This information was previously at http://www.theequalitiesreview.org.uk and is being maintained for archive/historical purposes only. It will not be updated.
Please see http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk for details.

 

The Equalities Review

The Equalities Review

Main navigation

Reference Group meeting, 12 January 2006

Attendees

Jenny Watson, Equal Opportunities Commission (Chair)

Hanne Stinson, British Humanist Association
Mohammed Aziz, Faithwise
Gordon Lishman, Age Concern
Amanda Ariss, Equal Opportunities Commission
Stephen Whittle, Press for Change
Carolyne Willow, Children's Rights Alliance of England
Caroline Gooding, Disability Rights Commission
Lucy de Groot, Improvement & Development Agency
Francesca Klug, London School of Economics
Katia Hall, CBI
Tanuka Loha, 1990 Trust
Sarah Veale, TUC
Ali Jarvis, Commission for Racial Equality Scotland
Ben Summerskill, Stonewall
Richard Zipfel, Catholic bishops Conference of England and Wales
Jane Campbell, Social Care Institute for Excellence
Stephen Alambritis, Federation of Small Businesses

Angela Mason (Women and Equality Unit)
Kate Allan (Women and Equality Unit)
Janette Entwisle (Women and Equality Unit)
Steve Whittington (Women and Equality Unit)
Katherine Stoate (Women and Equality Unit)
James Maskell (DTI Legal)

Rosie Seymour (Equalities Review Team)
Stephen Earl (Equalities Review Team)

Apologies

Trevor Philips
Bert Massie
Katherine Rake
Carey Oppenheim
Naomi Alleyne
Sarah Spencer

Jenny Watson, chair for the meeting, welcomed participants and set out the revised agenda.

Agenda item 1 – minutes of last meeting and matters arising

  1. The minutes of the Reference Group meeting on 12 October 2005 were agreed.
  2. Kate Allan said that Karon Monaghan's paper on international comparisons and models for a discrimination law framework would be circulated to the group.
  3. The Chair noted that it is important that the Equalities Review feeds into the findings of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

Agenda item 2 – short update on Equalities Review

  1. Rosie Seymour apologised for the Interim Report not being available and committed to circulating dates for a February meeting at which Trevor Philips will make a presentation on the Interim Report and to circulating papers in advance of the meeting. She explained that publication of the interim report had been delayed until early March. This revised timeline meant that a meeting in June would be need in addition to the April meeting (which will be on the DLR only).
  2. The group noted that the Reference Group needed regular engagement with the Review panel. The Chair responded that there is a clear role for the Reference Group and that their role in taking questions out to stakeholders would be discussed at the next meeting.
  3. Rosie Seymour asked for all members to inform the Secretariat of any stakeholder events or email newsletters that could be used as part of the consultation on the interim report.
  4. The responses to the Call for Evidence were summarised. More analysis is needed including focus on each strand and sector. A summary of the overarching messages, main themes and breakdown of respondents will be circulated in the next few weeks.
  5. An update on research was given. The group was informed that two research reports would be put on the Equalities Review website in the next few weeks and a draft report on the General Household Survey research would be circulated to the group in due course but should not be circulated externally prior to publication.
  6. The forthcoming visit to Sheffield by some Panel members on 30 January 2006 was discussed. Members of the group, or their representatives, who would like to attend should notify the Secretariat. The group will be notified of other visits as they are arranged. It was agreed that members should feed in ideas for visits.
  7. On the issue of the Comprehensive Spending Review, Rosie agreed that this, and Treasury engagement more generally, is an important area that the Equalities Review needs to build into its work programme, further updates will be given as the Review progresses.

Agenda item 3 – presentation on the objectives of a Single Equality Act

  1. Angela Mason gave a presentation on the outline shape of the Discrimination Law Review and the possible objectives of a Single Equality Act.
  2. The presentation was well received by the group and principles and models for the Single Equality Act and challenges that need further debate were discussed.
  3. Specific points made were:
    • The focus on the goals of equality legislation was very important
    • It was important to seek objective evidence of the impact of current legislation
    • For employers, clarity and coherence in the law were vital
    • The systemic factors underlying discrimination needed to be targeted in future legislation
    • Better regulation could be a driver for better public services, but it was important to join up policy makers in all areas impinging on equality
    • The social dimension was important: improving relations between groups could make a real contribution to increasing equality and reducing discrimination
    • There was a need to develop the law imaginatively to protect vulnerable individuals
    • There should be focus on the roles of institutions in advancing equality, including the private sector
    • The law on equal pay should be looked at
    • Dignity was an important concept, and fundamental to human rights. It offered a way forward without the need for comparators. Government needed to play its role in advancing this thinking.
    • The links with related criminal law offences (for example incitement to hatred on various grounds) should be appreciated
    • Making the law clearer and simpler – but not levelling up – was important.
    • Approaches to enforcement should recognise that most employers want to do the right thing. There should be more focus on resolving disputes in the workplace and conciliation.
    • There was a need for a new debate on conflicting rights
    • It was important to broaden out the debate beyond equality and human rights circles.
  4. Ben Summerskill raised concerns that the document implied that protection from harassment would not be included in the Sexual Orientation Regulations which seemed to contradict previous assurances given during the passage of the Bill. Kate Allan responded that the Government view is that this is a complex issue that should be considered as part of the DLR. It had not been possible to agree provisions for harassment in respect of religion or belief during the passage of the Equality Bill in the Lords. It is thought best to use the DLR so that a comprehensive solution, taking account of all strands, could be developed. It was agreed that the matter should be discussed outside the meeting.
  5. The debate was summarised by Jenny Watson who drew out the following points:
    • How can the law be used as a tool for change for example, using indirect discrimination to tackle disadvantage: would a human rights approach be helpful in thinking this through?
    • What do we mean by key concepts such as dignity and human rights, how can we ensure these are embedded?
    • Do we want equality of opportunity or equality of outcomes?
    • How do we tackle benevolent prejudice?
    • What is the role of the private sector in tackling discrimination – should there be new responsibilities for private sector employers
    • How do we balance individual or collective rights including the possibility of representative actions?
    • How has the law worked to date and what can we learn from success rates of cases?
    • How do we tackle conflicting rights and does a human rights approach offer new possibilities?
    • Criminal as well as civil provisions should be looked at for example, incitement, aggravated offences;
    • There should be increased use of ADR
    • We need debate about the role of good relations duties
  6. It was agreed that debates on these issues should take place through seminars and forums such as the Equality and Diversity Forum but should also be taken to a wider audience.

Agenda item 4 – progress report on Discrimination Law Review (DLR)

  1. Kate Allan thanked members for their input into the DLR and welcomed further input. Key stakeholders, including all Reference Group members, have been asked to provide short papers by 31 January setting out their main priorities and concerns.
  2. The DLR is making progress and is starting to work up proposals. More work is needed but emerging propositions will be discussed at the next meeting.
  3. Responding to a question, Angela Mason stated that at this stage the scope of the DLR was very open and everything was in scope. However, some issues would be more difficult in terms of Government policy in other areas.
  4. Kate Allan agreed. She recognised that everyone has capacity problems and is working to a very tight timetable but asked for the group to help the DLR team's understanding of the issues.
  5. Jenny Watson asked the DLR team to arrange Karon Monaghan to attend a Reference Group meeting to present her report.
  6. Caroline Gooding alerted the group to two EDF seminars on the Private Sector (30 January 2006) and Procurement (2 March 2006).