Q
1The
Chairman: Thank you very much. The Committee will ask a
series of questions. Before we commence, may I ask whether you have
submitted written evidence?
Sarah
Spencer: We gave a short paragraph that summarises
the many issues on which our member organisations have a consensus,
welcoming the Bill and raising several points where we could see it
improved—two or three paragraphs that we were asked
for. John
Wadham: The Equality and Human Rights Commission has
circulated this document, which is in a better colour than this
photocopy. Secondly, we have sent a specific submission to the
Committee. Thirdly, there is a specific submission from the disability
committee, which is part of the commission. All Members should have
three documents from us. If you do not, we can get them circulated
after the
session. Kevin
Sadler: We have supplied the Committee with two
paragraphs, which explain the role of the Tribunals Service and welcome
the
legislation.
The
Chairman: Thank you very much. We will start with the
questions
now.
Q
2Mr.
Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con): Thank you,
Mr. Benton. I want to start with the socio-economic duty.
There is a clear problem with socio-economic inequalities. Just looking
at the views of Cabinet Ministers, Alan Johnson and Alan Milburn have
come out with memorable quotes about the fact that it is more
difficult, and becoming even more so, for people from poor backgrounds
to escape their upbringing. The obvious question is not that there is a
problem, but how one deals with it. Perhaps the witnesses could explain
whether they think the approach that the Government have taken in the
Bill is the right one and is likely to be effective.
Sarah
Spencer: We think that it is a helpful but modest
measure. It does not have any enforcement provisions, but it is a
measure that will encourage strategic bodies simply to think about the
importance, as you said, of addressing socio-economic inequality. It
does not require the bodies to do anything specific other than ensure
that they have regard to the need to do that, whatever their functions.
We think that the Bill is proportional and useful, but
modest. John
Wadham: We have set out in our briefing the fact that
we also support the development of the socio-economic duty. In our
analysis of the issues relating to our core mandates—race, women
and gender, disability, sexual orientation, religion, belief and
age—the key factor in many issues that people face is,
unsurprisingly, poverty. Their discriminatory treatment has significant
socio-economic consequences. Therefore, it is not too much of a leap,
from our perspective, to ask the question whether more needs to be
done, not only for any particular group, but for the groups in general,
to ensure that they are in a better position and can compete on equal
terms with
others. Nor
is it a big leap to ask public authorities—particularly the
strategic ones—the question whether they are delivering their
services in a manner appropriate to everyone in their area,
particularly in the context of poorer groups. I think it is a sensible
way forward, which the commission supports. The commission’s
remit extends beyond what we might call the traditional strands and ask
questions about inequality in general. That is why we will promote the
provision.
To deal with
your second question on how effective the Bill will be, that depends on
the extent to which the public authorities understand how it works and
the extent to which they can use it effectively. That would be the
$64,000 question. As Sarah said, it is a modest development because it
says only that they need to consider the issue when they are making
decisions about their overall policy. I see no reason why that is not
going to benefit the people it is designed to
benefit. Kevin
Sadler: I am not sure whether there is anything I can
add. I am chief executive of a public authority and will therefore be
bound by the
duty.
Q
3Mr.
Harper: I will come back with one further question, if I
may, Mr. Benton. If the Bill is not effective and is no more
than political posturing, how will it drive organisations to do things
differently from what they are doing today? If they are doing this
already, the measure will be meaningless and have no effect. In what
way will it change how public sector organisations
behave? John
Wadham: We have seen some good examples of the
general public sector duty in relation to equality when, in initiating
new policies, public authorities ask the extent to which they relate to
race, gender or disability. Evidence shows that that is making a
difference. It seems that that is the best example we have of such a
duty, and I see no reason why it will not be effective. The cost
implications will be relatively small because the public authority will
have to ask how it is delivering to all the people entitled to its
service. It
could be said that that is something that public authorities should be
doing in any event—in other words, asking themselves questions
not only about equality strands, but about socio-economic issues. It
seems to promote a public duty on them to concentrate their minds. I am
sure that there will be examples when people look again and services
are developed that do not currently exist or different approaches will
be taken when people who are discriminated against—those who
suffer socio-economic disadvantages—become better
off. Sarah
Spencer: If the Committee wants to be extra sure that
the Bill will have an impact, the place to look is transparency to see
whether there should be a requirement in the specific duties under the
regulations for bodies to say what they are doing with the provision.
