The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) would never have become a valued and respected national institution if it was allowed to continue on the path it was on. Labour’s tired old way of working was turning equalities into a burden. When people heard the word equality they also heard bureaucracy and red-tape. Instead of being about fairness it was more about frustration.
If Labour’s method of ticking boxes and filling out forms led to equality, then why did they leave behind a society with so much inequality across the board? Twenty percent wage gaps between women and men, nonexistent social mobility, unfair pensions, and a poorly funded education system that let so many children down. The way to tackle these issues in order to create a liberal, equal society is certainly not with careless, short term thinking – equality can’t be brought about solely in bureaucratic ways. Equality Impact Assessments (EIA) exemplify this: popular because they’re the easiest way for departments to comply with equality duties. EIAs are not under threat from the Coalition Government but they are a good example of why we need to move beyond a slapdash exercise at the end of the process and make sure equality is rooted in from the beginning.
Clause 56 to 59 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill will make a number of changes to the EHRC. For those of you with concerns, like Nick has said the Equality Act isn’t being watered down and it isn’t going anywhere. What we are doing is redefining the role of the EHRC and focussing its efforts so that it becomes a strong independent body. It was bogged down with so many vague and unnecessary provisions. It had never submitted a clean set of books when we came to office. It was criticised by both the Public Accounts Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. In March 2011, we set out proposals to reform the EHRC and almost 1,000 responses were received with most people unhappy with its performance. So we’re making changes to transform the EHRC into an effective, financially accountable body that Liberal Democrats can be proud of.
And there is already much work on equalities to be proud of. Our record on equality speaks for itself. We have established the first ever Inter-Ministerial Group on Equality; legislated to allow civil partnerships on religious premises; published the first ever transgender action plan; introduced support for disabled people seeking access to elected office; established the Women’s Business Council; provided support for women to set up and grow their own businesses; taken action to promote equal pay and championed equality on company boards. Not to mention Nick’s work on social mobility, Steve’s pension reform and Sarah’s pupil premium. Much good work has already been done and of course more remains to do, not least delivering equal marriage – a momentous step for Liberal Democrats who have long campaigned for equal rights.
As Liberal Democrats we don’t think equalities should be about ticking-boxes and regulatory hoops – it’s too important to be relegated to an administrative duty. Advancing LGBT, gender, disability and race equality will only be achieved by putting equalities at the heart of every department. A 21st century inclusive approach with less rules and more fairness.
From the policies that we adopt at conference to the measures we put in place at council level and Westminster, equality should be embedded in everything we do. That’s what party members and voters expect from our party.
* Jo Swinson is Liberal Democrat MP for East Dunbartonshire, and was a Minister in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Equalities Minister from 2012-15.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Can we have a referendum please, Rishi?
GP services over the Easter holiday
Council by-election results scorecard 2022-2023
The Joy of Six 1121
My tweets
Richard Denton-White
Steve Trevethan
Keith Legg
Peter Davies
Andrew Melmoth
40 Comments
Jo, this is a disappointing piece – it is hugely oversimplsitic and misleading to describe the current equalities regime as all about bureaucracy, red tape, ticking boxes and filling forms – it is about putting some very basic requirements on public bodies that have persistently failed to make any progress in narrowing equality gaps or adressing deep seated discrimination, It is not party policy either to get rid of these duties (read any of our conference motions on the subject) and there now seems to no consistency at all between our position on equalities in opposition (eg when we supported a broad remit for EHRC and introducing equality impact assessments into policy making) and our position on equalities in Government .
Jo, I have no idea what you think equality is about. You mention social mobility but that is not equality. You mention a 20% pay gap – but what does this mean ? That women are paid 20% than men for the same work or just have 20% less income overall ? And how changable is that figure over time ? and how is it linked to choices made by women themselves and how much is it linked to inequalities of income which mean a small percentage of very rich men distort the figures with regard to everyone else.
I find this article incredibly complacent. If the Parliamentary party thought there was so much wrong with the EHRC it would have been good if they could have discussed this with the wider party before they agreed to radical overhaul they have given it. There is nothing in this article about racial discrimination, and no wonder because since being elected into office this government has done virtually nothing about it, except make it easier for employers to get away with it. All this “tick box” rhetoric sounds all very well, but how alternatively do you propose to tackle it?
The ethnic minority population in this country votes overwhelmingly for Labour, despite the fact that in office Labour has often let them down. As a result we have always been a credible alternative up until now.
But now is obviously going to be difficult because we are in Coalition with the party of Enoch Powell, and whilst David Cameron does not copy his divisive rhetoric, what remains true is that the Tories have a negative view of multiculturalism. Now I don’t see why we should be lumbered with that. Just as Vince Cable fought the Tories on Beecroft, we should do likewise on racial prejudice. The Tories think they can get away with pretending it doesn’t exist. But it absolutely does exist and as far as we are concerned this is something that makes our country illiberal and we should be improving on Labour’s record not going backwards with the Tories.
It is now plain to see what price we pay as a party for not having any ethnic minority MPs. No one else seems to think there is a problem with racism that needs to be tackled.
@Geoffrey ” There is nothing in this article about racial discrimination, and no wonder because since being elected into office this government has done virtually nothing about it, except make it easier for employers to get away with it”
What exactly have the Coalition done to make it easier for firms to racially discriminate ?
