Consultation document - Word version

Equality Project - Consultation document

Equality and Diversity: Making it happen

Contents

Foreword by Barbara Roche
1	The vision
2	Equality now
3	Role and contribution of equality institutions
4	The way forward
5	Consultation so far
6	International perspectives
7	Options for future structures
	A single equality body Risks and challenges Structure of a single equality body
8	Options based on existing structures
	A single gateway An overarching commission Other options
9		Cross cutting issues
		Equality and human rights The Scottish and Welsh dimensions The local and regional dimensions Enforcement and promotion functions
10		Arrangements from 2002-3 for the new strands
11		Next steps
12		How to comment

Foreword

In May, I announced that we were undertaking the most significant review of equality in over quarter of a century, centred on looking at long term options for equality machinery in Great Britain, including the feasibility of creating a single equality commission.

This has stimulated a lively debate on both the principles that underpin our equality machinery and the organisational options open to us. I am keen to continue to involve stakeholders and others with an interest as we consider the best way forward.We said last year in Towards Equality and Diversity that we saw arguments in favour of a single commission.

We are publishing this document today to ask your views on some specific structural options for our equality institutions and on how any future organisation should tackle some of its most important priorities.

Equality & Diversity: Making it Happen looks at what equality institutions can contribute to making equal opportunities and equal treatment a reality for everyone, drawing on experience to date both in Great Britain and overseas. It identifies areas where more emphasis is needed in the future, such as promoting equality in an integrated way taking account of the needs of all groups.

We need to move beyond the idea that discrimination legislation is only about protecting minority groups, important though that is. It is now very much about providing protection for everyone — for example, we will all be covered by the age regulations being introduced under the Article 13 Race and Employment Directives.

This consultation paper notes the benefits a single equality commission could bring, and also those of other options. It also flags the importance we attach to making sure that whatever arrangements are put in place fully meet the needs of all people, wherever they live in Great Britain.

Making sure that we choose the best approach and structure for our equality institutions in the future is not something that Government can do by itself. The existing Commissions — the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Disability Rights Commission — as well as groups representing people of different ages, religions and sexual orientation and individuals have already been working with us to make sure that we take as many views into account as possible as we develop our thinking.

But we need to continue this dialogue through this consultation launched today. Responding to this consultation document will not be your only opportunity to give us your views on how we should go forward. We will be holding a number of events across the country over coming months so that we can hear as wide a range of views as possible.

In particular we want to hear how people think the current equality machinery can be developed to better meet their needs.I know that it will be important to offer certainty on our plans as early as possible. We intend to publish the outcomes of this consultation and make a further announcement about our plans in the spring of next year.

I can say now that I do not expect that any new structures would be operative before 2006. In the meantime we are of course continuing to work to implement the Race and Equality Directives and are publishing a companion document, Equality and Diversity: The Way Ahead which sets out the main features of the proposed legislation which we are bringing forward.We are committed to making Britain a better and fairer place to live and work, where everyone can fulfil their potential. We need the right structures to make this happen. Your views are important to us.We look forward to hearing from you.

BARBARA ROCHE

Minister for Women

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

To top

Part 1: The Vision

The government’s vision is of an equal, inclusive society where everyone is treated with respect and where there is opportunity for all. Everyone must be able to play their full part in social and economic life. We need to tackle barriers to participation and change culture so that equal opportunities and equal treatment become a priority for all.
We want to see a Britain where there is increasing empowerment of all groups, with economic empowerment a key goal; where attitudes and biases that hinder the progress of individuals and groups are tackled; where cultural, racial, and social diversity is respected and celebrated; where communities live together in mutual respect and tolerance; and where discrimination against individuals is tackled robustly.
Effective, up-to-date institutional support for equality legislation is fundamental to achieving this vision. In May, the government launched a study of future structures for statutory equality machinery, in particular the feasibility of creating a single equality commission for Great Britain. This has stimulated a keen debate.
This document sets out our assessment of the priorities for equality and the challenges ahead. It looks at what equality machinery can contribute to achieving our equality vision and invites views on possible structures. It notes the links between institutional support for equality and for human rights. Finally it sets out the next steps following this consultation, including how and when a decision will be reached.

