Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100
- 119)
TUESDAY 5 JUNE 2007
MEG MUNN
MP AND MS
SUSAN SCHOLEFIELD
Q100 Anne Main: On that very point,
are you confident then, given the budget seems to be just right,
that you will be delivering all the wish lists that seem to be
gradually emerging; and it is still quite vague as to exactly
what the role of the Commission is going to be? Are you confident
the regional presence, the number of staff, will be delivered
for that; and, if not, what?
Meg Munn: It depends what you
mean by "wish list" because I am confident that the
Commission will have the amount of money to do the job that Government
is expecting it to do. I know that it will not do everything that
every organisation who has an interest in the issues of equalities
will want it to do, because essentially you would be talking about
huge amounts of money because many organisations want to see this
Commission do a whole range of issues which it clearly will not
be able to do. Like any other public body we take a view as to
what we feel is an appropriate budget. We feel this is the appropriate
budget and then within that the Commission will need to decide
on its priorities in terms of the issues that it wants to deal
with. As I said earlier, obviously the work done by the Equalities
Review sets out some of the early priorities for the Commission;
and then subsequently, as they have been in place for a while,
they will then have the state of the nation report which will
be a key driver in terms of looking at what are the top priorities
that they ought to be looking to do and investigate in terms of
their role.
Q101 Mr Olner: What still concerns
me in listening to the answers you gave to David is the fact that
we still have not got a single department that has got responsibilities
in this Discrimination Bill. I just wonder whether the rationale
of still keeping it in little separate compartments is actually
going to work. Would it not strengthen equality if we had just
one minister responsible?
Meg Munn: The last machinery of
government changes which were just over a year ago did bring together
more of the equalities issues into Communities and Local Government,
and also had the benefit of locating it in a department which
deals with a wide range of people delivering services, i.e. local
authorities; so there were clear benefits on that. One of the
problems about how you deal with equalities is that it is an issue
which everybody, in my view, should be concerned about. You need
people in all departments to be taking seriously issues of equality.
Therefore, the view was taken that because of the other range
of responsibilities in terms of age and disability it was still
appropriate that the Department for Work and Pensions should have
a lead on that. This requires close working across ministers as
indeed I mentioned earlier in response to David Wright's question—the
Ministry of Justice as well, leads on human rights. We do have
to work closely with each other as ministers. I suppose logistically
it would be simpler to have it in one department, but equalities
goes wider than just the Commission for Equality and Human Rights
and impacts in other areas, so it is a judgment issue.
Q102 Mr Olner: Would there be any
benefits in having just one department?
Meg Munn: In terms of the Commission
for Equality and Human Rights I think it would be simpler for
that particular minister. Whether in terms of delivering the whole
issue of equalities across government that might be less effective,
because one person raising those issues might be less effective
than having more ministers concerned with that.
Q103 Mr Olner: Quickly totting it
up, there are seven government ministers at the moment who have
specific portfolio responsibilities for equality and human rights,
including your good self as one of those seven. Could I ask how
frequently you meet?
Meg Munn: The inter-ministerial
group, which has overseen and is overseeing the setting up of
the Commission for Equality and Human Rights and the Discrimination
Law Review process, meets approximately monthly; sometimes it
might be five or six weeks because of a recess but it is approximately
that.
Q104 Mr Olner: Out of those seven
ministers will there be a minister who will be specifically in
charge of the other six?
Meg Munn: I am the lead minister
in relation to the Commission for Equality and Human Rights and
I would not want to venture that I am in charge of them, for obvious
reasons, Mr Olner!
Q105 Mr Olner: Will that much stay
the same when we have these new powers?
Meg Munn: The lead department
and sponsoring department for the Commission for Equality and
Human Rights will come to me with the Communities and Local Government
as things stand at the moment. Clearly as members are no doubt
well aware things might change in a few weeks' time but those
are issues which I am sure the Committee can come back to if necessary
at that point.
Q106 Chair: Is this group of ministers
just in charge of the transitional arrangements, or will it continue
to meet?
Meg Munn: A decision has not been
made on that.
Q107 Chair: It is possible that they
may cease to meet?
Meg Munn: It is possible they
could cease to meet; it is possible they could continue to meet.