@Simon – suggest you ponder the combined impact of introducing wacking great tribunal fees for discrimination cases, removing the statutory disclosure obligation on employers in discrimination cases , repealing the multiple discrimination provisions from the Equality Act, changing the specific duty regulations under the Equality Act so that public bodies no longer have to produce racial equality schemes, abolishing the EHRC’s casework service – that’s just for starters; once the EHRC reforms are complete it will have no enforcement capacity at all and all the pro-active duties on public bodies not to discriminate are now likely to be repealed..
As someone that is directly involved in the development of equality and diversity matters both within, and external of the Party, I concur with some of the sentiments raised, but I also feel that as a Party we have a long way to go before we can place any laurels upon our heads.
Whilst it is correct that as a result of the Liberal Democrat’s influence in the Coalition, at last there has been movement on such issues as Gay Marriage, many grassroots advocacy organisations working to defend the rights of victims of intolerance and others forms of bigotry, have gone to the wall, leaving people without appropriate support and guidance.
I am all for both grassroots, and strategic organisations such as the EHRC being far more accountable to their funders, and being seen to reduce the apparent bureaucracy that exists, that severely limits their ability to be effective. But, the recommendations being proposed within the Enterprise and Regulatory Bill, will not necessarily, in my opinion achieve this desire, but will rather have a detrimental impact. The amendments, which many outside of the Party feel have not been widely consulted on, may actually reduce the effectiveness of the Equality Act, 2010 to assist in the development of a more cohesive and inclusive society.
Nick Clegg’s past Scarman speech was in the opinion of many groundbreaking, and people both in and external of the Party were inspired to believe that equality and diversity, was moving beyond rhetoric into action. I for one still believe that there exists a critical mass of people within the Party, such as Nick who are committed to real and tangible positive changes. Sadly the response that we have just read above does not demonstrate the level of commitment, but sound like a repetition of the mantra of the Tory’s.
There is a need for the Party to discuss the equality and diversity agenda at all levels, and to seek the views of those most affected by the sweeping changes to legislation before we commit its wholesale destruction. We are the Party of fairness, so lets show the Country how commitment by defending their rights.
Lets stop treating the rights of the populace as a ‘plaything’ of politicians, who live in a priveledge world, and clearly some have forgotten what it is like to be ‘of the people’, let alone represent the people.
If people are interested, the Ethnic Minority Liberal Democrats in partnership with Social Liberal Forum are holding a conference in London on 16th February, 2013 to discuss these very matters. You are all welcome, so check out the respective websites and book a place.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldhansrd/text/130109-gc0001.htm#13010948000167
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldhansrd/text/130114-gc0001.htm
Please find enclosed the links to the recent debates on the repeal of Clause 56, 57 and 58.
On the specific point about the 1,000 respondees to the Government’s reform agenda for the EHRC and the Equality Act, only 5% supported the Government recommendations, 95% were opposed. There were a number who called for the EHRC’s total abolition but this was probably due to a campaign run among Daily Mail readers at the time of the consultation. Also if any provisions of the Equality Act are vague and unnecessary, the EHRC would simply not use them. I am puzzled by the suggestion that this impedes its work.
Many of the references in the article above are taken out of context and do little to enlighten the debate on what is a hugely important issue.
It is time for the Minister to directly engage with party members on this issue. The Coalition appears to be making Liberal Democrat policy on the hoof, and with their coalition partner rather their own membership.
@Martin – re, engagement with members, I did send a letter to Jo’s office co-signed by key equalities campaigners within the party and many councillors involved in equalities issues; the letter questioned why the Government was going ahead with a spate of equality legislation repeals, and highlighted the implications of Party policy- for example the motion at the last party conference which was expressly against this (and suppported overwhelmingly in the conference vote)..
Several months have passed and there has been no reply despite chasing it up. I’m afraid this is the standard of engagement with members that I have come to expect from liberal democrat Ministers when Party policy and Government policy so clearly conflict – total silence, I guess because there is nothing much more to say,,,
I write this response in my capacity as the Vice Chair of Ethnic Minority Liberal Democrats.
Currently EMLD are lobbying veraciously against any watering down of the duties and powers of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Contrary to the article, these clauses would make EHRC a toothless body and eventually lead to its abolition. More fundamentally, we are fighting against these proposals because the body assists in our strive to create and safeguard a free, fair and open society.
I am concerned about the rhetoric that is used in the article and elsewhere in saying that monitoring equalities is a burden, an unnecessary tick-box exercise. Local government, through the old Equality Standard and more recently the Equality Framework, have embraced the equality agenda and as a result, has led to better policy making and knowledge management which thus leads to better targeting of resources to those that really require it. Central government on the other hand have been apprehensive about the whole agenda because it actually requires them to do their job in thinking about impacts their policy decisions have on our communities. To them that’s too cumbersome.
I totally agree with the final point in the article that equalities need to be embedded in everything we do. But by abrogating the powers of the EHRC, we halt any progress that has been made so far. Do we in the Liberal Democrats want to go down in history being associated with that?
James Jennings
Vice Chair
EMLD
I completely agree with James Jennings, and Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera and others. I fundamentally disagree with the removal of the General Duty of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, thus further reducing its remit and influence. This comes after its budget has been reduced by 62%. The majority of Liberal Democrat Peers are not convinced by this argument. Inequalites are widening, not narrowing. I have led on this in the Lords at the Committee Stage of this Bill, and my contributions, and those of very experienced race equality and disability equality Peers, like Baroness Jane Campbell, were very eloquently argued. Here is the full debate: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldhansrd/text/130109-gc0001.htm#13010948000167
I agree with much of the sentiments expressed above, particularly Meral Hussein Ece, James Jennings, James Sandbach, Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera, Geoffrey Payne and Caracatus.