To top

Part 2: Equality now

Much has happened to take us towards a more equal society. Through the working of equality legislation since the 1970’s, much progress has been made in reducing discrimination against individuals. There is increasing acceptance of the diversity agenda — organisations are more and more addressing the needs of particular groups, whether as employees, customers or otherwise. This is good for business as well as right in its own terms. We need to press forward this cultural change - complementing the earlier focus first on tackling discrimination and then on positive action.
Equality is an issue across Britain. The GB legislation on equal opportunities continues to be a matter for the UK Parliament at Westminster. But we must take full account of constitutional change and the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.
The government has actively promoted a more equal society through its policies and through legislative change. The establishment of the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) was a key step. Similarly the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000 signalled a powerful commitment to change by placing a duty to promote race equality and good race relations on over 40,000 public bodies. The government has recently legislated to allow political parties to take positive action to address gender imbalance in our democratic institutions. It has introduced a common age of consent for gay people and heterosexuals. It has brought in new rights for disabled people in education.
Policies and programmes across the breadth of government aim to improve outcomes for disadvantaged groups and respond to diverse needs. The New Deal programmes and the National Minimum Wage have worked to expand employment and reduce inequality of incomes. The Working Families Tax Credit has provided support to over 1,300,000 families across the UK. The introduction of the National Childcare Strategy has created places for 700,000 children in England and Wales. The Scottish Childcare Strategy is being taken forward by the Scottish Executive. The New Deal 50 Plus is currently developing new work-based training opportunities designed to help older people retrain, particularly in sectors which have been reluctant to recruit older people. The Jobcentre Plus initiative offers a range of programmes aimed at helping disabled people obtain and keep paid work with specialist support from Disability Employment Advisors. The Excellence Challenge has been looking at ways to improve access to Higher Education for young students in England and Wales from disadvantaged backgrounds. Similarly, the Scottish Executive is committed to a range of measures to improve access to higher education.
In Scotland and Wales, the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales have led the way in mainstreaming equalities into the development of policies and practices.
There is systematic goal setting by departments to address disadvantage relating to gender, disability and race in the recently published Public Service Agreements. These are hard-edged, accountable targets. We are working to improve the share of underrepresented groups in public appointments — and in our institutions overall.
We are working to pursue economic empowerment. The pay gap between men and women is still far too large. Disabled people are far more likely to be out of work and claiming benefit than non-disabled people. Minority ethnic workers are more likely to face discrimination in the labour market and are more likely to be unemployed and face glass ceilings than their white counterparts. Helping people into work is an obvious step towards equality — and to engagement in social and community life. This has been a top priority for this government through the New Deal programmes, the National Minimum Wage and measures such as the Disabled Persons’ Tax Credit.
In Europe, the Government played a leading role in negotiating a framework for equality. Plans are already well advanced to make that a reality. As well as extending the scope of the Disability Discrimination Act in the UK, we will introduce new measures on sexual orientation, religion and age. By 2006, people looking for work, those in jobs and those in training will be protected from discrimination on these new grounds, as well as race, gender and disability. Equality and Diversity: The Way Ahead, which accompanies this paper, summarises the Government's proposals for this legislation. Copies of the draft regulations can be downloaded from the internet at www.dti.gov.uk/er/equality.

Overall, our proposals are designed to make equality legislation more coherent and easier to use. We will, for example, introduce explicit protection against harassment on all grounds, and use the same wording to define this and other key concepts where that is appropriate. We will reduce the number of exceptions in existing legislation, so that protection applies more generally to people looking for work, people in jobs and people in training. And we will make some changes to the way in which the law is enforced, so that complaints can be resolved more quickly. These developments will be in the interests of individuals and employers alike. The best employers already know that fairness and productivity go hand-in-hand.
We will phase in these changes over the next four years. As we do so it makes sense to reflect on experience - for example with the duty on public bodies to promote equality of opportunity introduced by the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000 - and the similar statutory duties on the devolved administrations. Results are emerging from which we can learn as we consider the way ahead.

