Examination of Witness (Questions 43-51)
29 OCTOBER 2003
MR TREVOR
PHILLIPS
Q43 Chairman: We are delighted to
welcome Trevor Phillips, who of course is the recently appointed
Chair of the Commission for Racial Equality. Trevor, it is a great
pleasure to have you with us. This is an important Inquiry for
us and, of course, we could not possibly contemplate starting
an Inquiry of this nature without touching base with your own
organisation, which is central to all this. Alas, we have only
got 15 or 20 minutes left available to us this morning, and I
apologise for that. However, I hope that if we make a start this
morning, as I said earlier at the beginning of the Committee session,
we will be returning to this early in the new year and I hope
we may be able to consider this the start of a process which is
a bit of dialogue with you, so that you can assist us along the
way. Why not make a short opening statement and introduce, perhaps,
your two colleagues?
Mr Phillips: Let me first say,
Chairman, thank you very much for taking the time to talk to us.
We will come back any time you like. My colleague on the left
here is Finola Kelly, who is our Parliamentary Officer, and Angela
Hannaway is our Senior Policy Officer in this area. I am not the
expert, and indeed our expert is not here today, but we have a
few things to say. First of all, I think you are most interested
in what we have to say about the Race Equality Strategy, and I
hope what I might do is short-cut some of the questioning. First
of all, it is a fat old document. There is a slight problem with
it, which is that it was published much later than it should have
been—about a year—though there was consultation from
May 2002. We have not quite had the time to crawl over it in the
way that we would have liked, though we were consulted on it,
so it is hard to give answers on some specific things. However,
there is a wider issue, which I guess will underline much of what
we say, and that is the very important question you are considering.
Unfortunately, the evidence base is pretty poor, if not non-existent.
What we can say is that for the DWP to meet its targets overall
it really needs to improve its performance in relation to black
and minority ethnic citizens, and that is the fundamental point
here. It concerns fairness but it is also their capacity to do
the job that they are charged with. We do quite a lot of work
with their officers, I sit on the DWP's ethnic minority employment
task force and we met Jobcentre Plus shortly after I was appointed,
so we are very interested in this. We think the main thing is,
we need to know exactly where we are, and unfortunately we do
not at the moment. A good example is we really do not quite know
where we are on DWP's own staff. We have got a breakdown between
ethnic minority and non-ethnic minority but we do not know, amongst
the ethnic minorities, who is who, and issues like language then
become rather significant in that respect. The Race Equality Scheme
process should assist in this but there are some other issues—for
example, how do you tackle child poverty through dealing with
increasing take-up in relation to CSA? The numbers in relation
to different communities is extremely important here because your
strategies might be different in relation to different communities.
Very briefly, let me outline some basic problems, specific outcomes
and things that we would like to suggest we could do. Not enough
about good practice in the Race Equality Scheme; not enough focus
on outcomes and the targets are limited to 2004 (we do not know
what happens after that). I noticed you talking about the issue
of translators. I agree, actually, there should be translators
but what most minority communities who need translators also need
is advice and advocacy. So the nature of the translation service
is very important. Specific outcomes, which we do not see in the
scheme. For example, we think that there should be a target that
there should be no difference in take-up of benefits by pensioners
from different ethnic minority groups. That is a good specific
target, but it is not there. A second target would be no disparity
in satisfaction rates between those who have been through the
appeals system, for example. Coming back to the CSA point, we
would like to find a target which allows the DWP to set an ambition
to have that positive impact on child poverty through CSA take-up.
Lastly, just a couple of points about something we could do. The
point that Mrs Humble made about relationships with local groups.
One of the things that we think we might be interested in working
with the DWP on is as an intelligence gatherer in relation to
local communities. Secondly, all of this takes place under the
race equality duty. One of the things I hope to do with our Race
Equality Council (REC) network is to pilot a project by which
some local RECs start to examine not just the boxes that are being
ticked in relation to the Race Equality Schemes but what is the
quality—that we go into depth on some local councils, on
a Primary Care Trust (PCT) perhaps and, maybe, a DWP area on quite
what is the quality as well as the quantity of the fulfilment
of the Race Equality Scheme.
Q44 Mr Dismore: One issue I would
like particularly to focus on is within the question of minority
ethnic staff in DWP. What do you think the Department should be
doing to try and get people working up the promotion ladder? We
talk about aspirational equality targets, but is that enough?
If not, what do you think they should be doing?
Mr Phillips: This is an issue
that we are addressing right across the Civil Service. Three months
ago we published a league table which we called Snowy Peaks which
demonstrated that amongst 22 departments very few had the same
proportion of ethnic minority staff above Grade 6 as overall.