Jo is wrong to assert that Equality Impact Assessments are not under threat from this Government. The government of which she is a member are consulting on EIAs and have expressed a wish to water them down when the right approach would be to strengthen them so that public authorities know more clearly how they should be writing them, for the benefit of ensuring policies don’t discriminate.
The EIA consultation is linked very clearly in my mind with the government’s proposal in the Enterprise and Regulatory Bill to abolish the ‘general duty’ on the Equality and Human Rights Commission to work towards the elimination of racial and other forms of discrimination and promote good community relations. At the same time the government have assembled a Tory-dominated panel to review the ‘specific duties’ on all 40,000 public authorities to deliver services free of discrimination.
Taken together this amounts to a pealing back of equality laws. I’m sure this was always on the Tory wish list but there is no reason why we Liberals with our professed love of equalities should be acquiescing to the same agenda. It sends out all the wrong signals about our commitment to equality, signals that are sure to rebound on us come the next election.
Jo says: “What we are doing is redefining the role of the EHRC and focussing its efforts so that it becomes a strong independent body. It was bogged down with so many vague and unnecessary provisions.” This is far from the case. The EHRC has had its’ budget cut to within an inch of its’ life and now has less staff than the civil service equality office in DCLG. It has already had powers to investigate authorities suspected of discriminating taken away and has removed the only two commissioners with an expertise on race equality despite an assessment that they were doing a fantastic job.
As I say, this is all a Tory agenda and to my mind it would have been unthinkable for a Lib Dem to write the piece that Jo has done before the last election. So what has happened to us in the past two and a half years?
Here is David Cameron “calling time” on Equality Impact Assessments: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20400747
“Labour’s tired old way of working was turning equalities into a burden. … Instead of being about fairness it was more about frustration…. ticking boxes and filling out forms … why did they leave behind a society with so much inequality … equality can’t be brought about solely in bureaucratic ways…. (blah de blah)”
Fine, let’s slag off Labour and blame them for everything under the sun, thereby establishing some sort of threadbare rationale for tearing everything up and starting again. Just the sort of bone-headed partisan political approach which we used, rightly, to condemn those “old parties” for, when we had the freedom to do so.
“making changes to transform the EHRC into a… body that Liberal Democrats can be proud of. And there is already much work … to be proud of.”
Pride. We’re proud of our pride. We’re always telling people just how proud we are. We go on doing it, even though people clearly tell us that they hate it. Could it be (whisper it not) that we are actually into denialism? That the emotion we really feel is shame? And so we go around repeatedly claiming the opposite, in the hope that saying it repeatedly might make it come true?
Lester my friend, without repeating the same old rhetoric or the well versed responses above, who would have thought we would be here supporting New Labour’s quango on ‘equalities’. There are so many stories that could be reiterated here either as ‘Black’ public sector employees being subject to greatest proportion of complaints and disciplinary, deaths in police custody, SuS, disproportionate unemployment rates & criminalisation, not getting bank loans, clearly not an exhaustive list!!!! So not much has changed, just we know where we are at with the Tories!!!! New Labour and Lib Dems rhetoric only serves to lead us up the proverbial path! I would like to see your question answered though “So what has happened to us in the past two and a half years? Because when Lib Dems can answer that I might think about voting for my local Lib Dem uncle Nick!!!!!
This fits perfectly with all our women MPs (but one) voting to allow maternity pay and maternity allowance to lose value over the next three years.
Too right David Allen – shame indeed.
Jo, sorry but you do not understand what equality for disabled people is about. It is not just being able to get help to get elected, at whatever level of power (parish, borough/district/county/MP/MEP etc), it is about being able to live in a society where you are not going to get harrasment, discriminated against, being able to have access to goods and services that everyone else takes for granted. It about those in power – either at a local level or at a central government level – thinking things through, seeing how their ideas,policies etc are going to affect the disabled. A disable d person wants to be able to live and, if possible work in the society, feel part of society. However, at the moment, if they feel that this is not happening, then they can ask the EHCR for help and guidance, and for the commission to take up their case. Under these proposals there will be no chance of this, the EHCR have reduced staff as has already been pointed out, they are not going to be strengthened by the proposals. Despite in theory wanting to increase the disabled person’s right to a normal life that others can easily do, these ideas are going to be going in the opposite direction. The pupil premium, is helping the poor, but what about the disabled child who needs interaction, I do not think that the proposed changes for SEN are going to help them one bit. This is another example of the Tories getting their way – Beecroft is getting through via the shares for rights proposals – which we should also be against. These ideas are putting disabiltiy equality back, not forward. None of what you have written shows me where we stand now on equality, equality for the rich, but not for the rest of us. Please read the preamble, and ask yourself this question, does these proposals really put that into practice? From what others have said above and my own reading of this article I cannot see how it is putting it into practice.
Why have you not given James Sandbatch the courtesy of a reply to his letter sent sometime ago?
What a ridiculous article by Jo. Firstly no mention of what is being done on racial equality or ever increasing attacks against people of faith. The equality impact assessments assured that government was held responsible for policy implications when it came to equality.
The sad thing is that the lib Dems who championed equality have supported Tories in dismantling equality for Govenment. We have seen such anger in BME Communities that I feel we will pay a heavy price at next election.
No action on race equality whilst other issues are pushed. I’m ashamed of what the Govenment has done and will do.
Jo, I’m sorry but there comes a point when its only right to put our collective hands up and accept that we don’t really know what we are doing!