Rather than coming as an enforcement measure, that requirement would
shine a little light on what the bodies were doing and it would be
easier for organisations to ask appropriate
questions. Like
the commission, we are relatively confident that the provision, such as
it is, will ensure that organisations take such matters into account.
It will also enable people to ask the right questions of the authority
about whether it is taking those matters into
account.
Q
4Lynne
Featherstone (Hornsey and Wood Green) (LD): Do any of you
have concerns about the discretionary powers that are given to
Ministers under the Bill, and the instability that that might cause in
equality law, which the Bill will hopefully sort out for the next 20
years? The Government of the day may change. Quite a lot of powers in
the Bill are left to the discretion of Ministers in the
future.
Sarah
Spencer: We would probably want to highlight the
exemptions to the age provisions. We attach huge importance to how the
Bill extends protection from discrimination to older people in the use
of services. Clause 193 gives the Government carte blanche to design
the exemptions, and that is unfortunate. We understand why they are
doing it. They want to consult during the summer. We suggest that,
having consulted on the exemptions, they table appropriate amendments
to the Bill in the autumn when it is discussed in the Lords, so that
matters are specified in the Bill rather than leaving them all to
subsequent
regulation. John
Wadham: I am generally in favour of having many of
the measures in detail in the Bill. It is an impressive Bill. Those who
helped to draft it can be proud. The issue for me is at what point
during that process we stop. In an ideal world, it would be good if the
issues of age and exemptions were in the Bill. There is no doubt about
that, and I hope that age discrimination provisions in relation to
goods, facilities and services can be in the law as soon as possible.
However, I understand why that was not possible given the timetable for
the Bill’s publication, so the key question is whether we shall
get this Bill or have to wait. It would be better for us to get the
Bill and for Parliament to scrutinise the exemptions in the best way
that it can, given that they will be dealt with under secondary
legislation.
Q
5Lynne
Featherstone: Sorry, but I thought that it had been a long
time in gestation, and that there had already been a lot of
consultation.
John
Wadham: There are people here closer to you than I am
who will understand more about the timetabling of the Bill. I am not
here to defend the Government’s
position.
Q
6Lynne
Featherstone: No. I am concerned about anything that is
kicked into the long grass in case it does not happen. I was trying to
see whether you felt likewise.
John
Wadham: I absolutely want to see provisions put in
place as soon as possible. We know, particularly for older people but
for young people too, that there are issues about ensuring that we do
not lose the positive benefits that currently exist. Therefore, there
will be processes of negotiation and consideration. It is a balance.
There will always be a time when the Bill needs to be published, and we
must get on with that.
Q
7Lynne
Featherstone: Perhaps a commencement date in the Bill
might be the
answer. John
Wadham: I should declare a conflict of interest
because the commission is charged with producing statutory guidance as
well as other guidance. We want to ensure that when the Bill is
enacted, there is as much information as possible so that everybody,
whether they are employers, employees or public authorities, can
understand what it means. For many people, even lawyers, it is
difficult to understand what it means, and we want to do the best job
we can. If the Bill were enacted in two weeks’ time, I do not
think that our guidance would be ready. We want it to be introduced as
soon as possible but only in the context of having material that
enables people to understand its
effects.
Q
8Sandra
Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab): Can you see how
the socio-economic duty applies to Scotland? Does it apply to both
reserved and devolved areas? If not, why not?
