Review Panel awayday, 20 April 2006
Venue
Room 1.35
22 Whitehall
London
Attendees
Review Panel
Trevor Phillips (Chair)
Dame Judith Mayhew Jonas
Sir Robert Kerslake
Review Team
Rosie Seymour
Emma Cole
Stephen Earl
Uma Moorthy
Apologies
Carol Lake
Cathy Francis
Giovanni Razzu
In attendance
Professor Anthony Heath, Oxford University
Mike Hope, DWP
Nahid Majid, DWP
Rebecca Eligon, MORI
Angela Mason, DLR and
DTI
1. Chair's update
Trevor set out the overarching aim for the day – to discuss the second
phase of the Review. In this phase, the Panel would
-
focus narrowly on things which were necessary to do
-
arrive at the main conclusions for the Review by July
-
complete work towards the main report and all major Review processes by
October.
This schedule would generate output which would be timely for the new CEHR.
He thanked the Team for their work in producing the Interim Report. He also
thanked his colleagues on the Review Panel for their input.
The Panel agreed that the three main tasks for the Review over the next six
months are to:
-
consolidate analysis presented in the interim report
-
work to develop evidence-based innovations to tackle persistent
inequalities
-
build understanding and support for the aims of the Review among a wider
circle of influential stakeholders.
The Panel discussed related work within Government in general, such as the
Domestic Affairs Sub-committee on Communities, and the implementation of
the Women and Work Commission report within the Department of Trade and
Industry (DTI). They agreed to carry out a programme of consultation among
a wide variety of opinion-formers and stake-holders over the next six
months.
2. Foundations for Measuring Equality – Professor Anthony Heath (Oxford)
Professor Heath attended for this item. He
presented the results of his analysis of labour market data from the
Labour Force Survey and other longitudinal data sources.
The Panel agreed that the presentation shed useful light on how ethnicity
and generational effects impact on the probability of employment for
different groups in the UK. Professor Heath would update the analysis with
the latest available data and conduct additional analyses on how age and
place of birth affected respondents’ perceptions of employment
discrimination in the Home Office Citizenship Survey. The Team would
arrange a seminar on these issues involving the three Commissions and
interested Departments as together with academics, including Professor
Berthoud.
3. Attitudinal Research by MORI
Rebecca Eligon from MORI attended for this item. She
presented a summary of the results from the focus groups commissioned
by the Review and conducted by MORI..
The Panel commented that the area of equality was not the subject of
informed public debate. There was more scope for attitudinal research by
the Review, particularly on the boundaries between public and private
spheres and public perceptions of what constitutes a suitable target for
official intervention. The Team would also follow up the attitudinal work
being carried out in preparation for the CEHR in DTI.
4. Discrimination Law Review
Angela Mason, Director of the Discrimination Law Review, attended for this
item to update the Panel about the Discrimination Law Review. She outlined
the aim to produce a Green Paper before Parliamentary Recess and to follow
this with a twelve-week consultation period.
5. Next steps
The Panel would focus on the three tasks identified at the beginning of the
meeting. The public consultation events scheduled for May would support
this work.
The Team was asked to identify the main tasks for the next six months,
including
-
Identifying data needs and actions arising out of the Interim Report.
-
Consolidating and completing the evidence base, including further
research into public attitudes and the economic and social case for
equality.
-
Devising protocols for measurement and for identifying future challenges
to equality.
-
Identifying and engaging with experts, stakeholders and opinion-formers
in both public and private sectors.
-
Building wider support for the work of the Review and embedding it firmly
into the official agenda.
Equalities Review Team
April 2006