We really ought to stop, take a breather, consult with equality campaign groups, experts, practitioners in the field and most importantly with concerned party members with real experience in implementing equalities to get a proper perspective. You may even try talking to Doreen Lawrence who campaigned so hard to get the Race Relations Act amended in 2000 and to introduce specific duties to include Equality Impact Assessments. You may not trust party members to give you advice and guidance, but I’m sure you’ll agree she knows a thing or two about institutional discrimination.
This article is dangerously weak in its ability to put forward any form of compelling argument for the sorts of changes being proposed. I’m disappointed that yet again some of our ministers are talking like experts in the field, yet they fail to speak to liberal minded and dedicated people within the party who have a wealth of knowledge and coal face experience of living discrimination on a day to day basis and others who have worked in this field within the public sector.
I’m afraid the article does nothing to allay my concerns that we are sleepwalking into a dangerous situation here…one in which Tory right wingers and UKIP will be rubbing their hands in glee – a diminution of the role and effectiveness of the EHRC, weakening of the specific duties including Equality Impact Assessments and most importantly of all, removal of the General Duty which supports the Public Sector Equality Duty. Far from it, the piece exposes our breathtaking lack of awareness of how equality works or doesn’t work in public bodies and a grim determination to keep going without regard to consequences faced by disadvantaged communities in Britain.
“Labour’s tired old way of working was turning equalities into a burden. … Instead of being about fairness it was more about frustration…. ticking boxes and filling out forms … why did they leave behind a society with so much inequality … equality can’t be brought about solely in bureaucratic ways”.
We’ve got to stop using Labour’s failure to achieve an equal society to justify our own attempts at pushing a Tory agenda of weakening equality legislation and its regulatory framework. Inequality exists throughout every aspect of society and remains a constant uphill struggle for everybody…even for Liberal Democrats – we have no BME MPs in the House of Commons…is that Labour’s fault too?
These proposals are not Lib Dem Party policy, they were not in the Coalition agreement, are a million miles away from our party preamble and have certainly not been subjected to internal party consultation. This is one off-the hoof policy which is certainly going to face a lot of resistance and will damage our electoral prospects within minority and disadvantaged communities.
As Chair of Ethnic Minority Liberal Democrats, I wrote to Jo directly several weeks ago to raise our grave concerns and to ask for support in stopping the planned removal of the General Duty. I asked for a meeting with my executive team…to date there has been no response. Am I to take it that this article is my response?
Issan Ghazni
Chair of Ethnic Minority Liberal Democrats (EMLD) and Public Sector Equality Practitioner with 20 years of experience – currently equality adviser in the NHS.
A response to Jo Swinson and a request for some clarifications given the somewhat confused picture created by different government statements: http://www.neilcrowtherconsulting.com/blog/equality-is-more-than-making-empty-promises
As someone who works with and for people who routinely encounter discrimination on a daily basis, this attempt to gloss over a broken Britain in terms of equalities is profoundly sad for people who are kept at the margins of society and suggests that Jo is unaware of the fundamentals of discrimination, opportunity and good relations.
The current demonisation of disabled people in the reforms/destruction of the welfare system is almost depraved in its refusal to countenance that the reforms may be wrong.
The betrayal of the BME community, who reluctantly bought the idea that abolition of the CRE to make way for the better model of the EHRC, is writ large in the personal testimony of so many people and none more so than Stuart Lawrence.
It is not the EHRC which is failing people it is the political will inside government which fails those who need a more robust EHRC and one which regularly drags government into court as part of the radical culture change required.
And finally, why is it that the EHRC in Scotland will be left with around 10 staff when the Equality Commission in Northern Ireland has around 140 staff and a budget of over £6 million?
Horrible apologia for tory policy on Lib Dem Voice. What a lovely up to.
I don’t understand this:
“like Nick has said the Equality Act isn’t being watered down and it isn’t going anywhere. ”
Clause 56 removes the s3 General Duty under the Equality Act 2006. How is that not a watering down?
Further to that the explanatory notes to clause 56 state:
” This clause amends Part 1 of the Equality Act 2006, which makes provision for the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, to clarify the Commission’s remit by [b] removing some of its powers and duties [/b]
Could someone please explain why the Coalition is seeking to dismantle the General Duty on the Commission and other acts of vandalism when:
– neither party opposed that part of the Bill at its final passing in 2010
– neither party proposed it in its 2010 manifesto
– there was no reference to it in the Coalition Agreement
Given the comments above and the conference motions, on what authority does Jo Swinson or anyone else seek to dismantle the duty.
Robin Lynn
Cardiff & Penarth
I don’t think I have seen a LibDemVoice thread with such general agreement between all those posting.
Curiously, it seems to show unity in disagreeing with the views of a Lib Dem MP.
