c



 





In a written ministerial statement on Friday 18 th March the Home

Secretary Theresa May announced that the Government has published
a new policy review paper aimed at simplifying the public sector equality
duty. A consultation process on the new policy document, with a very
short time span, has been launched. So far there has been barely a
murmur from the media or equality campaigners despite the far reaching
consequences of this change. Within a few short weeks the future shape
and focus of the Equality Act will be altered. I¶m not an expert in this
field, but even at the quickest glance, the potential fallout from these
changes leaves me reeling.

Why? In brief, the key differences of the new draft regulations from
those published on 12 January are the removal of requirements on
public bodies to publish details of the:

‡ engagement they have undertaken when determining their

policies;
‡ engagement they have undertaken when determining their
equality objectives;
‡ equality analysis they have undertaken in reaching their policy
decisions; and
‡ information they considered when undertaking such analysis.

Comments on the draft regulations are sought by 21 April 2011. Without

even considering what this means about the Coalition¶s stance on the
Compact, there are clear implications about how they view essential
tools in protecting the vulnerable.

In essence, this means Local Authorities and other statutory agencies no

longer having to demonstrate proper consultation processes. It means
no requirement for transparency about who they have spoken to and
how they have acknowledged these comments. There will no longer be
a need for them to show us the Equality Impact Assessments they carry
out, meaning that it will be harder to challenge the decisions made.
What could this mean in practice though? Well, many of you will
remember the case of Southall Black Sisters (or ±
  

       In the case, the council¶s initial failure to

conduct a Race Equality Impact Assessment (REIA), followed by
fundamental weaknesses in the REIA eventually carried out, were
instrumental in the overturn of their decision. Pragna Patel, chair of
SBS, said the following about the judgement and its effects on the
voluntary and community sector;

   
           
                 
 ! " "  "   # $      
  %$      &        
   
   '( 

So by removing the requirement to publish these documents, the sector

is being stripped of some of our essential tools in fighting decisions
made by public bodies. Considering the scale of the cuts we¶re now
facing, and the potential impact on vulnerable people, this looks like
removing an essential layer of protection. It also strips away some of
the transparency and openness in local government, which has been of
benefit not only to the voluntary sector in challenging decisions, but also
in how statutory bodies are perceived by the communities they serve.

An additional concern, if one were needed, is this. These requirements

were due to be passed on to organisations tendering for services. It has
long been a complaint of campaigning groups that private organisations
delivering services were not held to account. For example, consul tation
events have been run by private contractors in places without disabled
access, people requesting Easy Read materials have been given
questionnaires designed for children instead, and requests for
translators at meetings have been denied. Removing t he requirement,
our ability to challenge such actions remains weak, and there will be no
incentive for such organisations to develop a wider understanding of
how to reach out to and involve people with protected characteristics.

In the statement published on Friday, the Home Secretary said:-

sWe have considered the draft equality regulations further in the light of
our policy objective of ensuring that public bodies consider equality
when carrying out their functions without imposing unnecessary burdens
and bureaucracy. As a result, we think there is room to do more to strip
out unnecessary process requirements. Today we are publishing a
policy review paper seeking views on new draft specific duties
regulations. Our proposals are designed to deliver a clear focus on
transparency, freeing up public bodies to take responsibility for their own
performance in delivering equality improvements and to publish the right
information so that the public can hold them to account. This approach
will be better for equality because it will focus on the delivery of results,
not the performance of bureaucratic processes.´

This doesn¶t feel like removing bureaucracy to me. It feels like silencing
the voices of the vulnerable. If the Coalition genuinely wishes to put
equality at the heart of their policies, then watering down the Equalities
Act and removing these duties is a backward step. Instead, the change I
propose is the addition of lower socio economic status as a protected
characteristic. By considering how policy changes might impact on the
poorest in society, we stand a much better chance of actually putting
equality at the heart of society. It also sends a clear message to those
who doubt the Coalition¶s commitment to the most vulnerable members
of our communities.

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
V
V V
V  VV
V

V VV
 V
V
V


  
  
 !

"!#$$%V