Memorandum by Age Concern
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Age Concern England (the National Council
on Ageing) brings together Age Concern organisations working at
a local level and 100 national bodies, including charities, professional
bodies and representational groups with an interest in older people
and ageing issues. Through our national information line, which
receives 170,000 telephone and postal enquiries a year, and the
information services offered by local Age Concern organisations,
we are in day to day contact with older people and their concerns.
1.2 Age Concern is pleased that the Communities
and Local Government Committee has decided to conduct an inquiry
into equality at a key point in the development of policy in this
field. We welcome the opportunity to submit evidence, which we
have supplemented by appending additional material:
Summary chapter of our recent report:
Age of equality? outlawing age discrimination beyond the workplace,
May 2007
UN Guiding Principles for Older Persons
1.3 We will respond in turn to each of the
issues raised in the Committee's terms of reference.
2. ISSUES FACED
IN THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF
THE NEW
COMMISSION FOR
EQUALITY AND
HUMAN RIGHTS
(CEHR)
2.1 The establishment of the CEHR is a welcome
development from the perspective of older people. As we said in
our response to Fairness for All, the White Paper setting
out Government proposals for a new commission:
"Establishing a single Commission for equality
and human rights is essential for older people. It will provide
machinery to make a reality of the new rights under the Equal
Treatment Directive and the Human Rights Act. It will also promote
age equality beyond the law, where the challenges are enormous,
but so are the possibilities. By spreading a new understanding
of fairness and equality in an ageing society, the Commission
could trigger a seismic shift in the opportunities for older people
... .. [it] will be able to develop an integrated approach to
equality, human rights and cohesion, focused on individuals and
relevant to everyone. Age equality, which affects us all, will
play a key part in achieving this."
2.2 Age Concern believes that during its
first year of operation, the CEHR will need to convince the age
sector, including older people and the organisations that represent
them, that it has a clear vision of age equality and is committed
to working towards it. This will present a challenge for commissioners
and staff alike, given that the three existing equality commissions
willunderstandablyseek to ensure that current obligations
are firmly embedded into the CEHR's programme of work. The size
of the CEHR's budget will no doubt impose significant operational
restraints. A further concern relates to the comparative weakness
of legislative protection against age discrimination, creating
an imbalance in the legal tools that are available to the new
Commission. This is a point to which we return in Paragraphs 4.1
and 4.2 below.
2.3 As noted below, we welcome the definition
of equality put forward by the Equalities Review in its final
report. Within this over-arching concept, there needs to be clear
understanding of the meaning of age equality and the CEHR should
give early priority to agreeing on a definitionwhile recognising
that this may need to evolve over time. As a starting point, it
might be useful to consider the following working definition of
age equality that we are using at present:
"An aspiration for every age group, age
equality involves four linked principles and achieving age equality
involves finding a balance between these:
equal citizenshippeople
of all ages should have equality in their relationship with the
state: the equal right to live independently; to be treated with
dignity and to receive good quality services; and to have personal
and collective choice and control to shape public services;
equality of opportunitypeople
of all ages should have the same opportunities; for example, recruitment
to jobs should be merit-based and there should be equal access
to education;
equality of outcomewhere
age is irrelevant, people of different ages should experience
outcomes that are equal, for example, in accessing social care
and treatment for mental health problems. Where age is a factor,
preventable differences should be minimised; and
respecting differencesecuring
age equality may mean recognising the diverse needs and aspirations
of people of different ages and giving appropriate, rather than
equal, treatment. For example, older people should be treated
differently to allow them the choice to retire.
The concept of equality is closely linked to
human rights and sits alongside other central human rights values
such as dignity, fairness, respect and autonomy. Likewise, age
equality is underpinned by human rights and, for older people,
these include the framework of rights set out in the UN Guiding
Principles for Older Persons: dignity, independence, participation,
care and self-fulfilment.
2.4 The CEHR appears to be considering an
approach that would position human rights as underpinning its
work. This would emphasise the relevance of the CEHR to the whole
nation by reference to people's common humanity, as well as providing
a tool to help resolve tensions between equality "strands".
We are pleased that the CEHR's draft vision and mission statement
endorses the importance of human rights for the organisation.