There are six departments which had no ethnic minority staff above
Grade 6. I do not have the latest figures to hand, but they demonstrate
that the overall proportion of ethnic minority staff in the DWP
is somewhere around 9.5% but the figure for senior staff is about
2.8% Figures which we have, which are about recruitment in the
year to March 2002, suggest that though for clerical and administrative
groups the recruitment profile is about 11 to 12% ethnic minority,
it is still down at 6 or 7% for senior grades. So there is a problem
here, and the first thing we need to do is to establish what is
actually the fact, not just overall but actually how many Indians
etc—according to the Census groups. Again, the issue here
is not, if I can put it, black and white; the way that you might
approach different ethnic communities depends on precisely what
is happening with that community. So, first of all, proper information
by Census category. Secondly, we do favour some steps which would
allow fast-tracking for some of those in lower grades to get to
further grades or training, and so on and so forth. We also favour
mentoring systems. One of the things that is becoming clear right
across the piece is that one of the problems for ethnic minority
staff in getting into senior grades is not qualifications, it
is what you might call "soft skills" and having a champion.
That is to say, when it comes to the senior grades, usually, in
most big organisations, what helps is being part of the network,
and having somebody there to speak up for you when the board meets.
What has happened in the United States is that staff are being
given a senior champion, someone who knows them. So when there
is a conversation about who should be on the board, who should
be considered for the next rise—of course, everything is
done properly, but sometimes people do not hear, sometimes they
are not encouraged. Every ethnic minority employee has a champion
at a higher grade, who is there to speak up for them. These are
a couple of the kinds of steps I think we could recommend. There
are others.
Q45 Chairman: If you have done a
departmental survey with these figures, it is probably more up-to-date.
If we have not already got it, it is probably more up-to-date
than anything else we have got. Could you send us a note about
those figures?
Mr Phillips: We will give you
what information we have.[2]
Q46 Mr Dismore: You mentioned earlier
in your contribution the importance of the very small, community-based
groups. We have had the same difficulty trying to get evidence
for what is happening on the ground, so if there is any help you
can give us in encouraging people to come forward, either co-ordinating
through you or direct, that would be very helpful. The other point
I wanted to put to you briefly on staffing was this: I do not
think you were in the room when I raised with the PCSU the comment
that Jobcentre Plus had made about relocation of work out of London,
where they talked about "ethnicity versus efficiency".
That was the phrase used at a meeting on 14 October, the suggestion
being that they could do more efficiently out of London, which
is the national DWP view, whereas London DWP wanted to try and
keep the work in London to help with the provision of work for
people from BMEs. Have you had any comment from or discussions
with DWP about the likely impact on their efforts to try and reach
ethnicity targets of moving work out of London, particularly,
from low-level jobs?
Mr Phillips: Nobody has asked
us about this. Two points about it: first of all, it is a sort
of bizarre opposition, really—ethnicity versus efficiency.
I can sort of see what somebody might say: "Large ethnic
minority communities are in London, if we keep the business in
London we are more likely to get ethnic minority communities."
Yes and no. Yes, if you just take the quantitative, but actually
part of the obstacle, quite often, is not really to do with numbers,
the obstacle is with the attractiveness of the job and the institution.
It seems to me that what you have first got to understand is whether
working for the DWP is in itself attractive. You might go to Sheffield
and find that if you do things differently you will get more people
anyway. The other point I would like to make about this is that
it seems to me that this is entirely the wrong way to go about
thinking about this. One thing they could practically do, if they
are considering a move, is a race impact assessment. That would
tell us what is likely to happen. This would be a useful thing
to do.
Q47 Mr Dismore: The other question
I was going to ask you was whether you had looked at the impact
of the nationality laws in relation to the Civil Service, both
generally and in relation to the DWP? You may be aware that I
introduced a Private Member's Bill[3]on
this and it was blocked by the Conservatives—none of whom
happen to be here. It was blocked from the Conservative benches.
I wondered whether you had looked at the issue of this in terms
of trying to improve ethnicity both generally within the Civil
Service and at the DWP?
Mr Phillips: We have thought about
it but, as far as I am aware, we have not done any substantial
work.
Q48 Ms Buck: Trevor you just made
the very important point, in relation to employment, that one
needs to get beneath the global title "black and ethnic minorities"
and start looking at individual communities. Can I just ask you
or your colleagues to talk a little bit more about the implications
of that in terms of service delivery, because clearly if one looks
at what figures we do have or little bits of research that kick
around in this department and elsewhere, we know that the experience
of Somalis, for example, and Pakistanis, in terms of poverty,
is significantly worse than some other minority groups, and virtually
all of them are worse than white communities. Since the piece
of work you did in 1993 with the then Benefits Agency, race relations
in Britain has become a very, very dynamic process—it has
changed dramatically. How can we deal with this range of different
experiences? What, if anything, can we learn and help with the
challenges to service delivery where you might have 90 different
minority communities in a city as opposed to the duo-culturalism
of, say, the northern towns?
