The Equalities Review

Reference Group meeting, 12 July 2005 at 2.00pm

Venue

Abbey Community Centre
34 Great Smith Street
London

Attendees

Reference Group

Jenny Watson (co-Chair)
Bert Massie (co-Chair)
Stephen Alambritis
Naomi Alleyne
Amanda Ariss
Mohammed Aziz
Jane Campbell
Karen Chouhan
Caroline Gooding
Lucy de Groot
Francesca Klug
Gordon Lishman
Sandy Pitcher
Sarah Spencer
Hanne Stinson
Ben Summerskill
Sarah Veale
Stephen Whittle
Carolyne Willow
Richard Zipfel

Secretariat

Angela Mason (Department for Trade and Industry)
Clare Farmer (Discrimination Law Review Team)
Rosie Seymour (Equalities Review Team)
Cathy Francis (Equalities Review Team)
Sarah Martyn (Equalities Review Team)
Stephen Earl (Equalities Review Team)

Apologies

Katherine Rake
Neil Bentley
Carey Oppenheim

Agenda item 1 – introductions

1. Jenny Watson welcomed attendees and explained that Bert and she had decided to chair alternate meetings, she would chair this first meeting. She explained that she saw the Reviews as a once in a lifetime opportunity to determine the future of the anti–discrimination and equality agenda in the UK. The Reference Group had an important role in influencing both reviews. She highlighted the need for the Group to focus on intransigent issues. She also asked that Reference Group members actively take steps to involve and consult with wider stakeholders.
2. Jenny then invited Bert Massie to add his thoughts for this first meeting. Bert said that the next 12 months could influence the next 15 to 20 years of equality and anti-discrimination development. The work of the Reviews should include looking at what has worked and what has failed to work. Fresh ideas were sought, and as an example Bert cited the possibilities created by an equality index similar to the Government's inflationary targets. Bert also stressed the importance of taking the equality debate to the world outside the immediate equalities lobby.
3. The members of the Reference Group then introduced themselves and gave their top priorities for the Reviews, these included:
   • the balance between legislation and the experience of organisations involved in ending discrimination
   • the role of integration and the development of an integrated society
   • integration of anti–discrimination work across the various strands and its interaction with human rights
   • an examination of whether the way in which legislation addresses difference and substantial disadvantage might not be the best, or at least the only, way to tackle discrimination
   • how to encourage the business sector to pursue diversity, making the case that there are wide benefits to doing so
   • encouraging and developing new thinking, there are a lot of obvious things which can be done but these reviews offer the opportunity to develop fresh perspectives
   • increasing the ownership by ethnic minority communities of anti–discrimination legislation, and exploring the possibilities of affirmative action analogous to the Northern Ireland employment legislation
   • the development of action which is flexible and relevant to all parts of the UK
   • including the interests of transgender people and exploring issues of social difference
   • achieving parity of understanding for age and age related issues
   • exploring the socio–economic roots of inequality and what happens in real communities on the ground, including what has not worked
   • building constructive dialogue within the new strand of religion and belief and developing mutual understanding between this strand and the others
   • addressing general concerns about how increased equality might impact upon the labour market and the domestic environment
   • ensuring that the work includes consideration of the impact upon children and babies
   • working to eliminate all inequality
   • working to ensure parity of protection, developing out–of–the–box thinking, identification of the drivers for change
   • consideration of the intersection between human rights and equalities.

Agenda item 2 – terms of reference

4. The Group considered the terms of reference. It was noted that the arrangement was for quarterly meetings of the Group at optimum times during the course of the next 12 months and it was confirmed that there would be automatic circulation to Reference Group members of factual research and evidence papers considered by the Equalities Review Panel.
5. The terms of reference were noted.