I read Jo’s piece with disappointment and concern
Disappointment because the piece is clearly written by Jo using her coalition government Ministerial head rather than her Liberal Democrats heart Many of us know Jo’s record on equalties – particularly with regards to her campaigning and success on women’s issues
The basis of my concern has been very adequately articulated by a number of the other contributors, particularly Issan
” I’m afraid the article does nothing to allay my concerns that we are sleepwalking into a dangerous situation here…one in which Tory right wingers and UKIP will be rubbing their hands in glee – a diminution of the role and effectiveness of the EHRC, weakening of the specific duties including Equality Impact Assessments and most importantly of all, removal of the General Duty which supports the Public Sector Equality Duty”
and Lester
“Jo is wrong to assert that Equality Impact Assessments are not under threat from this Government. The government of which she is a member are consulting on EIAs and have expressed a wish to water them down when the right approach would be to strengthen them so that public authorities know more clearly how they should be writing them, for the benefit of ensuring policies don’t discriminate”
None of should be surprised that the Conservatives want to water down Equalities Legislation – particularly those elements of the legislation that protects Black and Ethnic Minority communities The focus of their attention has always been and always will be the better of
Fairness to ourconservative coalition partners is protecting big business and multi million pound home owners – jus a handful of whom have BAME origins
This group has no need to rely on the protection from EHRC
For Liberal Democrats Fairness should be something completely different It is about ensuring that no one is disadvantaged because of their circumstance
And one circumstance that continues to be the greatest cause of disadvantage for individuals is when their racial background happens to be Black or Asian That was the case back in the 1970s when some of us campaigned for and secured the first Race Relations Act The fact that no government has repealed that Act but amended and strengtened it time after time is proof that Racial Discrimination is alive and well and thriving in Britain
How then can the Coalition Government contemplate justify reducing protection for those who suffer Racial Discrimination ? Because that is what the consequence of the proposed changes to the EHRC is going to be
Teresa May seems more concerned with the cost of running the EHRC rather than the welfare of BAME citizens of the country Further eveidence that the Conservatives class BAMEs as second class citizens
Liberal Democrats in government must make it clear that that is not how we see things That all citizens must be protected from discrimination and that in order to do that we need a strong and effective EHRC with wide reaching powers
The following information forms part of the Equality & Diversity Forum (EDF) briefing paper to the House of Lords on the second reading of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill 2012. (November, 12th, 2012). I have included the entire text as it is self explanatory, and demonstrates that external organisations are very concerned.
I can easily point our Party decision makers to many more concerned groups as well.
COMMISSION FOR EQUALITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS (EHRC)
EDF members are opposed to Clause 56(1)(a)
This clause would repeal section 3 of the Equality Act 2006 which currently obliges the EHRC’s obligation to act ‘with a view to encouraging and supporting the development of a society…’. These objectives were extensively discussed with NGOs, business and others and were agreed by all parties during Parliamentary discussion of the 2006 Act. EDF members can see no advantage in their removal but there will be a loss: section 3 gives the EHRC a clear purpose to guide it in deciding its priorities and makes clear that the job of the EHRC is to change culture, not just to enforce rules. Because it is not directly enforceable, section 3 does not set unrealistic expectations for the EHRC.
EDF members are opposed to Clause 56(1)(b)
This clause repeals the EHRC’s duty to promote good relations between members of different groups. This duty is particularly important in relation to race, Gypsies and Travellers, interfaith relations, hate crimes, the causes of violence against women, intergenerational issues and highly stigmatised groups like people with mental health problems or HIV/AIDS. There are important issues that need to be tackled in these areas and no other statutory body has a remit to tackle them. Although it is arguable that the EHRC has not yet made the most effective use of these powers, no organisation in GB is in a better position than the EHRC to understand the kinds of inter-racial and inter-religious tensions that can arise and to advise on the best ways to address them. The Government is potentially depriving itself of an important resource that it could have real cause to need.
Removing section 10 also entails removing the duty in 10(5) to ‘promote or encourage the favourable treatment of disabled persons’. In order to create a genuinely level playing field it is sometimes necessary to treat disabled people more favourably than non-disabled people by, for example, providing parking facilities for disabled people but not for others who can readily use public transport. The EHRC has an important role to play in promoting a better understanding of this need.
Removing section 10 also entails removing the duty in 10(5) to ‘promote or encourage the favourable treatment of disabled persons’. In order to create a genuinely level playing field it is sometimes necessary to treat disabled people more favourably than non-disabled people by, for example, providing parking facilities for disabled people but not for others who can readily use public transport. The EHRC has an important role to play in promoting a better understanding of this need.
EDF members are opposed to clause 57 – Third Party Harassment
EDF members are concerned about the proposal to repeal the third party harassment because:
• Harassment by third parties is a real issue: it damages people’s lives and wellbeing
• Good employers who take reasonable steps to prevent third party harassment (as many do now) have nothing to fear
• The vast majority of consultees, including individual employers such as fire services, oppose repeal but the Government appears not to have taken account of their views
• There is no evidence that the third party harassment provisions are a burden on business
• Repealing these provisions may leave GB in breach of EU law
People should be able to work in an environment in which they are free of harassment whether from fellow workers, managers or employers or from customers or clients of their employers or others who come onto their employers’ premises. The government accepts that it is necessary to provide protection from harassment in relation to fellow workers, managers or employers so why should employees be unprotected in relation to harassment by customers or clients of their employers or others who come onto their employers’ premises?
The proposed repeal of the third party harassment provisions has been introduced following the Government’s Red Tape Challenge, yet there is no publicly available evidence of concerns being raised about them during the first stage of the Challenge. When the Government asked specifically for views on ‘prohibited conduct’ not one of the 213 responses opposed the third party harassment provisions and a number specifically supported them. Typical was the response of Mike Hagen the Deputy Chief Fire Officer for the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service who said –
We are concerned at the government’s proposal to review the implementation of the provisions on 3rd party harassment even before a case has been taken. The provisions are not just academic. Regrettably, we have had staff abused because of their race and have taken action to protect our employees. However, where organisations do not take action we consider that the law should be available for individuals to take action.
When the Government consulted specifically on third party harassment 71% of responses opposed repeal.