To top

Part 3: The role and contribution of equality institutions

Equality institutions play a key role in bringing about a more equal society. The three equality Commissions, the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) and the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) have made an outstanding contribution since their establishment. The CRE and EOC have helped change the face of Britain over the past 25 years. The DRC, set up only in 2000, has made a real impact and has an important forward agenda to deliver.
But it is time to look in depth at the future role of equality machinery, so that it meets expectations and needs for the years ahead.
Equality is now everyone’s business. Organisations increasingly accept that they should seek to promote equality in the round through an integrated approach. Providing redress for individuals suffering discrimination is still supremely important, but the challenge now is to support and promote equality throughout our society.
People are increasingly looking for equal treatment that respects the many facets of their identities. Everyone’s identity has multiple aspects, drawing for example on their gender, age, ethnicity and religious affiliations among other characteristics. As people recognise the strengths Britain draws from diversity, they are becoming more conscious of this. Some identities, and combinations of identities, have been associated with disadvantage and discrimination in the past — for example being an ethnic minority woman can be a double source of disadvantage. Equality policies must respond to this - another reason for a broad-based approach.
We believe that the functions and powers of the current Commissions will remain at the centre of any future equality machinery. Tackling discrimination depends on having effective means to spread awareness of equality rights to individuals, businesses and the public; to give advice and information to individuals; to provide advice and guidance to business and advice giving organisations; to promote good practice among business and other organisations; to give support for individuals with complaints of discrimination; to undertake investigations where appropriate; and to take enforcement action where needed.

3.6 But we believe that new emphasis is needed on

raising awareness and stimulating debate on the key barriers to a more equal society, looking widely and going beyond the concerns of individual groups. Taking the argument to the public and to decision makers everywhere. Doing so on the basis of a deeper understanding of how inequalities manifest themselves in today’s society and how they can be countered. Improving the evidence base so that actions and policies are well targeted and effective;

mainstreaming - or building issues of equality into policies and practices - across a broad front, taking account of all equality strands. Engaging with government and public service providers across the breadth of policies and programmes and their delivery to ensure that diverse needs are met. And with business and the voluntary sector to support culture change there;

providing advice and guidance to employers and service providers covering all their equality obligations;

informing and supporting individuals across the breadth of their equality rights;
flexible approaches to enforcement, with more emphasis on conciliation and other modern dispute resolution techniques;

effective means of tackling multiple discrimination cases;

fostering strong local networks to help tackle barriers to inequality at source;

working in partnership with a wide range of stakeholders and openness to all, and;

effective, streamlined arrangements making the best use of resources.

Question1:Are the priorities in the paragraph above the key priorities for equality machinery? Please reply on the separate form included with this document. To top

Part 4: The way forward

As announced on 15 May, the government is looking at options for the structure of equality machinery for the years ahead. It is committed to evolving robust, effective long-term institutional support for all those covered by equality legislation, both those covered by existing legislation and the new strands being brought in as we implement the Employment and Race Directives. Since May, there has been vigorous debate both on the principles for equality machinery and on specific organisational possibilities. This has helped to clarify the issues and prepare the ground for a wider debate.
The government is now keen to seek views on options for future structures. It has set out a number of options for comment in sections 7 and 8 below. The following two sections provide further background. Section 5 outlines the findings so far of the government’s study, while Section 6 outlines experience in other countries with single equality bodies.

To top

Part 5: Consultation so far

In taking forward this review of equality initiatives, the DTI’s Women and Equality Unit has held discussions with interested organisations, in particular the CRE, EOC and DRC. These have contributed valuably to deepening understanding of the issues and identifying areas of concern. We are grateful for these constructive contributions.
As part of the work done so far on the single equality body concept, the DTI’s Women and Equality Unit organised a seminar in July to seek views from as wide a range as possible of interested organisations. Over 180 people from 120 organisations took part. They included employers, trade unions, the voluntary sector, the current Commissions, a large number of representative groups of those covered by existing equality legislation and the new strands, academia and research bodies. As well as plenary sessions, the seminar included workshops dealing with key issues such as the structure of equality machinery; how employers and service providers’ needs can be met; supporting individuals; the relationship between promotion and enforcement activities, devolution, and regional and local issues. Further workshops considered issues relevant to the six strands. The seminar yielded much valuable information and many useful insights.
The overall view of those attending was that a single equality body would have many benefits to offer, provided that it was established on an effective basis. It could champion equality overall; provide integrated advice both to individuals and organisations; and provide more effective means to address multiple discrimination. It would be a real force in tackling institutionalised discrimination. It needed however to be grounded in a powerful vision of equality; have robust powers and be properly resourced; and there needed to be a clear timetable and sufficient time for planning. Many emphasised the need for harmonisation of equality legislation to enable a single body to deliver fully; and that there must be no diminution of focus on the needs of individual strands, the diversity of which need to be respected.
Further points made were that conciliation and other alternative dispute resolution techniques could be a valuable tool for the future, though a full range of enforcement powers would be needed; that the structure of a single body would need very careful consideration; that promotion and enforcement activities were closely linked and should be carried out on an integrated basis; and that through a variety of means, equality machinery needed to make itself felt at local and regional levels.

