| 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." |
|
|