Third party harassment is more likely to be an issue in some kinds of workplace than in others: it is more likely in catering and hospitality and in the care sector than in offices where customers or clients are rarely present. The people who are most likely to be affected by the abolition of this provision are some of the most vulnerable and poorly paid people who are least able to defend themselves. For instance, a recent report on the treatment of care workers by clients, comments:
A survey of public sector social services staff found ethnic minority staff had experienced racist verbal abuse from service users; inappropriate questioning of their authority by users or relatives; users not wanting to be touched by them or asking to be dealt with by a White person (most frequently occurring in the user’s own home); and physical attacks perceived to be racially motivated. Inappropriate remarks from colleagues were also experienced (Brockmann et al. 2001).
The Equality Act gives an employer a defence against a harassment claim if they can show that they took all reasonable steps to prevent or deal with the alleged harassment e.g. by placing notices on their premises reminding service users that the business’s staff have the right to carry out work without facing abuse. Many employers take such steps now and there is no evidence that they are burdensome.
We are also concerned that repealing this provision would contravene European law. Employees have a right to be protected from harassment in relation to all the protected characteristics. The European Directives do not limit the persons in relation to whom that right exists to simply employers.
EDF members are strongly opposed to Clause 58 – Abolition of the Questionnaire Procedure
EDF members are very concerned about the proposal to repeal the questionnaire procedure provisions because:
• The questionnaire procedure saves money by deterring ill-founded litigation
• 83% of consultees, including the judiciary, oppose repeal
• There is no credible evidence that the questionnaire procedure is a burden on business
This change is being proposed following the Government’s Red Tape Challenge. However, no concerns were raised about the questionnaire procedure during the Red Tape Challenge. The Government then issued a specific consultation on questionnaires, which provided little evidence of any case for change. Not only did 83% of the respondents oppose the abolition of the questionnaire procedure but the President and Regional Employment Judges of the Employment Tribunals oppose them, saying that this would be a ‘retrograde step’.
The procedure was introduced in 1975 to assist the making and, if possible, early resolution of potential discrimination claims under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. It has been incorporated into all later anti-discrimination legislation. It is widely regarded by employers, employee organisations, individuals and human resource professionals, as extremely useful and has never been seen as contentious. Judges and tribunal members see it as a useful way of finding out whether there are real issues that divide the parties to litigation and if so what they are. It therefore helps to
• prevent unnecessary proceedings or
• enable their early resolution, or
• clarify the issues in contention.
The procedure is widely used and helps to prevent litigation: at the recent annual Discrimination Law Association conference, virtually every delegate present had experience of cases where litigation had not been brought specifically because of use of the questionnaire procedure. Without the questionnaire procedure there will inevitably be more speculative litigation as aggrieved employees will be more inclined to bring unfounded cases.
The Government claims that there is no evidence that the questionnaire procedure is useful, but the Discrimination Law Association (DLA) can offer plenty of examples of its value in use. For example:
‘Mr A believed he was not recruited to a senior management post for which he was qualified because of race discrimination. He served a detailed questionnaire. The response showed that the employer had followed good equal opportunities procedures and that his answers and presentation were inferior to those of the other candidates. He was advised that he was unlikely to succeed and he did not take the case further.’
The DLA also found examples of questionnaires helping to define the issues and so leading to the early settlement of a case:
‘Mr S was dismissed following an internal audit process which found evidence raising a suspicion of fraud. His lawyers assisted him to prepare a questionnaire asking who else had been caught by the audit process and what action had been taken against them. The employer’s reply indicated that BME employees were more than four times more likely to be sacked (rather than retrained) than their white counterparts. Having made this disclosure the employer agreed to an out of court settlement including a review of their disciplinary process.’
We are sure that the questionnaire procedure facilitates access to justice, helps both parties to assess whether a claim lies and enables them to reach an early settlement where this is appropriate. We urge the Government not to repeal it.
Equality and Diversity Forum members
Action on Hearing Loss
Age UK
British Humanist Association
British Institute of Human Rights
Children’s Rights Alliance for England (CRAE)
Citizens Advice
Disability Rights UK
Discrimination Law Association
End Violence Against Women
Equality Challenge Unit
EREN – The English Regions Equality and Human Rights Network
Fawcett Society
Friends, Families and Travellers
Gender Identity Research and Education Society (GIRES)
JUSTICE
Law Centres Federation
Mind
National AIDS Trust
Press for Change
Race on the Agenda (ROTA)
Refugee Council
RNIB
Runnymede Trust
Scope
The Age and Employment Network (TAEN)
Trades Union Congress (TUC)
UKREN (UK Race in Europe Network)
UNISON
Women’s Budget Group
Women’s Resource Centre
For further information relating to the Equality & Diversity Forum please visit http://www.edf.org.uk
As the Equality Act and the Equality and Human Rights Commission come under threat from the Conservatives, it has never been more important for Liberal Democrats to fight for race equality – a campaign that has always been at the beating heart of the party.
This conference focusses on race equality in education and employment and willl discuss the new report of the Lib Dem Task Force on Race Equality. It will discuss a new, progressive approach to race equality that will differentiate the Liberal Democrats from both Labour and the Conservatives.
Speakers include:
SLF chairs Gareth Epps and Naomi Smith
EMLD chair Issan Ghazni
Baroness Floella Benjamin
Wilf Sullivan, Race Equality Officer, TUC
Rob Berkeley, Director, Runnymede Trust
Baroness Meral Ece
Professor Gus John
Registration 10am. Sandwich lunch is included.
Book here: http://uk.amiando.com/DFLJFYC.html
As a way of explaining the concerns regarding Clause 56, I have included below an extract from the Equality & Diversity Forum (EDF) briefing paper to the House of Lords (12th November, 2012), which explains the concerns t rather well.
