of equality, the APGSE decided to hold a series of meetings around the particular topic of a single equality commission, and to respond to the consultation. The full programme of meetings, the process that has led to this response, and the names of those members who attended meetings or otherwise responded are set out in the endnotes to this response.1
Although the APGSE receives administrative support from the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), the views expressed in this response are those of the APGSE, not of the EOC.
Summary

A vision of the society we want, with all citizens accepting equality of opportunity and respect as a basic right, is very important;

The Government should be promoting equality of opportunity and respect as fundamental values in society;

A single equality body is the best way to deliver equality in our society where people's identity's increasingly complex;
A single equality act is essential for a single equality body to work effectively.
Question 1: Are the priorities set out the key priorities for our equality institutions?2
The APGSE believes the priorities set out are, on the whole, the right ones. However, we wish to add:

The consideration of the future structure of our equality institutions is an opportunity to state what the equality laws and structures we have in the UK - and the impending changes to them - are trying to achieve. A vision of the society we want, with all citizens accepting equality of opportunity and respect, for themselves and for one another, as a basic right, is very important. At present, there is a danger that equality is seen as belonging only to particular groups, who are (albeit mistakenly) seen as benefiting from the protection of laws that do not apply to everyone; the extension of equality law offers the chance to make it clear that equality belongs to everyone. We support the view given by Julie Mellor, when she spoke to the APGSE on behalf of the EOC, who suggested the vision might be expressed as follows:

We want to be in a society where:
  • People fulfil their potential and make a contribution at home, work and in communities;
  • Differences are respected, valued and harnessed productively;
  • Individuals & communities can live with dignity & safety;
  • Everyone feels they have a stake in society & democracy and is able to participate in decisions affecting them.

More broadly, we want people to recognise that, as citizens, they have:
  • The right to respect for difference;
  • The responsibility to make a contribution;
  • An equal worth with other citizens.
This led her to the conclusion that:

To tackle these issues, we need new institutions to work differently. It is' impossible to deliver the equality agenda without an integrated approach; we are letting down women if we do not work in this way.
"Mainstreaming" equality into policies and practices is a very important part of ensuring that services are delivered appropriately for the needs of the whole population, including those groups with particular needs. Although the equality institutions can lead and advise, putting mainstreaming into practice is ultimately the responsibility of the public, private and voluntary sectors - yet at present there appears to be little understanding of how to do this. If the Government is adamant that there should not be legislation to put all the different equality strands on the same footing (for the APGSE's views on this, see our answer to question 3), then effective and consistent mainstreaming may offer a way of achieving some of the same goals.
The APGSE agrees that a "flexible approach" is appropriate. Nevertheless, enforcement action must always be available, both as a means of promoting good practice and of enforcing the law. There will always be circumstances where firm enforcement action is required.
Although the best use of resources must, of course, be a priority, it will be very important that any new body is adequately resourced, if it is to carry out all these functions effectively. In particular, extending the local Race Equality Councils (RECs) currently resourced by the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) to cover all the equality strands will require significant extra resources. Additionally, it is very important that resources are distributed in a way that does not lead to marginalisation of one strand or another. For example, as the Women's National Commission (WNC) pointed out, at present, the EOC, which has offices in Wales and Scotland but no local network, only receives about the half the funding annually that the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) and CRE each receives. Gender discrimination is often indirect, and hard to address, and there is a danger that high profile issues might take up all the resources, leaving nothing for gender.
There are serious choices to be made when it comes to resource allocation which affect how the commission operates. As we heard from Colm O'Cinneide, some commissions (Ireland, Northern Ireland, Canada, USA) have a "functional" structure, with no specific units dealing with the different strands, just, for example, a legal team, a research team, a policy division, people working on promotion. There is an advantage to this of more effective working across the strands, but a disadvantage that some grounds may be disadvantaged.
The alternative is to have a "strand-specific" structure, with specific full-time commissioners overseeing policy for their own equality area, supported by specific policy and legal structures, e.g. Australia. The advantage of this is the expertise that is brought to each strand, but there has been a real problem in Australia whereby the different commissioners have fought very fiercely over resources, the amount of energy put into their strand, and the time devoted to it. Recently, a strong chain of command has been put in place to try to solve this.
A possible approach that was mentioned to us by more than one speaker is the South Africa model: there, the commission has a functional structure, but what are known as "Section 5 Committees". These are specialist policy-forming committees, made up of commissioners, but also NGOs, academics, stakeholders, etc. The policy they make is subject to the approval of the Chief Commissioner, but they input particular expertise and experience to the commission.
Additional funds will be necessary: Colm O'Cinneide mentioned the American experience in the 1970s, where functions were transferred to a single commission without additional funding and this made its operation very difficult. A possible model is given in a South African report by Professor Hugh Corder on securing the future of their commissions. That suggests how a single commission's finances might be protected, through strong Parliamentary scrutiny together with an external assessment of the commission's needs.
In preparation for the changes to the equality institutions, there is a significant role for the Government in promoting equality of opportunity and respect as fundamental values in society. The APGSE recognises that the Government has taken care to involve a large number of groups and individuals throughout the UK during this process, and that this has achieved a much wider debate than is normal during this type of consultation.
However, as is inevitably the case, there is a gap between informed opinion and others who are less likely to be engaged with any political issue. The APGSE is particularly concerned that what equality means to them should be understood by all citizens. There is currently very little debate of these issues in the general public, and especially by people experiencing social exclusion and others who might arguably most benefit from a new approach to equality. We urge the Government to consider how such a public debate might be encouraged.
Question 2: Do you think that a single equality body for Great Britain is a good approach?
The APGSE has reached the conclusion that a single body represents the best approach to achieving equality, including sex equality, in a society where individuals' identity is increasingly complex, and where there is a need to provide an effective mechanism to reflect individuals' multiple identity3. It is interesting to note that the views of some APGSE members have altered significantly during the course of the series:

some members who were not in favour of a single body now consider it essential to move to a single commission;

others who were in favour of a single body but were not convinced that unified equality legislation was necessary now consider a single act as vital for a single body to work.
All the speakers to the APGSE were in favour of a single equality body, with the exception of those representing the WNC, whose members are particularly concerned about the marginalisation of sex equality within a single body. The APGSE notes that those speakers who are particularly actively involved in the application of current equality law believe that a single equality body is the right approach, but believe very strongly that, to work effectively, this structure requires the underpinning of a single equality act to give the same rights to all the equality strands.
We heard particularly from Colm O'Cinneide and Julie Mellor on the advantages of a single commission, and agree with much of what they said. The APGSE believes that significant advantages for a single commission would be:

the unifying, common principles that would underlie all its work;

the greater effectiveness of a single voice addressing the organisations and individuals it wanted to influence; and.

the way in which learning from one equality strand to another can be more effectively applied within a single commission.

Julie Mellor, on behalf of the EOC, put the case for a single commission most strongly, suggesting that sex equality cannot be achieved without a single commission, and we agree with this.
We do not believe it to be possible to end gender discrimination and disadvantage by approaching it in isolation from other issues of inequality and disadvantage. Instead, we need a structure that recognises the complexity that exists in the way individuals now see themselves; any disadvantage through gender is likely to represent only one part of this complex identity. A single commission would be better placed to address the discrimination suffered, for example, by an Asian Muslim woman on the grounds of gender, race, and/or religious belief. By looking at the issues in this way, we believe a single commission would be able to challenge the widespread - but mistaken -perception that the very considerable progress that has been made in gender inequality and sex discrimination means these problems no longer exist.
As well as these so-called multiple identity issues, it is important for any new arrangements to tackle group, as well as individual, causes of discrimination. The extension of protection to age, religious belief and sexual orientation (especially age) equality strands could lead to a recognition that equality means all of us, all of our lives: this is an opportunity, but also a challenge, for a single commission, which would have the task of "selling" equality issues to the public. At the moment (according to some opinion research carried out for the EOC), equality has an image of being part of an imposed "PC" agenda, which the public do not like. People do, however, respond to the notion of fairness and justice, for individuals who have been treated unfairly; but they do not like "privileging" particular groups. When all strands are included in a single body, there is more chance that equality begins to be about "us", rather than "them".
Finally, at present, there is inevitable duplication of resources between the individual commissions, even though they have sought to address this, and a single commission would mean a single source of e.g. corporate support services. In addition, a single commission will provide a single point of contact for the public, who are consequently better informed as to who to turn to if they have any equality needs or difficulties.
While we strongly believe in all these advantages, the APGSE wishes to draw attention to a significant challenge in setting up a single commission: how at the same time to retain a focus on strand specific issues.
This is currently the source of considerable concern in the UK, especially (of those we heard from) the WNC, the DRC and (to a lesser extent) the CRE. Such tensions are understandable; in creating a single equality body, there is a risk that any grouping could be marginalised. This may particularly be the case with sex equality, where there appears to be a perception by some that it has already been achieved, despite the evidence; for example, of the significant gap between.men's and women's pay, and the serious under-representation of women in positions of authority in public, political and business life.