Mr Phillips: This is a very long
seminar, but I think the first point is get proper information;
understand what you are dealing with. I am repeating the point
but it cannot be said too many times, and the best guide we have
is Census category. Not only, by the way, because it is convenient
but, also, because it allows us to compare with other aspects
of ethnic minority groups' experience. If there is an intersection,
let us say, between housing need and the access to or take-up
of benefits then we will not be able to tell, unless we compare
categories. We know, for example, that the housing problems and
overcrowding amongst some groups, particularly Pakistani groups
and probably some of the newer ethnic minority groups—Somalis
you mentioned—is quite different, let us say, to Indians
or black Afro-Caribbeans. Therefore, unless we actually have a
true picture of the differentials here you will not quite be able
to match the problems of take-up with what are the root problems,
which might be to do with housing; they might, for example, be
to do with educational experience, where, as we now know, the
experience between Indian and Chinese, at the top, and Afro-Caribbean
and Bangladeshi, at the bottom, is hugely different. Similarly,
the question of household composition, where, amongst Afro-Caribbeans,
50% or thereabouts now, we reckon, are single parents compared
to, let us say, Indians and so on. All of these factors are factors
which bear on take-up, bear on the way you might address these
groups. Therefore, I think information is very important. The
second thing is: ask them. One of the things that we are unsure
about (let me put it no more damningly than that) is about the
value of some of the consultation processes that are going on;
whether the DWP is really hearing what is needed and what is demanded.
Coming back to the point about translation, it is fine to say
"We will have a translator to translate for those who come
and know the business"; the problem is that we have people,
many of whom are elderly, for many of whom the second language
is English (although they speak English) but they might not actually,
for example, even be able to read their own vernacular. So there
is no point providing them with leaflets in the vernacular; they
need advice, they need somebody to talk to. So that is a second
thing I think we could talk more about.
Q49 Ms Buck: Do you get the sense,
based on the Race Equality Strategy and the connections you might
have, that the demands of this very varied and very changing set
of communities is understood in terms of, say, the whole approach
to race equality within the Department?
Mr Phillips: There are 22 different
businesses here in DWP. My sense is that the one I had most contact
with, Jobcentre Plus, has woken up to this; my sense is that elsewhere
it is not quite as advanced.
Q50 Mrs Humble: Following on from
some of the comments that you made earlier about the consultation
process, you are actually quite critical in your memorandum to
us, as well as being critical here today. You asked whether the
current systems are "appropriate, culturally sensitive or
accessible" and you go on to say "there is clearly room
for improvement in respect of the DWP actively engaging customers".
How could they do it better? Is the Minority Ethnic Working Party,
of which you are a member, doing anything about this? Is it making
recommendations to the Department?
Mr Phillips: Taking those in reverse
order, the working party, I think, has met three times, so it
is a little bit early to say quite what is going to come out of
that. We want to make a contribution and we hope it will encourage
people the right way. I could give you a lot of flannel in answer
to your first question, but the basic problem is we just do not
know, we do not know what they are doing now so we cannot quite
say what more they could do. What I do not want to do is sit here
and say "Why don't you do this, this and this?" and
DWP people will reasonably come along and say "We are doing
this, this and this. Why are the CRE criticising us?" Our
problem is we do not quite understand what is happening. That
may be a fault on our part, but that is one of the reasons why
I am suggesting that perhaps what we need to do is have an exercise
that draws in our REC network to understand better what is happening
locally. I am not trying to dodge the question, but I just think
there is no point trying to give you an answer about something
I do not know.
Mrs Humble: That is one of the reasons
why we are having this Inquiry. We have the same view as you.
Thank you, Chairman.
Q51 Chairman: Trevor, thank you very
much for that. I hope we can, if you do not mind, consider this
as a starter-for-ten. It has been very, very helpful having access
to you and your team this morning, and perhaps we can continue
the dialogue with notes and correspondence and, maybe, even later
in the Inquiry invite you back because things may have changed
by then.
Mr Phillips: We are very happy
to do that.
Chairman: Thank you very much, it has
been very helpful.
2 Please refer to supplementary note provided by Mr
Phillips (SD 11A). Back
3
Crown Employment (Nationality) Bill-introduced in the House of
Commons on 28 January 2003. Back
|
