House of Commons - Communities and Local Government Committee

Select Committee on Communities and Local Government Committee Sixth Report

4 GOVERNMENT MACHINERY AND ACTION TO ACHIEVE EQUALITY

53. The Equalities Review identified a number of areas where persistent inequalities exist, that is where the disparities between the different life chances of certain groups are not closing. It highlighted three groups in particular who experience "large and persistent equality gaps": disabled people, Pakistani and Bangladeshi women, and mothers of young children.[124] Its research showed that at the current rate of progress disabled people and Pakistani and Bangladeshi women would never achieve equality in employment.[125] Its research also showed that partnered women with children under 11 were 40 per cent less likely to be in employment than partnered men in a similar position.[126]

54. The Equalities Review made several recommendations to the Government designed to address persistent inequalities. It favoured the introduction of long-term strategies, with phased targets and set out 10 key steps required to achieve greater equality, including "targeted action on persistent inequalities".[127] It concluded that relevant targets with Public Service Agreements (PSAs) were one of the best ways to ensure that equality was mainstreamed in terms of both policy and service provision.[128]

55. There is no single comprehensive PSA on equality but various PSA targets cover equality strands related to specific departments. At the time of conducting this inquiry DCLG, for example, had two PSA targets, one on race and one on gender; and the DWP had one to improve the participation of disabled people in society and another to increase the employment rate of disadvantaged groups. There are no PSA targets covering other equality strands, such as sexual orientation, age, religion or belief. The Fawcett Society argued "it is important that the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) and associated PSAs and indicators pay due regard to equality".[129]

56. The Minister accepted that there were no clear strategies in place to tackle persistent inequalities but assured us that there would be an "equalities PSA" linked to the forthcoming CSR.[130] We recommend that the Government set out a long-term strategy to tackle persistent inequalities when it responds to the Equalities Review. We welcome the Minister's assurance that an equalities Public Service Agreement would be part of the forthcoming Comprehensive Spending Review settlement. We hope that it will cover all aspects of equality.

57. The British Humanist Association questioned the Government's commitment to tackling discrimination on non-religious grounds. It told us that the Government and its agencies too often use the word 'faith' in preference to the more inclusive term 'religion or belief'.[131] Indeed, the former Prime Minister's letter to Ruth Kelly MP on her appointment as Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in May 2006 uses the word 'faith'.[132] Our concern is not based merely on principled or abstract grounds but raised in the context of the continuing societal discrimination against people on the grounds of their beliefs whether they are religious beliefs or not. As the BHA said, this needs to be reflected in the work of Government.[133] The Minister explained that the DCLG's work was not confined to faith.[134] This was not, however, reflected in the information presented to the public on the department's website. Any mention of 'belief' was buried deep within information on faith in the section on the Race, Cohesion and Faiths Directorate. We recommend that the Government's language reflects the broad nature of its responsibility for tackling discrimination on the grounds of belief, including non-religious beliefs.

58. Some of our witnesses were concerned about the split in departmental responsibilities for the Government's equality policy, finding it confusing and concerned that it potentially served to create an unhelpful hierarchy among equality strands.[135] Trevor Phillips said some aspects of the CEHR's work "might be simpler" but he was "somewhat agnostic" on whether the Government should consolidate all aspects of equality policy into one department.[136] Such a move would however run counter to the objective of mainstreaming equality in every area of Government activity. The Minister argued that equalities is:

137

We agree. Tackling inequality should be integrated into the work of each Government department.

59. As the Equalities Review clearly sets out, the cross-cutting nature of discrimination and inequalities demands a joined-up approach from Government. Currently a number of cross-departmental initiatives exist within the equalities remit. Ministers sit on the Ethnic Minorities Task Force, whose role is to ensure that the Government's ethnic minority strategy is delivered. There is a ministerial group on disability issues to oversee the implementation of the Government's strategy for disabled people. Cross-departmental ministerial meetings have been taking place on a monthly basis since March 2006 to oversee the establishment of the CEHR but there is no body at ministerial level directing and co-ordinating equalities policies as a whole.[138] The Minister explained that no decision has yet been made on whether inter-ministerial meetings will continue regularly to oversee the Government's equalities agenda after the establishment of the CEHR although she agreed that it is important that a "regular mechanism (whatever that is)" for communication is in place.[139]We recommend that a permanent ministerial group is established and that it meets regularly to direct and drive forward the Government's equalities agenda. The ministerial group should also oversee delivery of the Government's long-term strategy on reducing inequalities and tackling discrimination.

Parliamentary scrutiny

60. Scrutiny of the Government's activities on equalities in general falls within our remit although other departmental select committees and the Joint Committee on Human Rights cover specific aspects of equalities and human rights. The Equalities Review recommended the creation of a select committee with a specific remit to examine equalities, arguing "in practice it will be difficult given the breadth of the other issues for which this department is responsible, and given that responsibility for equalities rests with several departments—for this one committee to give the issue the proper focus which it merits and needs".[140]Trevor Phillips pointed out that an Equalities Select Committee could be established on much the same basis as the Public Accounts Committee.[141] He said that he would still expect departmental select committees to hold the Government to account on their relevant department's performance on equality, in addition to the work of an Equalities Select Committee.[142] We are not persuaded. A number of departmental select committees and the Joint Committee on Human Rights have undertaken substantive work on equality issues. For example, the Home Affairs Committee published a report, in June 2007, on young black people and the criminal justice system.[143] We believe that scrutiny of equalities policy is most effective when fully integrated into wider scrutiny, just as efforts to reduce inequalities are most effective when fully integrated into routine practices across a range of activities. There would be too great a risk if an Equalities Select Committee were established that, in respecting the remit of that Committee and fearing duplication of effort, other select committees would reduce the emphasis they give to equalities issues at present. It could also lead to a lack of clarity and a blurring of accountability over holding Government departments to account on these issues. We are not persuaded by the case for the establishment of an Equalities Select Committee. It would tend towards marginalising rather than mainstreaming equality.