Agenda item 3 – update

6. Rosie Seymour outlined developments on the Equalities Review. The Panel had had its first meeting and minutes of the meeting were circulated to the Group. The Panel would be writing in the next week or so to stakeholders broadly outlining the stages and timing of the Review and seeking suggestions for good practice and appropriate fact–finding visits. Staffing of the Equalities Review Team within Cabinet Office was being built up and would shortly reach full complement.
7. The Reference Group raised a number of points:
   • whether members of the Panel would attend future meetings of the Group
   • concern about drift within the project, the announcement about the Review was made in February yet the Panel did not have its first meeting until June, the Review Panel need to be aware of expectations of those outside the Group and review who may assume that things were progressing at a faster pace
   • a request for circulation to the Group of the vision paper that Trevor Phillips tabled at the Panel's first meeting
   • a request for circulation to the Group of the roles and responsibilities of the Review Team
   • a question about what the Panel hope to achieve in its visits, and ensuring that the programme of visits has clear aims and objectives
   • would a literature search form part of the Review, with particular regard to community cohesion
   • the need to include the ageing population in demographic data
   • a question about whether the Review will consider what is happening outside GB and make comparisons within different parts of the UK, taking particular account of different situations in the devolved nations
   • concern that the life–cycle approach is not given undue priority to the exclusion of all other possible approaches
   • work currently being done by the British Psychological Society on incentive for change and resistance to change might be of value to the Review
   • it will be useful for the Panel to share with the Group new parameters of this work as soon as they are known.
8. Responding to these points, Rosie explained that the Review was progressing as swiftly as possible. As set out in the Terms of Reference, factual papers and research will be shared with the Reference Group. However, papers by individual Panel members which represent their personal views would not be made available outside of the Panel membership. This was necessary to ensure frank and free discussion within the Panel. The considered views of the Panel will be made available to the Reference Group and papers will be circulated after the Panel's awayday. The Reference Group had an opportunity to influence the Panel's thinking in advance of its detailed consideration. Trevor Phillips had agreed with Jenny and Bert that he would attend the next meeting of the Reference Group.
9. On visits, Rosie explained that the Panel was looking to the Group and other stakeholders to offer advice on visits and members of the Group were encouraged to accompany the Panel members on these. The initial idea is to look at good practice, what things are making a difference on the ground, how are businesses contributing for instance. The Panel is reliant upon the advice of stakeholders about projects that may not have worked successfully.
10. Angela Mason outlined progress with the Discrimination Law Review. This will be a fundamental review including an examination of equality law and its interaction with human rights. The Review will look at enforcement and incentivising compliance and seek out what works best. The aim is to develop legislation that will produce outcomes. The Review will also examine how to introduce greater consistency in protection afforded to groups and individuals.
11. The Discrimination Law Review Team within the Department for Trade and Industry was being built up and resources reallocated as appropriate. The Team will welcome new ideas and fresh approaches to anti-discrimination legislation generated by stakeholders.
12. The Group made a number of points about the update on the Discrimination Law Review:
    • parity of protection afforded by legislation was preferred to greater equalisation of opportunity should it come to a choice between the two
    • will the Review consider what action mitigates against anti–discrimination measures, including legislation such as that concerning immigration and terrorism
    • could the Review consider the balance between the tendency of legislation to consider individual rights and whether this might be detrimental to collective rights and conversely whether policy areas aimed at collective rights might undermine the rights of individuals
    • whether everything was up for grabs and/or might there be different solutions for different sectors.
13. In response to these points Angela said that the extent to which legislation interacts with other legislation and with human rights would be examined by the Review and considered as part of its work. She acknowledged that as this is a fundamental review of the legislative framework for equality, so to an extent everything was up for grabs. She said that the Review will look at existing duties on public authorities and parity of protection. The two Review Teams will work closely together. If members of the Group have specific ideas for a series of seminars being planned, they should contact Clare Farmer in the DLR team (clare.farmer@dti.gsi.gov.uk).

