Equalities Review Panel Meeting, 21 September 2006
Venue:
Room 1.36
22 Whitehall
London
Present:
Trevor Phillips (Chair)
Dame Judith Mayhew Jonas
Rosie Seymour
Giovanni Razzu
Emma Cole
Apologies:
Sir Robert Kerslake
Carol Lake
In attendance:
Karen Grayson
Hilary Thompson, OPM (item 2)
Philip Copestake, OPM (item 2)
Mike Hope, DWP (item 3)
1. Chair's update
Trevor updated everyone on his appointment as Chair of the CEHR and invited
Rosie to update everyone on the transfer of the Equalities Review Team to
the DCLG.
2. Presentation from OPM on the Policy Seminar Series
Hilary Thompson and Philip Copestake gave a brief presentation about how
OPM would be managing the seminar series, and asked for the Panel’s
thoughts on what they would like to get out of the series.
The Panel were happy that OPM had understood that different seminars had
different aims, and discussed the potential merits of clustering seminars:
for example those where we expect clear policy solutions to be identified,
as opposed to those where we are still at the stage of clarifying
priorities; or those relating to life stages as opposed to those relating
to institutional responses to inequalities.
Dame Judith stressed the need to target issues raised in the consultation
process and move them on through the seminars.
Action: The team would share the relevant consultation
responses from seminar attendees with OPM.
Trevor commented that one of the aims of the Final Report should be to
raise aspirations in parts of the equalities world. However, there
was also a need to manage expectations about what the Review would and
would not cover. This also applied to the seminars, where there was a
need for facilitators to make clear what was out of scope.
The Panel’s top wishes from the seminar series were:
-
Recognition that the equalities landscape has changed and that
drivers of inequality are diverse.
-
Identification of three or four significant interventions.
-
Identification of some key ways in which current spending needs to
change.
A concern was that the seminars would produce too much discription of the
issues and not enough remedies (although not all seminars were intended to
identify solutions).
Panel availability to attend seminars was discussed.
3. Papers on Employment Disadvantage
Rosie introduced the position paper for the forthcoming Working Age seminar
and invited Giovanni to introduce the recent paper by Richard
Berthoud. The latter was a study of data from the ONS longitudinal
survey to determine persistence of disadvantage over the period 1971-2001.
Trevor asked about the data referenced in the position paper which
indicated that disabled people appear to be disadvantaged prior to becoming
disabled.
Rosie confirmed that if a person was disabled, they were more likely to
become disadvantaged, while if a person was disadvantaged, they were more
likely to become disabled.
Mike Hope pointed out that there were various factors at work, including
socio-economic status, discrimination and stigma, and the potential
negative impact of being out of work on mental health and well being.
Dame Judith highlighted the potential relevance of a trigger approach to
looking at this issue.
Action: Trevor asked the Team to look at this issue
further.
Trevor asked about the implications of the position paper for looking at
multiple disadvantage.
Berthoud’s research showed that disadvantage tended to be caused primarily
by one (or perhaps two) factors and that additional factors tended to have
only a minor influence. This implied that solutions aimed at just
that one key factor could be successful. There would however be some
groups that should be treated as exceptional, in that it was the
combination of more than one factor that led to disadvantage – for example
Pakistani and Bangladeshi women.
We had looked at the Labour Force Survey to anlayse inactivity rates . We
had found that the majority of inactive disabled people, ethnic minory and
mothers did not want to work. Reasons for this varied from looking after
family or home, to studying, or long-term sickness or disability.
Unfortunately, this did not shed light on whether the choice not to work
was constrained or fully informed and genuine.
The Panel agreed that whether the choice to be out of work was
unconstrained or constrained, being out of work had serious implications
for equality. The Panel remained convinced that work was probably the
single most important equality issue.
4. Outline Final Report
Rosie introduced the outline Final Report and asked the Panel to identify
any gaps or expectations they had that were not fulfilled.
Action: The Panel preferred to submit detailed comments in
writing.
Trevor commented that:
-
the report should not refer to the ‘six groups’
-
the section on future trends should come earlier
-
the report should state up front that socio-economic status can be less
important than other markers and drivers of equality
-
the report should also distinguish clearly between exclusion and
inequality, clarify the difference, and explain why our focus is on the
latter
-
in general it was important for the Report to state clearly what is not
within scope.
Rosie noted that we would also need to make clear what the Review would not
be covering in our work with stakeholders in December and January.
5. Any other business.
Bert Massie and Jenny Watson would be writing to ministers and to Trevor on
behalf of the Reference group, about the issue of immigration and asylum,
and the DLR’s consultation of the Reference Group.
The Panel agreed it would be helpful to have a longer Panel meeting in
December – a full day on 14 December.
Note: The next Panel meeting has now been moved and will
be on 30 October at 3.30pm.
Equalities Review Team
September 2006