More guidance is needed from the Government on how a single equality body can avoid marginalisation of any particular equality strand, so that these concerns are addressed, and these important stakeholders in the equality arena are reassured. We await more detailed proposals from the Government about the actual structure that is envisaged and will respond to that consultation when it comes. We hope similar efforts will be made to consult widely on this crucial structural issue, as have been undertaken during the current consultation.
Question 3: If you agree that a single equality body should be established, what , powers do you consider it should have?
The APGSE believes a single equality body should have all the powers currently held by the existing commissions (though not necessarily in their current form), together with additional powers as necessary to bring all the 6 equality strands up to the same standard of protection from discrimination and the promotion of equality for all. The highest standards should apply to all the grounds, rather than equalising by levelling down.
We agree with all the speakers, and all the strands, that this could best be achieved by bringing forward the necessary provisions as part of the legislation to establish the single equality body. We further agree that any bill should:
  • place a duty on public sector bodies to promote equality, which covers all areas of equality, bringing them up to the same standard as race equality;
  • implement the Disability Rights Task Force recommendations, which include extending disabled people's rights of access to transport and private clubs;
  • provide protection against discrimination in the supply of goods, facilities and services on the grounds of age, religion or sexual orientation, bringing them up to the same standards as the existing grounds;
  • implement mandatory equal pay reviews, if a voluntary approach is unsuccessful;
  • implement the Race Directive by primary legislation;
  • provide consistent definitions of key terms wherever possible and appropriate; and
  • give the single commission consistent powers and functions across all areas.
If the objection to unifying equality legislation in this way is the fear of delaying the setting up of the single commission (and it is true that it does represent a potentially enormous task, requiring significant Parliamentary time), the APGSE suggests it would be better to wait to establish the single commission, in order to ensure it can work effectively from the outset. It would, as Rabinder Singh QC said, be strictly accurately correct to say that a single body could be made to work without a single act, but it would be very difficult. Colm O'Cinneide told us:

All countries except the USA and Northern Ireland do have unified legislation. The Republic of Ireland has been particularly effective, for example, on age, and also the travelling community -there you have a single commission applying single legislation (in two acts, one covering employment, and the other access to goods and services).
We were very struck by what Rabinder Singh QC said, and agree with his analysis. While it may be possible to draft legislation that would change the institutions without changing the underlying legal framework, it is not desirable. The problems. of not unifying the legislation can be illustrated by thinking of an example of an individual with overlapping characteristics: say, an Asian, Muslim, elderly woman. She would have different legal rights and remedies depending on which piece of legislation covered her, situation. A person's characteristics are treated in different ways under the different parts of the existing and proposed legislation, but people do not come with well-flagged legal labels. Instead, we should always remember in making policy and legislating that what we are talking about are individuals who have been badly treated in real life. The people responsible for that treatment - public authorities, employers etc. - currently have correspondingly different legal responsibilities/duties; we would like to see a situation where it was irrelevant which ground was the reason for the poor treatment. If we want high quality public services available to all, and someone has been discriminated against, so that they receive a poorer service, it should not matter what the grounds for discrimination are and whether a complaint can be brought or not, depending on those grounds.
The equality legislation was progressive and ahead of its time 30 years ago. It was symbolic in the way in which it proclaimed values to society. It has achieved a lot, using the mechanism of enforcing individual rights through legal cases, but the APGSE believes it is now necessary to look again at what is needed, and in particular to find a formula for changing the position of groups in society, alongside the enforcement of individual rights.
Rabinder Singh QC also highlighted some of the practical difficulties if there is no unifying equality act:

I think we need to start again from first principles in the light of experience with the current legislation. People are not neatly packaged, cases require investigation of the evidence, and even then it may not be clear on what grounds someone if being discriminated against, e.g. Asian (in which case they are currently protected) or Muslim (in which case they are not at the moment and may not be in the future, if it's not an employment, training or education case). It's not helpful or desirable to continue these technical debates, which are more suited to an area like shipping law, not equality. There is a danger of losing sight of the vision which was the starting point of the original legislation - that people are equal, with the legislation then stating a few justifiable exceptions to that rule.
The APGSE's preference would be for publication of the unifying legislation in draft, so that it could be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny; it would also be suitable for carryover. If this did (as is likely) take the timetable beyond the end of 2003, which is the date for implementation of the employment provisions for the new equality grounds, then a temporary enforcement mechanism could be used.
Other powers that the APGSE wishes to see for a single equality body are:
  • As a minimum, the ability to bring cases under the Human Rights Act 1998 where the issue touches on equality;4 Rabinder Singh QC highlighted the reason for including human rights in the single commission's remit:

It is possible to think of numerous cases where there isn't clear discrimination on any particular grounds, but there is disadvantage; for example, for elderly people in residential care, the closure of homes might give rise to an action on the basis of respect for a person's home, or neglect cases might come within the definition of degrading treatment. "Do not resuscitate" notices in hospitals are about the right to life of disabled people. These are all instances where, arguably, an equality body has a role. Giving the body powers in these cases would widen its remit, but with good reason to do so.
  • The ability to deliver its services locally, by analogy with the existing RECs;
  • Possibly, more emphasis on conciliation when a complaint is made, in a more systematic attempt to preserve the existing employment or other relationship, by analogy with the powers of the Equality Authority in the Republic of Ireland.
Question 4: Do you think that a single gateway structure would be a good approach5
Question 5: Do you think that a structure based on an overarching commission would be a good approach?6
Question 6: Do you think that there are other organisational models that might work as well or better than those set out in the consultation paper?
The APGSE's preference is for a single equality body, which should operate as a single gateway, perhaps through a network of local equality councils, to promote access to the services provided by the single commission. Equality Direct, the existing helpline and internet gateway for advice to employers, which is managed by ACAS, in partnership with the DTI's Small Business Service, the three Equality Commissions and the Federation of Small Businesses, should be brought into the single equality body, and more widely promoted as a confidential source of help with equality issues.
None of the other possible structures answer adequately the questions of multiple identity or enforcement and promotion in relation to the new strands.
Question 7: The Government intends to establish any new equality machinery for the whole of Great Britain, reflecting the devolution settlement. What arrangements need to be in place to meet the distinctive economic, political, legal and cultural circumstances in Scotland and Wales?
Assuming that equality issues continue to be retained functions under the devolution settlement, the APGSE considers that the current arrangement operated by the EOC and the other commissions would be a good model from which to start. At present, the offices in Scotland and Wales are part of the overall Commission, but have separate directors, staff and at least one Commissioner (sitting on the main Commission) with particular responsibility for each. Offices have a degree of autonomy, within an overarching framework; for example, the activities of EOC Scotland and EOC Wales take place within the context of a single set of corporate priorities for the whole EOC.
Of course, different emphases and different ways of working are and will continue to be needed in different places. In some cases wholly different policy might need to be developed to take account of the needs of the devolved countries.
In particular, both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly already have a positive duty to promote equality as part of the devolution settlement, and this is likely to mean that equality issues have a different impact on those responsibilities that are devolved from the impact is has in England. This is particularly the case for those issues where a different kind of social agenda is developing, such as education and health, where the commission offices need sufficient autonomy to respond appropriately. We would like to see a similar duty in the rest of the UK.
At the moment, there is no monitoring mechanism for this duty to promote equality. The establishment of the new commission would provide an opportunity for an independent review to take place on a regular basis, with the monitoring being the responsibility of the commission's Scotland and Wales offices.
Although the current commissions work closely with the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament, amendments to the establishing legislation should be considered, to make the link between the devolved institutions and a single commission stronger and more formal - though still also retaining links between the commission and Westminster.
In Wales, the commission's office would need the capacity to ensure that Welsh language issues are fully taken into account.
Question 8: We would welcome your view on the type of services that need to be delivered at a local or regional level; do these need to be delivered at a regional or local level, both or neither?7 Do you have views on the best methods and routes for delivering all these services at either local or regional level? Please specify.
