Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80
- 99)
TUESDAY 5 JUNE 2007
MEG MUNN
MP AND MS
SUSAN SCHOLEFIELD
Q80 Mr Betts: I think one of the
issues around which probably causes some confusion is that while
under the terms of the contract there may be a general intention
to ensure that the private contractor works within the terms of
the public duty on the local authority or whatever to promote
equality, sometimes there is a difference in culture: it may be
a lack of understanding; or maybe local authorities do not always
have the best monitoring systems; or whichever public sector body,
the health service, the private sector is delivering at arm's
length the sort of things you would expect the public sector body
was doing. I just wondered how much more Government could do to
properly lay down examples of good practice or encourage and promote
those elements of good practice that do exist around the public
sector so that we actually up the game in public sector procurement
in general?
Meg Munn: Certainly, that is one
of the issues we are proposing, that there should be more guidance
produced in relation to that. We are asking within the Green Paper
for the kind of issues that should be covered in that guidance
to promote that. Again, that is a role as well for the Commission
for Equality and Human Rights in terms of sharing good practice.
One of the benefits of the new Commission is that because it is
larger than the existing commissions it has to have a regional
presence throughout England, and obviously in Scotland and Wales
as well, which means that we want it to be working much more directly
with other local organisations who are providing guidance and
advice to ensure that it is being more effective in terms of making
sure people access that information and have that guidance. That
is the way we are seeking to do that.
Anne Main: You have said guidance and
a regional presence and I think we are talking about the funding
of this.
Chair: Can we leave this until later.
Mr Betts: We have moved from the days
of compulsory tendering where Government specifically legislated
to prevent companies from including these issues in its contract.
Q81 David Wright: I want to talk
about the establishment of the Commission. We understand that
it is to be "open for business" on 1 October. Is it
going to be?
Meg Munn: Yes, it is set to be
open for business on 1 October. Clearly what "open for business"
means is not necessarily all singing, all dancing at that point.
What is happening at the moment is work is being done on ensuring
that there are a range of services available on 1 October; but
clearly this is a new Commission; it has got to recruit staff,
assimilate staff from existing commissions; it is a big task and
it will not be doing everything on day one; but it will be open
for business on 1 October.
Q82 David Wright: The Public and
Commercial Services Union (PCS) have contacted us and they have
given us evidence in terms of the structures in place by 1 October.
They are concerned, as I think the Committee will be, that we
are going to have staff that will deal directly with the public,
helpline staff in place but the structure behind that will not
be in existence by 1 October. Clearly there is an issue about
whether caseload can be transferred from those frontline staff
to people who can actually deal with it. Clearly there is a concern
there are people out there who are looking for support from the
Commission who are not going to receive it. They will be able
to handle their phone calls but they will not have any practical
backup beyond that. Is that right?
Meg Munn: I cannot say at this
point in time exactly what is going to be there. We are very clear
that there is a process which has to be gone through and obviously
involvement and consultation with the unions is part of that.
An organisational design is being finalised. There will then be
a process of assimilating existing staff from commissions into
post. There will also be a process of those who have opted for
redundancy. Those issues will be looked at. We will move through
that process and that will be done as quickly as possible to get
us to 1 October. The existing commissions and the chairs and chief
executives are working extremely closely with the Chief Executive
of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights and the Chairman
and the Commissioners of the Commission for Equality and Human
Rights to ensure that those processes happen. I cannot say to
you now in June exactly how much will be in place. We are very
clear there have to be helplines and a website on 1 October; and
clearly the handover issues need to be clear at that point, but
exactly how much of the Commission will be in place and the issues
which will be dealt with are not known at this point.
Q83 David Wright: Do you think that
we should review the timetable? Should we be putting the process
back? My concern is that we will not be able to pick up on a case
once it has gone onto the system and that is going to get lost.
There is a clearly an impact there on staff; clearly there is
going to be a morale issue for people who are working on the frontline
who are not able to respond in an effective manner necessarily
on particular individual pieces of casework?
Meg Munn: I think if you look
at the range of work the existing commissions do there is the
casework, as you say, and the issues which come through the door
of people seeking help and advice. There is a whole range of other
work which is done in terms of research on issues of equality:
specific inquiries into areas, and we are clear, as a group of
ministers who meet regularly to monitor the progress of the Commission
being set up, that precisely the work you are talking about is
the most important and needs to be there from day one.
Q84 David Wright: That is helpful,
Minister. In terms of the process that has been used to set this
up, we have a transitional team I think in the DCLG; we have had
obviously the individual elements of the Commission coming together
and you have already mentioned that; and we have also had consultants
working on this. How do you feel that approach has gone? Have
there been issues about change in the transitional team? Does
it work effectively, do you think? Has there been significant
staff turnover during this period of time?
Meg Munn: There has been a very
tight monitoring process in place throughout this. I feel it is
a very challenging timetable but we do know exactly where we are.
We do know what needs to happen. We have a project plan. We have
mechanisms in place to monitor that. We have an inter-ministerial
team which meets about monthly, obviously allowing for recesses,
and has a regular update on that. There has been extremely close
oversight. I feel that we have had an effective process in place.
It remains a challenging timetable. Some of the processes inevitably
with any project have taken longer than would have been ideal
in terms of getting the Chair and Commissioners in place, in getting
the Chief Executive in place. We are very happy with the people
but it is not always possible, because they are doing responsible
jobs and moving from those jobs into these posts, to be as quick
as we would have liked. That has taken a little longer than we
would have liked. It is a challenging timetable but the processes
are very tightly managed.
Q85 David Wright: How much have you
spent on consultancy?