EDF members are opposed to Clause 56(1)(a)
This clause would repeal section 3 of the Equality Act 2006 which currently obliges the EHRC’s obligation to act ‘with a view to encouraging and supporting the development of a society…’. These objectives were extensively discussed with NGOs, business and others and were agreed by all parties during Parliamentary discussion of the 2006 Act. EDF members can see no advantage in their removal but there will be a loss: section 3 gives the EHRC a clear purpose to guide it in deciding its priorities and makes clear that the job of the EHRC is to change culture, not just to enforce rules. Because it is not directly enforceable, section 3 does not set unrealistic expectations for the EHRC.
EDF members are opposed to Clause 56(1)(b)
This clause repeals the EHRC’s duty to promote good relations between members of different groups. This duty is particularly important in relation to race, Gypsies and Travellers, interfaith relations, hate crimes, the causes of violence against women, intergenerational issues and highly stigmatised groups like people with mental health problems or HIV/AIDS. There are important issues that need to be tackled in these areas and no other statutory body has a remit to tackle them. Although it is arguable that the EHRC has not yet made the most effective use of these powers, no organisation in GB is in a better position than the EHRC to understand the kinds of inter-racial and inter-religious tensions that can arise and to advise on the best ways to address them. The Government is potentially depriving itself of an important resource that it could have real cause to need.
Removing section 10 also entails removing the duty in 10(5) to ‘promote or encourage the favourable treatment of disabled persons’. In order to create a genuinely level playing field it is sometimes necessary to treat disabled people more favourably than non-disabled people by, for example, providing parking facilities for disabled people but not for others who can readily use public transport. The EHRC has an important role to play in promoting a better understanding of this need.
Equality and Diversity Forum members:
Action on Hearing Loss
Age UK
British Humanist Association
British Institute of Human Rights
Children’s Rights Alliance for England (CRAE)
Citizens Advice
Disability Rights UK
Discrimination Law Association
End Violence Against Women
Equality Challenge Unit
EREN – The English Regions Equality and Human Rights Network
Fawcett Society
Friends, Families and Travellers
Gender Identity Research and Education Society (GIRES)
JUSTICE
Law Centres Federation
Mind
National AIDS Trust
Press for Change
Race on the Agenda (ROTA)
Refugee Council
RNIB
Runnymede Trust
Scope
The Age and Employment Network (TAEN)
Trades Union Congress (TUC)
UKREN (UK Race in Europe Network)
UNISON
Women’s Budget Group
Women’s Resource Centre
As one can see from the membership of the EDF, there is a recognition that the threat goes way beyond just BME communities, and it is acknowledged that every section of society will potentially be negatively affected.
This whole thread, featuring the Government’s current Lib Dem Equalities spokeswoman, when combined with calls from Lib Dem disability campaigners critical of the last Lib Dem Equalities spokeswoman, does not frankly speak well of our current policy or spokespeople on Equalities. Too much more of this, and I see us losing the majority of our Equalities campaigners, another blow to our member numbers and our overall campaigning strength. Not good.
Ms Swinson, my experience of seeking out and working for EQUALITY spans perios before the original EQUAL PAY ACT in 1976. When sought employement as an apprentice in contracting engineering. At that time there waso protection from being ‘discriminate against’. It was ok for them to refuse me access to training , because it was far to travel, it was residential and ofcourse as a female I was really interested in marrigare an the kitchen sink. I needed to ake poitive action tree times to get my right to equal paywith men. I am sad thatmore than 35 yars aftr the EQUAL Pay ACT we are still working towards its goals.
There was no EHRC support me.
Structual racisim in the NHS, I met and married a man from anoher contient. Contracts in the 70;s 80; onwards requied execcive hours (100+ weekly) . Contracts ran for 6 months as did visas. A very stressful expereince. Poor quality traning in the UK ment these medics moved often with families twice a year. Mostly to poor areas at the margin of he country. In comparision White medics were more likely to be structured taining programes wih support =some even became international rubgy players on the side. We had five close friends at the tme. Four are now dead and three left young families to be brought up singlehanded by the mother –
There was no EHRCspport at the time,
As an adult student (90;s) questions on my husbands income formed part of application process for access to University
There was no EHRC support at the time.
Now a retired and disabled person I face mutiple discrimntaion by Governement that allows its agents to send letters clients ; I am gong off for Christmas hols today. You did not ring me backas requested! Respon withi 15 days or else we will remove you fro the caseload. By the way we do not return until 5 Jan . So you cannot comply with this demand.
A final thought Equalty has a partner called equity = but Ms Swinson why is this aspect of the spirit of existing equality legisiaion left out. Whatever the spin people tell you the electiate has a capacity to deal with more than one aspectof problem at a time – they invariably live with them
Ms Swinson, I have 3 young adult female children, They are making their way in life, do not given the shackles of descimination had. Our chiden deserveand rightly demand a better future. Do ont act iliberally and Constriant the EHRC in ways in which reduce access to justice.
amina
Any chance of the original author, Jo Swinson MP, reading and replying to the comments on this thread or is communication via LibDemVoice seen as a one-way process?
sorry for the typing spelling – it is part of my problem
@Peter Watson – both myself and Duwayne Brooks have tweeted Jo encouraging her to respond to comments on this thread, but certainly I’ve not had any response so far. Indeed we’ve not had a reply to a six-page letter to Jo on the EHRC which a number of equalities ‘campaigners’ including myself wrote to her some two months ago!