I think members of the Committee are rightly identifying that
this is an issue which concerns more than just Communities and
Local Government, particularly because there are lead ministers
in areas in other departments, and a regular mechanism (whatever
that is) for being in touch needs to be in place.
Q108 Mr Olner: It comes back to your
question, Chair, about funding the thing. I usually find where
there are several departments involved then there is not much
push by anybody to ensure it is adequately funded; the funding
somehow slips down the side of the chair. This again is coming
back to, why should we not have a single minister responsible
for all of it?
Meg Munn: I think specifically
on the funding my personal view on this is that I am not sure
that would make such a significant difference. What happened last
May, because of the machinery of Government changes, I personally
moved from the Department of Trade and Industry with the lead
on women and sexual orientation, and race and religion and belief
came from the Home Office so the budget had to follow. If it all
moved to one ministry there would have to be a process where the
budget at that point would need to move. I do not think that is
so much the issue. In terms of the whole area of equalities outside
the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, we obviously have
public service agreements as well, and looking at those which
will be in place following the Comprehensive Spending Review there
will be an equalities one which, again, will need to operate across
a number of departments. Therefore, there will need to be ministers
in all the departments affected who are concerned about issues
of equality.
Q109 Mr Olner: Having spoken to Trevor
Phillips obviously as Chair of the Commission he is champing at
the bit and wanting to get going, and the earlier question that
got the answer from you of "soon", I understand that
thing is still driving forward. Do you think we have perhaps missed
a trick in setting up the Commission before we have had the benefits
of the Equalities Review, the Discrimination Law Review and the
introduction of the Single Equality Act? I am just wondering whether
we have set that up before we have had evidence of the other stuff.
Meg Munn: Some people take that
view. There were clearly some people who took that view when the
Equality Act went through the House of Lords; particularly there
was a lot of debate about that as to whether this was the right
way round. I have been in post for just over two years and the
whole process started with a White Paper back in 2004, Fairness
for All, which set out the proposals about the new Commission.
I really do not know exactly the history of how we ended up coming
to do it this way round as opposed to the way round you are suggesting.
My view is that we will benefit—and a lot of groups, organisations
and individuals will benefit—from having one Commission
looking at equalities issues. We need to have a more effective
legislative framework to support that and we are moving to getting
that. I think in the long-term the effect of doing it this way
round as opposed to the other way round is not necessarily negative.
We could have been in the situation where we had strong legislation
around sexual orientation, religion and belief and no organisational
body to support people who then wanted to enforce their rights.
It is not perfect, but that is my experience of where we are at.
Chair: Could we move to a couple of the
strands that the Commission is covering.
Q110 Anne Main: Does the DCLG hold
departmental responsibility for tackling discrimination on grounds
of belief?
Meg Munn: Yes.
Q111 Anne Main: Why use the terminology
of "faith" which implies exclusion of those who have
non-religious beliefs?
Meg Munn: I do not think I did.
I think I always referred to it as "religion and belief".
Q112 Anne Main: There have been some
arguments that people with non-religious beliefs are quite discriminated
against. What are your views on that?
Meg Munn: That is an argument
that has been put very strongly, and been put very strongly to
me by organisations such as the British Humanist Association and
National Secular Society as well. Before the Commissioners were
appointed to the Commission for Equality and Human Rights we had
a steering group which was in place for a significant period of
time, which had representatives of all the different areas; and
there was a representative of the belief strand, if I can put
it like that, from the humanist organisation; so that has been
raised.
Q113 Anne Main: In which case, and
perhaps you will correct me, apparently the DCLG has responsibility
for a Faith, Race and Cohesion Directorate. I just wonder if you
are clear in your difference between belief and faith?
Meg Munn: I personally am.
Ms Scholefield: It is called "race,
faith and cohesion", but it does cover those responsibilities.
It covers quite a range of things actually that are not within
the title.
Q114 Chair: Can I just turn to the
issue of persistent inequalities. There were some very interesting
timelines provided in the Equalities Review of if there was simply
the current rate of progress when certain inequalities would disappear,
with a representative House of Commons by 2080. For example, closing
the ethnic qualification gap it would be "definitely never".
Specifically I know the EOC have done a report on employment of
Pakistani and Bangladeshi women and that is another one where
it will be "definitely never". What strategies and targets
does the Department have to address those sorts of persistent
inequalities where clearly there has to be some step change or
the inequalities will persist forever?