In the absence of goods and services legislation or a public sector
duty to promote age equality, human rights has the potential to
provide an invaluable legal safety net for older people, especially
those who are reliant on public services. Human rights also present
a significant but largely unacknowledged framework for driving
up the standards of public services. In this context, the pioneering
work of the British Institute of Human Rights provides a very
useful model. We hope that the CEHR will give its full support
to promoting a "human rights culture" within public
services. We have two specific recommendations that we wish to
make:
the House of Lords is currently considering
whether the scope of the Human Rights Act (HRA) should extend
to independent care homes in the case of YL v (1) Birmingham
City Council and (2) Southern Cross. If the decision in this case
does not have the effect of extending the scope of the Act, we
hope that the CEHR will use its powers under Section 11 of the
Equality Act to advise the Government on the need to extend the
legislation by statutory amendment as a matter of urgency
under Section 9(2) of the Equality
Act, the CEHR has a duty to promote awareness and understanding
of other human rights in addition to the HRA. In this context,
we would urge the CEHR to have regard to the UN Guiding Principles
for older persons, which are appended to this memorandum. Although
the principles are not binding on governments, they are designed
to influence national policies on older peoplea step that
has already been taken in Wales.
3. THE GOVERNMENT'S
ROLE AND
RESPONSIBILITIES IN
TAKING FORWARD
THE RECOMMENDATIONS
WITHIN THE
EQUALITIES REVIEW
3.1 We have read the final report of the
Equalities Review with great interest, and recognise that it has
succeeded in advancing the debate around equality in a number
of respects. We are pleased that it has made an impassioned plea
for equality, supported by economic, moral and social arguments.
We particularly welcome the Review's new definition of equality
which is rooted in human rights principles and recognises the
worth of every individual. The "Equalities Scorecard"
that it has devised introduces an innovative and valuable framework
for measuring equality across a wide range of dimensions, including
longevity/health and participationall of which are highly
relevant for older people.
3.2 We accept that there will need to be
a debate as to whether the ten dimensions that have been proposed
for the Scorecard are the best choices. For example, there is
an argument that "dignity" should be included as a separate
dimension and there may need to be discussion as to whether some
parts of the framework might be better combinedfor example,
longevity and health. We suggest that there should be an open
debate about the relative importance of the different dimensions,
with a recognition that the balance may need to change over the
life course as needs and circumstances change. Likewise, there
should be clear guidance about how priorities should be determined,
as well as guidance for turning analysis of discrimination into
action on the ground.
3.3 However, we believe that the basic approach
taken by the Scorecard is the right one and we support the recommendation
of the Review that the CEHR should use this framework as a basis
for compiling its triennial "state of the nation" reports.
We are also pleased that the Review has given its support to a
single Equality Act to make the law simpler; and to an integrated
positive duty covering all equality groups, with a strong emphasis
on the role of public procurement and commissioning to further
equalities goals.
3.4 Nonetheless, there are many ways in
which the report has missed important opportunities in relation
to age equality and older people:
The Review does not call for legislation
to outlaw age discrimination in goods, facilities and services
as part of a Single Equality Bill. Similar legislation of course
now exists for the other five equality "strands". We
deal with this point in the next section of our memorandum, but
one consequence of the current imbalance in protection is that
the CEHR will be equipped with fewer legal tools in relation to
ageism and age discrimination.
The Review presents survey evidence
suggesting low levels of prejudice against people over 70 and
shows little understanding of the nature and extent of ageism.
The research for the Review showed that people were least concerned
about expressing prejudice towards Muslims and gay men and lesbians,
and most concerned about being seen to be prejudiced against older
people or disabled people. However, there appears to be no understanding
of the nature of ageism as "benevolent" or patronising
prejudice, or how this can lead to age prejudice being denied
by perpetrator and victim alike. Nonetheless, ageism leads to
real and persistent disadvantage for individuals and groups who
are the focus of it. This is illustrated, for example, by the
poor treatment of many older people by the NHS, acknowledged by
the Department of Health as being rooted in deep-seated negative
cultural attitudes towards older service users.
The final report of the Review has
also perpetuated certain problems with its Interim Report that
gave us cause for concern. The concept of "life chances",
which is biased in favour of early-life interventions over action
later in life, still appears in the narrative of the report. It
is clear that this approach has influenced the choice of "persistent
inequalities" identified by the Review. These prioritise
early years and education; employment; health; crime and criminal
justice as areas requiring urgent action and are likely to inform
the early work programme of the CEHR. The analysis under each
of these headings makes very little reference to the inequalities
faced by older people. We believe (and argued in response to the
Interim Report) that there should be an analysis of equality that
examines the extent to which "substantive freedoms"
are maintained over the life course. This would involve seeking
to prevent or reduce the harmful effects of "trigger events"
whenever they occur in life. It would also focus on the inequalities
that older people experience as a result of their agefor
example, as a result of biological ageing; age-related institutional
and attitudinal barriers; and cohort effects between generations.
We believe that an "Equality Scorecard" approach would
provide a useful tool for analysing the extent to which people
from different backgrounds are able to maintain freedoms throughout
their lives.
