| 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." |
|
|