Agenda item 4 – key questions

14. The Group were invited to offer comments on the main issues that both reviews have identified as early priorities to address. Jenny Watson summarised the discussion.
15. In what areas has progress to reduce inequality been particularly slow and why:
    • risk: an increasingly risk averse culture across society might have led to a slowing down of anti–discrimination measures
    • the situation of older women: there was a significant failure within society to address the issue of older women constituting the largest single group suffering poverty
    • widening the impact of anti–discrimination to encompass the totality of where people live their lives rather than just focussing on the world of work: action taken on inequality does not immediately carry across to those groups not readily identified as suffering from the direct effect of inequality, how will the Reviews ensure that there are no outsiders from their work and that the benefits are seen to be all-inclusive, how can the discourse on equality be opened up beyond the world of employment, public administration and adult society to encompass what happens in other areas of life including the home and the experience of children and babies
    • delivering wide acceptance of diversity as a strength: the focus of previous anti-discrimination action has been on equality of opportunity, might this be extended to address inequality more generally and remedial action that attends to specific scenarios be extended to address the wider impact
    • the fact that individuals had multiple identities and were not just disabled or black or women etc: how might the Reviews strike a balance between the individual and the collective, the tendency has been to deal with specific groups but that does not address the issue of individual unique experience, the identification of 6 strands represents no more than a useful shorthand and the wider issue is making equality relevant to all, equality is not just a minority problem and winning the case that discrimination affects everyone goes a long way to delivering effective anti-discrimination action
    • ensuring there were no outsiders to the debate: how will the Reviews set about mapping inequalities where there is a paucity of data but it is known that inequalities exist.
16. If society was going to embrace diversity what would need to change:
    • wide acceptance of the value and importance of human dignity and the equal value of life: inculcating from childhood a culture of respect for diversity was highlighted as being of particular importance and effectiveness
    • balancing the expectations of employers and other groups against what may be the long term good: how to address issues around discrimination amongst groups of employees further to action taken to address discrimination by employers, recognition of the difficulties in convincing wider society that sometimes equality may mean some people getting more of a particular resource at the expense of others, and managing the inherent tension between working with and offering encouragement to employers and business and maintaining a system of punishment and enforcement. The idea of a system of mediation and behaviour adjustment programmes following on from decisions of tribunals was floated
    • consideration of the knock–on effect of discrimination on other aspects of society such a health and imprisonment, a study of the economic benefits to society of increasing equality.
17. What principles might underpin the Single Equality Act:
    • it was important that any legislation was cross–referenced and avoided conflict with other legislation, the business sector in particular would welcome the codification and simplification of anti–discrimination legislation. The Equal Opportunities Commission's principles for legislation were cited as potential examples of useful guidelines that could be followed in this regard
    • co–ordinated action addressing the needs of both groups and individuals
    • delivering change that had impact in the real world
    • equality of outcomes
    • consideration of the multiple effect and impact of enforcement.
18. What works in delivering equality and what does not, what are the barriers and what are the successful interventions:
    • it was important to identify the levers that make things happen – the duty on public authorities to promote equality, such as that on race, had changed the focus of authorities towards equality outcomes. The inclusion of equality measures within Public Service Agreement targets was cited as a measure for generating positive change, and the value of the various Inspectorates in measuring equality was stressed. It was also suggested that there be a change of emphasis in the mainstreaming of equality within government at regional and local level so that policy makers had a positive duty to deliver equality
    • there was a danger that a relatively small amount of progress in one or two areas might mislead society into believing that there was a wider cultural shift towards equality. It was felt to be important that change should not just be about improving matters for particular groups but that the Reviews should draw attention to the real opportunities that are being denied to people through discrimination and the wider impact that this has on society
    • barriers to intervention included:
      • any feeling of powerlessness amongst both those discriminated against and wider society
      • a lack of sophistication in the understanding of how class interacts with equality issues
      • injudicious use of jargon
      • failure to adequately address issues around linguistics and communication in reaching certain sections of society, and failure to recognise that there is a variety of different experiences encountered by different ethnic groups within society and a clear distinction between experiences in an urban and rural environment
    • the Black Manifesto prepared by the 1990 Trust was cited as an example of how to look at areas of social policy and offer new solutions.
19. Other suggestions for the way forward were:
    • the development of new ways of looking at inequality
    • establishing a culture of mutual respect
    • wider use of positive duties
    • changing the equalities discourse
    • increasing feelings of empowerment amongst those discriminated against
    • including the majority community in the debate.
20. On Jenny's invitation, Bert added the following comments:
    • the importance of thinking outside of the equality ‘box’ and extending the discussion to include such issues as housing, transport, pensions and benefits
    • developing a case that wins the argument on equality, including addressing the issue of the economic cost to the country of discrimination
    • addressing the impact of a risk averse culture
    • nervousness around aspects of enforcement
    • the importance of making mapping work to deliver clarity and progress on aspects of co–ordination of policy, the issue of poverty experienced by older women having been in a same–sex long-term relationship was cited as an example of how groups could slip through the policy net.

Agenda item 5 – any other business

21. There was no other business.