Meg Munn: In terms of these issues,
if I could just say first, Chair, I think the Equalities Review
was helpful in that respect of setting out that process; and one
of its recommendations in terms of its ten steps was to have that
process of being clear about how do we measure inequality and,
therefore, how do we respond and identify the priorities for that.
In terms of issues around representation, what we have done within
the Department is set up a commission to look particularly at
councillor level at how we get more under-represented groups in
there, including black and minority ethnic people, women and younger
people as well. In terms of Parliament, we are asking within the
Discrimination Law Review whether people feel that, whereas there
is already legislation which allows for parties to have measures
in place to have positive discrimination in terms of women, we
should have legislation that should do that in terms of minority
ethnic groups. In terms of employment, you will be aware that
we had the Women and Work Commission which looked in detail at
the gender pay gap. It looked less in detail at the issues which
affected minority ethnic women, because obviously it was a fairly
substantial piece of work in itself. We have looked at the work
that has come from the Equal Opportunities Commission; we have
also looked at some research which was done also by Sheffield
Hallam University around local labour markets—which very
importantly identify that we need to be very clear that sometimes
the headline figures around particular black and minority ethnic
women's participation hides some real distinct differences between
particularly ethnic groups—and so further work is now being
looked at as to how we can address those issues around black and
minority ethnic women.
Q115 Chair: So further work has been
done but there are not as yet any clear strategies about how to
tackle it?
Meg Munn: No.
Q116 Anne Main: Trevor Phillips said
when he was here that he supported businesses and he used the
word Tesco actually having positive discrimination in terms of
being able to say, for example, the majority of their staff were
Bangladeshi if that represented the community it served. Would
you support that?
Meg Munn: We are not setting out—
Chair: Sorry, but can I just correct
you slightly. He did not suggest positive discrimination, which
of course would be illegal, but positive action.
Q117 Anne Main: Sorry, yes, he did
not use the phrase "positive discrimination", but "positive
action".
Meg Munn: We are within the Green
Paper seeking views on whether we should extend the existing opportunities
which are there for positive action. We are not suggesting positive
discrimination, so should we extend it in that way?
Q118 Mr Betts: Just specifically
on the issue of generally lower levels of pay and the often less-good
jobs that Pakistani and Bangladeshi women might do or indeed their
lower activity rates in terms of their employment at all, how
far is the Government willing to get into some of the more difficult
areas here because there is undoubted discrimination, I think
that is true, against people from Pakistani and Bangladeshi backgrounds
who are just as qualified as their white counterparts, particularly
younger women, who then do not get on in the same way and do not
achieve the same level of pay or responsibility? Also, within
that community there is the issue of arranged marriages and the
second generation not necessarily moving on in quite the same
way as perhaps previous immigrant communities have before and
if the wives, who often are, are brought from rural Kashmir or
Bangladesh themselves and are probably not very well educated,
then it is probably less likely they are going to get a job in
this country and it is more likely you will have single-earner
families, and certainly there are some big cultural issues about
elements of the community, and it is by no means in general, not
wanting to work and get involved and just seeing a role in the
home. I just wonder how those issues will be tackled as well because
they are sensitive and they are difficult, but they are still
there.
Meg Munn: The Department for Work
and Pensions leads on work with its Ethnic Minority Employment
Task Force, which actually specifically looks at how we can tackle
precisely these issues and Jim Murphy, who is the lead Minister
on that, has been looking at how it can focus the work that is
done on that to tackle some of these specific issues. That Task
Force does include representatives of business and the public
sector and the voluntary sector as well as government ministers
and government departments, so there is work going on and specific
projects around that. On the issue particularly about how you
get to women where families are less keen or maybe they, as you
say, have come from the Sub-Continent and have not got the skills
or the ability, there is a range of projects around the country,
some of which I have visited, which are becoming more successful
at encouraging this by working within communities and providing
childcare for people and support from other people within the
community, and they are being more successful in helping women
to move out of the home and to gain employment, so spreading that
good practice is of course something as well that we need to do
more of.
Q119 Mr Betts: Of course one of the
things that strikes me straightaway is that someone literally
who has come to this country relatively recently and who has not
got the skills and does not feel confident, they are not likely
to go five miles away to a college to get the skills.
Meg Munn: No.
| 