So still no sign of Jo Swinson.
Alex Folkes highlights in simle terms the real benefits of Equality Impact Assessments (EIA’s), and challenges the “Tory mantra on scrapping red tape”, which some within the Liberal Democrats seem to have adopted over and above our mantra of “Building a Fairer Britain”.
https://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-you-know-what-equality-impact-assessments-can-be-quite-useful-32798.html#comment-236817
I regret that Jo’s comments about EIAs are so casual and superficial. EIAs are basically risk assessments for equality implications. They can be done as part of a risk assessment process and are useful and time-effective as are sensible risk assessments. Initially some processes were excessively bureaucratic and time-consuming, but people working in the equality field were aware of this and made progress in simplifying them. But of course, they’re just bureaucrats.
To everyone: I appreciate you wanted more immediate responses to your comments and while I had read them earlier I’ve only now been able to get a decent slot of time to respond. I also warmly welcomed the opportunity to meet with several of you last week to discuss these and related issues.
@James we still support a broad remit for the EHRC, which won’t be restricted at all by these changes, but they will have to work on a smaller budget like every other department. And EIAs are not being abolished – just to clarify what we have said is that if departments can show they have considered equality another way then that is fine too. Equalities shouldn’t just be ‘considered’ anyway but embedded into policy-making from the start. My experience in Government is that equality is often considered too late, hence simply ‘ticking boxes’.
@Caracactus social mobility, access to the same opportunities for all, is very much about equality. The gender pay gap in Britain remains among the highest in the European Union. The full-time gender pay gap between women and men in the private sector is 20 per cent, though it varies across sectors and regions, rising to up to 55% in the finance sector and up to 33.3% in the City of London.
@Geoffrey Payne I agree that more should be done on racial discrimination – which is why Nick has asked me to look into the high unemployment rates of young black men and Pakistani and Bangladeshi women in particular. We commissioned research on the specific barriers that will then inform policy action.
@James You’ll have received a response by now. As you know I didn’t receive the letter until 27 November when you resent it directly to a member of my staff from a non-hotmail email address. Also in the past few months I have met with members on this including Navnit Dholakia, Rabi Martins, had a telephone call with Lester Holloway, and replied to a letter written by Issan Ghanzi on 10 October 2012. And of course the reason I wrote this post was to engage with Liberal Democrat members.
@Meral I know we have a genuine difference of view about section 3 and have discussed it several times. I can see nothing to suggest that repealing section 3 will either stop or impair the EHRC’s ability to fulfill its important equality and human rights duties. John Wadham, the EHRC’s General Counsel, told the Public Bill Committee, when the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill was still in the House of Commons that he did not find the repeal of the general duty to be problematic “because other parts of the legislation provide sufficient clarity on what our job really is.” And the EHRC budget has not been reduced by 62%, as we discussed on Thursday, if you account for the fact that the Government has taken on responsibility for the provision of a new Equality Advisory Support Service (EASS) in place of the EHRC helpline, and for funding frontline initiatives in place of the EHRC’s grants programme. Funding was transferred from the EHRC to the Government Equalities Office to reflect these changes. Taking into account this transfer of funding, the reduction to the EHRC’s resource budget announced in October 2010 is less than 35%, and consistent with the level of savings required from all public sector organisations.
@Gemma Roulston There is a number people can call to get help and guidance – it’s the Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) Telephone number is: 0808 800 0082 Textphone: 0808 800 0084 The lines are open from 09:00 to 20:00 Monday to Friday and 10:00 to 14:00 Saturday. There is no Beecroft getting in! We’ve put extra safeguards in place to the employee shareholder idea make sure no-one can be forced to take part in this scheme. The first safeguard ensures that if employee doesn’t want to take part and is then overlooked for promotion, or has been disadvantaged in any other way because of that refusal, they can present a claim to an employment tribunal. The second sees the creation of a new unfair dismissal right. If an employee is sacked because they refused to accept an employee shareholder contract, this will be regarded as automatically unfair. Both of these rights will apply from day 1 so employees are protected from the very beginning.
@Lester Holloway Consulting on something does not mean watering down or abolishing it! Governments should be allowed and should be encouraged to review policy to ensure it is working. EIAs are absolutely not being abolished. We have to embrace the realities of Coalition Government. Neither party will get to enact all the policies and legislation that their party members would want because neither party won the election.
@Issan I replied to your letter of 3 August (sent to Lynne Featherstone and passed on to me as the new Equalities Minister) on the 10 October.
I absolutely support the Public Sector Equality Duties, just because there is a review doesn’t mean that they are going to be got rid of. What it means is that we are looking at how they are working and if they can be improved. I want to reassure you that we are approaching the review positively. I’m sure there will be lots of best practice that is well worth sharing!
I rarely comment on debates such as this one. However, this seems to me to be a classic example of why a complicated issue should not be dealt with by Liberals in short, ill-judged and ill-considered musings which amount to little more than web burps. The end result is zero progress, zero new thinking and a lot of people wasting a lot of time responding.
Jo, thank you for your reply. To be honest it does not sound like you are doing much to tackle racial discrimination. 3 years in and all your are doing is research. The overall tone of your article about getting rid of checkboxes, without saying what the alternative would be smacks of ideological opposition previous government policy, rather than one that is based on evidence. What I also notice from the comments is that EMLD, disability groups and the party at large have had virtually no say in the decisions you have made on behalf of the party. Perhaps if they had have been this kind of discussion on LDV would have been more measured. But for many of us what you have said out of the blue has come as a shock.