Meg Munn: I am not able to tell
you that. I have not got that figure in front of me but I am sure
we could let the Committee know.
Q86 David Wright: The consultants
were changed. When Ernst and Young were working on this I understand
they were not employed to see the process right through. Why was
there a change, do you know?
Meg Munn: There have been different
consultants working on different aspects of that. I have not got
all those details on front of me, so I think it would be much
better if I were to provide a note to the Committee on that.
Q87 David Wright: Do you know if
the consultants' costs are met from the £24 million start-up
budget?
Meg Munn: That is the transition
budget. Yes.
Q88 David Wright: The consultants'
fees are coming out of that budget?
Meg Munn: Yes.
Q89 David Wright: It would be helpful
to the Committee to have that material and I am sure you will
provide it?
Meg Munn: Yes.
Q90 Chair: Minister, I understand
there has been a Gateway Review?
Meg Munn: Yes.
Q91 Chair: It would be very helpful
if we could have a copy.
Meg Munn: The Gateway Review is
to the Commission and therefore it is not a document that is held
by Communities and Local Government, so that is a matter for the
Chief Executive of the Commission and not Communities and Local
Government.
Q92 Chair: So we should pursue it
directly with him?
Meg Munn: I am referring to Nicola
Brewer the Chief Executive.
Q93 David Wright: I would just like
to pose a couple of questions about the role of the Commission.
Trevor Phillips in his evidence to us indicated that he felt the
independence of the Commission was of crucial importance. How
is it more independent than its predecessor? Is it more independent?
Meg Munn: The model is a non-departmental
public body and, therefore, the mechanisms which are in place
for the existing commissions are similar mechanisms which are
in place for the Commission for Equality and Human Rights in terms
of a sponsor department. There was a lot of debate at the House
of Lords stage of the Equality Act around how independent this
would be, and different people took different views and some people
put forward that there should be a different arrangement. Government
took the view, and the legislation went through, that it would
be a non-governmental public body, so in terms of the financial
arrangements, the sponsorship arrangement and the regular monitoring
of the Department it is a similar process. The existing commissions
make decisions about the programmes of work that they pursue,
the issues that they are going to take up in terms of equality.
The new Commission for Equality and Human Rights will do so.
Q94 David Wright: You are the Minister
who will take responsibility for the outcomes of the performance
of the Commission, is that what you are saying?
Meg Munn: The arrangement for
non-departmental bodies is that there are requirements in terms
of approving business plans, and in terms of the financial arrangements
which go through the sponsoring department, which is the role
I currently play in relation to the Commission for Racial Equality
and the Equal Opportunities Commission. There are certain decisions
such as the appointment of the Chair and Chief Executive which
are taken by the Secretary of State. Clearly if there was concern
that the Commission was completely outside the remit that Parliament
had set then the Department would need to act; but these organisations
are independent; Parliament set them up to be independent because
clearly one of the public bodies they may want to criticise is
the Government or, indeed, government departments.
Q95 David Wright: How are you going
to measure the effectiveness of those bodies? You have indicated
they are independent. There is cross-departmental responsibility,
if you like, for strands of the work. How are you going to effectively
monitor this?
Meg Munn: The Commission for Equality
and Human Rights sponsoring Department will be Communities and
Local Government; and Communities and Local Government is the
lead Department in terms of equalities and continues to be so,
so it will sit with that. Because this goes across other areas,
DWP still have the lead in terms of age and disability. It would
seem to me that what we will be looking to is to continue some
mechanism. I do not think it will continue to meet as frequently
as the current inter-ministerial group overseeing the implementation;
but there will need to be that regular liaison between the relevant
minister and DWP, and also in the new Ministry of Justice, because
they have the human rights lead, to ensure that those issues and
the performance of the Commission across these areas is being
properly overseen.
Q96 Chair: Minister, can I turn to
the issue of budgets. The start-up budget is £24 million;
I think the operating budget is £70 million. How are those
figures arrived at? What were the assumptions made? It has been
pointed out that the start-up budget, for example, is nearly a
quarter of that which was granted for the setting up of Ofcom
in 2003. What are the assumptions in setting those budgets?
Meg Munn: A whole range of assumptions
were put together. Again, I have not got the detail in front of
me, and it actually predates my time as a Minister; but a budget
was put together setting out the kind of expectations there would
be in terms of the processes that needed to be gone through to
set up an organisation: organisational design; development, for
example; issues about staff moving; those kinds of things. A whole
range of assumptions were put together. Again, I am very happy
to provide the Committee with information on that. This was done
some considerable time ago now.
Q97 Chair: The operating budget?
Meg Munn: The operating budget:
that, as I understand it, and this predates me being in post as
Minister, was a discussion between the key departments who, as
I was just discussing, had the input into it (and they were different
departments from the ones now) as to what they felt was appropriate
in terms of an increase on the existing commissions. The existing
commissions' budgets at the time came to a total of £48 million,
and it was felt that clearly bringing commissions together would
lead to some economies of scale. In addition to that there was
adding in the three new areas plus human rights, so that there
was an agreement that there needed to be an overall increase.
This was an issue which was thoroughly debated during the committee
stage of the Equality Act, and I think I can say that the Liberal
Democrats felt the budget was too small, the Conservative Opposition
Party felt it was too big and the Government felt it was just
right!
Q98 Chair: Are you making any representations
as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review that this budget
should be increased?
Meg Munn: The outcome of it will
depend on—
Q99 Chair: Have you made any representations?
Meg Munn: No. The view that has
been taken is that this was the budget which was set out at the
outset and that is the budget we are looking to have in place.
| 