The APGSE considers that, ideally, all the services mentioned should be delivered both locally and regionally. If the availability of resources requires a choice between these options, then the APGSE regards local delivery as more important. This resource should be as close to local people as possible, provided high standards of professionalism and accountability can be assured. It is very important that:
  • there is sufficient management from the centre to ensure that local offices are competent and highly professional; possible models of local delivery qualitycontrolled from the centre to follow include Citizens' Advice (the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux) and Victim Support (the National Association of Victim Support Schemes);
  • they are sufficiently well-resourced, especially as local offices would be dealing with all the equality strands;
  • they promote equality to business, as well as offering advice to individuals.
This may suggest a model where the majority of the commission's staff are locally-based, with a central office, comprising policy, strategy and enforcement staff (to whose expertise the local/regional staff can have access as required), together with central services, including a central helpline to assist with access to the commission's services.
Question 9: Do you agree that any new institution should carry out both enforcement and promotion activities? What are your views on the advantages and disadvantages of a single institution being responsible for both enforcement and promotion?8
The APGSE believes that the functions should be kept together, as they are at present; any other approach could lead to confusion, if not chaos. It is important that those staff promoting equality have access to the evidence obtained through enforcement activity, so that it is based in reality. The two functions complement each other and the crossfertilisation between the two adds legitimacy to both. So far as we are aware, none of the other countries with comparable bodies separates the functions in the way that is suggested.
Notes
1 The APGSE Executive proposed that the Group should submit a response to the consultation document, based on evidence presented to the APGSE to enable members to clarify their views on the issues. A series of speaker meetings was held, to provide an opportunity for discussing the issues with experts.
The meetings were:
Getting it right: views from the Women's National Commission: Mary-Ann Stephenson, Steering Group Member (freelance democracy consultant, British Council, and former Director of the Fawcett Society), and Janet Veitch, Director (27 November 2002): Is the model of a single commission the right way to go or is there a better approach to achieve equality for both the "traditional" strands of gender, disability and race and the "new" strands of age, sexual orientation and religion?
Learning from other models of equality: Colm O'Cinneide, Lecturer in Law, University College, London (11 December 2002): How do other countries structure their equalities machinery? How has the Northern Ireland experience of a single commission worked? Where does human rights fit into the framework?
A vision of equality for all: Julie Mellor, Chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission (17 December 2002): How can we fulfil the vision of a society in which everyone regards equality as applicable to them? What might be the advantages of a single commission, and what conditions are needed to make it work effectively?
Making sense of the legislation: Rabinder Singh 4C, barrister, Matrix Chambers (15 January 2003): Does the current legislation actually deliver sex, race .and disability equality for individuals or groups within society? How would the Government's current proposals work for age, sexual orientation and religion? Is it possible or desirable to change the equality institutions without also unifying the legislation? Where does human rights fit in?
Each meeting consisted of a 10-15 minute presentation by the speaker, followed by 45 minutes of discussion and questions. Each speaker was asked to provide a short summary of his or her views in advance of the meeting; after the meeting, a note of the discussion was prepared. Both these documents were circulated to all members of the APGSE as they were produced.
In order to produce a submission and report of the process, each speaker's outline and the note of each meeting were then gathered together arid combined with a summary of the views of the current equality commissions and representatives of the new strands on a single equality body and related issues. These documents were circulated in a pack to all APGSE members, who were invited to a further meeting to discuss the APGSE's submission.
A note of that meeting was worked up into a draft submission, which, after consultation with the Chair, was circulated to every APGSE member for comment. A final meeting was held to finalise the response. Efforts have been made to reflect the views of members who make comments at each stage.
Every MP and over half of peers were informed in advance that the APGSE would be responding to the consultation in this way, and invited to join the APGSE for this process, in order to have this additional opportunity to explore the issues around equality in the UK and the structures that aim to deliver it, and to make their views known in response to the current consultation. Members who commented specifically are: Julie Morgan MP, Vera Baird MP, Peter Bottomley MP, Patsy Calton MP, Michael Connarty MP, Baroness David, Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen, Baroness Gould of Potternewton, Stephen Hesford MP, Baroness Platt of Writtle, Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale, Joan Ruddock MP and Baroness Thomas of Walliswood.
2The priorities set out are:
  • Raising awareness and stimulating debate on the key barriers to a more equal society, looking widely and going beyond the concerns of individual groups. Taking the argument to the public and to decision makers everywhere. Doing so on the basis of a deeper understanding of how inequalities manifest themselves in today's society and how they can be countered. Improving the evidence base so that actions and policies are well targeted and effective.
  • Mainstreaming - or building issues of equality into policies and practices - across a broad front, taking account of all equality strands. Engaging with government and public service providers across the breadth of policies and programmes and their delivery to ensure that diverse needs are met. And with business and the voluntary sector to support culture change there.