Although the report acknowledges
that demographic changes, including an ageing population, are
likely to have an impact on the nature of inequality, it is puzzling
that the Review does not make specific recommendations in relation
to problems that have a large part to play in perpetuating discrimination
against older people; for example, elder abuse, and mandatory
retirement ages. Our recent report, Age of equality? outlawing
age discrimination beyond the workplace, contains many examples
of the discriminatory treatment of older people by public service
providerstreatment that has often been acknowledged as
a problem by the Government. The Review also misses the opportunity
of highlighting the importance of intergenerational contact in
terms of addressing stereotypes and promoting community cohesion.
3.5 Although we recognise that the final
report of the Equalities Review has made some important contributions
to the debate on equality, we believe it is important for the
Government to recognise its shortfalls when considering policy
options for implementation. There is otherwise a danger that the
existing bias towards the three established equality strands will
be perpetuated.
4. THE POSSIBLE
CONTENTS OF
THE DISCRIMINATION
LAW REVIEW
AND A
SINGLE EQUALITY
BILL
4.1 Age Concern is calling for the Single
Equality Bill to incorporate new legislation to outlaw age discrimination
in goods, facilities and services, together with a public sector
duty to promote age equality. We would expect these two legislative
measures to complement each other, because, following the model
of existing public sector duties, public authorities would be
responsible for eliminating unlawful discrimination as well as
"age proofing" every aspect of their work. If age discrimination
in goods and services were to remain lawful, this would considerably
weaken a public sector duty on age.
4.2 Our report, Age of equality? outlawing
age discrimination beyond the workplace, sets out the arguments
for extending the law, supported by wide-ranging evidence of age
discriminationincluding case histories drawn from a recent
survey conducted by Age Concern. We hope that the Committee will
find this report of interest. For ease of reference we have appended
to this memorandum the summary of the report which sets out the
case for change, and therefore do not repeat the arguments here.
Memorandum by the Department for Communities
and Local Government
I am writing in response to your letter of 7th
June requesting a note setting out the information Meg Munn promised
the Select Committee at the evidence session of 5 June.
Questions 85-89
(a) Details of the amount of money spent
by the Government on consultants in the establishment of the CEHR,
including a full breakdown of amounts paid (and/or allocated)
to specific consultancy firms with details of the names of all
firms, with outputs and timeframes (Q85-89)
The following table set out the total amounts
paid or allocated by consultancy type to establish the CEHR.
|
Consultant Expenditure | 2005-06
| 2006-07 | 2007-08
| Total |
|
Activity | £m
| £m | £m
| £m |
Recruitment | 0.2
| 0.3 | 0.7
| 1.4 |
Organisational Development and HR |
| 0.5 | 0.4
| 0.9 |
Property and Estates | 0.1
| 0.1 | 0.2
| 0.4 |
Branding and business planning |
| | 0.3
| 0.3 |
ICT |
| 0.4 |
| 0.4 |
Legal and Finance | 0.1
| 0.1 | 0.1
| 0.2 |
Total | 0.4
| 1.4 | 1.7
| 3.5 |
|
Consultants provided expert advice on the areas above at
appropriate stages in the implementation of the Commission of
Equality and Human Rights. A detail of the contractors and outputs
is given at Annex A.
(b). Details of the dates and Ministerial attendance at
the inter-ministerial group overseeing the implementation of the
CEHR (as referred to in Q103)
Inter-Ministerial meetings have been running in their current
format since March 2006. Meetings dates are as follows:
1 March 2006.
16 May 2006.
27 June 2006.
19 July 2006.
10 October 2006.
8 November 2006.
12 December 2006.
9 January 2007.
27 February 2007.
29 March 2007.
24 April 2007.
The next meeting is due on 25 June.
Meg Munn has chaired every meeting and each has been attended
by Anne McGuire of the Department of Work and Pensions, Harriet
Harman and subsequently Baroness Ashton of the Department for
Constitutional Affairs now Ministry of Justice, Jim Fitzpatrick
of the Department for Trade and Industry following Machinery of
Government changes and Lord Adonis of the Department for Education
and Science, or by an official on their behalf.
(c) Details of the assumptions made and the basis for the
budgetary allocation of £70 million and the start-up budget
of £24 million for the CEHR (Q96)
The start up budget of £24 million was based upon an
estimation of the preparation and implementation costs for CEHR,
including salaries for the implementation team, costs associated
with organizational design, accommodation, establishing a new
helpline and website, early exit costs and legal advice. Funding
contributions were made by the Department of Work and Pensions,
Department of Trade and Industry, Ministry of Justice and Communities
and Local Government.
The suggested budget of £70 million for CEHR was based
on high-level assumptions about CEHR activity and extrapolation
from predecessor bodies. The relative increase on the legacy commissions'
budgets reflects the expanded role of the Commission in:
assuming responsibilities for tackling discrimination
on the basis of age, religious belief or sexual orientation;
taking on the overarching responsibility for promoting
Human Rights and Equality;
|