Sarah
Spencer: We do not cover Scotland in that
respect. John
Wadham: I can report only what I know. I understood
that the Scottish Government have decided that this should not apply to
Scotland. There are continuing negotiations with Parliament and the
Government aimed at ensuring that it does. Our approach would be that
if the legislation is justified in England and Wales, it is justified
in Scotland. Issues of devolution must be sorted out in relation to
both devolved and non-devolved matters and I hope that those matters
can be sorted out. Whether that is done by the Westminster Parliament
and Government, or those in Scotland, this should apply to all
strategic public authorities across all three countries as soon as
possible.
Q
9Sandra
Osborne: So, is the commission not involved in
negotiations with the Scottish Government on this matter?
John
Wadham: My Scottish colleagues are talking to both
the Parliament and the Government, as well as to the Government in
Westminster, to see whether we can ensure that the legislation covers
all public authorities across all three countries in the same way. We
will continue to do that. My colleagues have started to think through
how that might be possible.
Q
10John
Howell (Henley) (Con): In the recent Work and Pensions
Committee inquiry into the Equality Bill, one of the consistent
criticisms made about the existing duties on public sector bodies was
that there was little recognition of the difference between outputs and
outcomes. Given the nature of socio-economic inequality, will it be
easy for public sector bodies to appreciate that
aspect? John
Wadham: It is much easier to concentrate on outputs
in the public sector and to measure what has been done. Inevitably, it
is more difficult to demonstrate an effect in the real world, but we
welcome the public sector equality duties as set out in the Bill on the
basis that they will have a more significant effect in the real world.
The job of the Equality and Human Rights Commission will be to enforce
those public sector equality duties. We do not have the same
enforcement powers in the Bill in relation to socio-economic duties
but, as Mr. Harper said, the real test is about whether this
will make any difference in relation to the effectiveness of the
duties. I am confident that it will have an effect. The question for
all of us is how effective the duties are going to be. That is a
challenge for public authorities and the Government in relation to the
guidance or regulations that they then make.
Sarah
Spencer: The wording in respect of public duties
makes a shift in the right direction for the real problem that you
identified. The fact that the duty is now not just to promote equality
but to advance it, makes it clear that the intention is to get
somewhere with this, not just to do something. The fact that the clause
spells out some of the outcomes that are intended, which was not in the
previous legislation, and the fact that it is a single duty now, rather
than public bodies having to deal with a lot of separate duties, are an
advantage. Having said that, we need to look carefully at the specific
duties in the consultation on that over the summer to see whether they
focus on procedures, which
has been a problem in the past, or whether they facilitate a focus on
outcomes. I emphasise the importance of transparency. We need to see
the position that the public body started with, where they have now got
to and what steps they have taken in
between.
Q
11John
Howell: May I pursue that, particularly in the context of
health inequalities, which make up a big part of the socio-economic
side of it? You are probably as aware as I am that many county councils
have created the post of a director of public health in association
with their primary care trusts and are focusing on addressing health
inequalities within their area in a very aggressive way, which is to be
much commended. What additionality do you see this providing in that
sort of
situation? Sarah
Spencer: Are you now talking about the socio-economic
duty?
Sarah
Spencer: What both sets of duties should provide is a
catalyst that requires the public bodies to take into account the need
to achieve these outcomes. They are so important, relative to the old
system of anti-discrimination which rested on remedies. These duties
put the responsibility on to the service provider to look at the
question of whether we are delivering equality. Until this
socio-economic clause was included, the question would have been
whether we were delivering equality on grounds of race, gender and so
on, but it now includes that additional dimension so that service
providers have to ask themselves that question. That should act as a
catalyst to them to do what we would all expect them to do anyway,
which is to ensure that they are providing a fair service to everyone,
but it is a provision which requires them to ask themselves that. What
is particularly important is that it requires them to look at the
evidence and then have a proportionate response to it. It should be a
driver of
actions.
| 