• Providing advice and guidance to employers and service providers covering all their
      equality obligations;

• Informing and supporting individuals across the breadth of their equality rights;

• Flexible approaches to enforcement, with more emphasis on conciliation and  
      other modern dispute resolution techniques;    

• Effective means of tackling multiple discrimination cases.

• Fostering strong local networks to help tackle barriers to inequality at source.

• Working in partnership with a wide range of stakeholders and openness to all.

• Effective, streamlined arrangements making the best use of resources.
3  This is the view of the majority of APGSE members who took part in the preparation of this response, with the exception of Baroness Platt of Writtle, a former Chair of the EOC, who remains opposed to a single commission, for the reasons given by the Women's National Commission.
4 There are a number of options for how human rights might be dealt with in the context of the establishment of a single equality body:
  • The minimum referred to above, whereby the commission would be able to support legall cases under the Human Rights Act which touch on equality issues;
  • A greater role for the single commission, whereby it could deal with any human rights case it felt appropriate, and also promote a human rights culture alongside a culture of equality (Rabinder Singh QC felt this would avoid technical arguments over its ability to support a particular case);
  • A combined equality and human rights commission;
  • A separate human rights commission, established alongside the single equality commission.
5    A single gateway would provide a single point of contact for information and advice on equality and diversity issues both for business and individuals, but with separate commissions retaining their own governance, policies and priorities.
6 An overarching commission would provide an overarching governance structure that would determine strategic priorities and direction and make key decisions on budget allocations. This overarching body, on which each strand would have a representative, might be supported by a board for each of the strands, which decides that strand's priorities. These boards might comprise a small number of strand specific commissioners who would be accountable to the overarching board.
7 The suggested services are: advice and guidance to individuals; advice and guidance to business; a 'gateway' or focal point into the work of any new equality institution; promotion of equality to local employers and service providers.
8 The document states:
"It has been argued that, from business' point of view, there would be advantage in assigning enforcement and promotion responsibilities to separate organisations in future. Some companies can find it difficult to be open with a commission in seeking advice on improving its practices, when that body is also responsible for enforcement.
There are strong arguments however for retaining the functions of promotion and enforcement in the same organisation. Having separate organisations would prevent lessons learnt flowing between enforcement on the one hand and promotion and guidance activities on the other. The two activities need to inform each other. Separation would lead to loss of expertise and duplication of effort. Without legal remedies as last resort, the body may be taken less seriously by business, hindering its effectiveness. Provided there is a reasonable balance between the advice and enforcement functions and proper separation of them in the body's internal organisation (i.e. `Chinese walls'), it should be possible to manage any tensions in a way satisfactory for all its customers."