To top

Part 6: International perspectives

We have looked at arrangements adopted in a number of other countries, as well as in Northern Ireland, where a single body (the Northern Ireland Equality Commission) was established in 1999 to cover all groups given legal protection against discrimination.
Arrangements in other countries vary considerably and reflect their political and legal traditions. Some countries in Europe have little formal machinery to support equality, though most have statutory institutions in various forms.
The Netherlands, Ireland, Northern Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the United States, have a single statutory structure supporting equality and anti-discrimination rights, and, in some instances, human rights too. As examples, the key features of the Australian, New Zealand and Canadian bodies, and Northern Ireland’s, are described in the boxes on the following pages. These have developed over the years to meet the specific needs of the countries concerned, and reflect different legal frameworks, breadths of rights covered, policy priorities and models of internal organisation. Nevertheless recent studies suggest that they have been effective in delivering benefits through an integrated approach — for example in promoting good practice across the equality agenda, raising the profile of diversity, and providing integrated advice, while continuing to meet the needs of the specific groups they serve. These studies give indications too of the factors that make for success such as clear corporate values, sufficient independence and resources, and a workable structure.
We will continue to explore experience in other countries, while recognising that caution is needed in generalising from this — and that Britain’s future equality institutions must be designed to meet our particular needs and circumstances.

Case Studies

Canada

Since 1977, Canada has had a Human Rights Commission that operates at federal level. It is charged with promoting human rights and enforcing anti-discrimination law via a complaints process conducted by the Commission. The organisation is essentially an enforcement and dispute resolution agency: it is generally the first port of call for anyone with a complaint of discrimination, and every complaint has to be processed and dealt with fully. Dispute resolution processes have thus dominated the work of the Commission, with the use of mediation beginning to take a higher priority in the organisation’s casework. Following recent legislation, there is now greater emphasis on the Commission’s promotional functions, and on outreach to community groups.

Up to eight people can be appointed as Commissioners, and there are no Commissioners with formal ‘specialist’ functions. Instead, a regional and strand spread is maintained, along with a balance between men and women. The Commission is organised by function, with four key ‘pillars’:

Legal Services;
Employment Equity (responsible for employment equity audits);
Operations (including Alternative Dispute Resolution, Investigations, Pay Equity and Settlement branches), and;
Corporate management (including Policy and International Program, and Planning branches).

New Zealand

Since 1977, New Zealand has had a Human Rights Commission charged with upholding and promoting human rights in general and enforcing the legislation on discrimination, which now covers the grounds of sex, marital status, religious or ethical belief, age, disability, political opinion and sexual orientation as well as race. Until the Human Rights (Amendment) Act 2001, the structure was largely along strand-specific lines, with separate offices for race, children, health and disability and privacy. As with Canada, the primary focus of the Human Rights Commission was investigating, resolving and taking cases.

The 2001 Act brought in a cross-strand approach to equality, placing a greater emphasis on promotion and education, as opposed to individual complaint handling with the aim too of increasing coherence and making better use of resources. The Race Relations Commissioner still has specific responsibilities and functions to reflect the importance of race equality issues in New Zealand. An Equal Opportunities Commissioner has also been appointed. Beyond this, the Commissioners are all generalists. Below Commissioner level, the organisation has a mixture of functional and specialist units. Separate offices still exist which have responsibility for children’s rights, health and disability access and privacy.

Regarding enforcement, whilst the Commission places emphasis on mediation, if a case cannot be resolved in this way, then the complainant can apply for support from the Office of Human Rights Proceedings, which is fully independent and self-contained. The Director has independence from the Commission in deciding which cases to support.

Northern Ireland

In July 1998, the decision was made to proceed towards a single equality commission to replace the existing organisations the Northern Ireland Equal Opportunities Commission (NIEOC), Northern Ireland Commission for Racial Equality (NICRE), Fair Employment Commission, and the National Disability Council, and to create an organisation with a remit beyond those of the preceding bodies. This includes a responsibility created under the Northern Ireland Act to enforce the statutory duty on public authorities to promote equality and opportunity. Commissioners were appointed in August 1999 and the Single Equality Commission was set up in October 1999.

An initial structure was established to enable the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland to ‘hit the ground running’, while work was taken forward to create a new functional structure incorporating the work of the previous Commissions. A strand approach was maintained initially, with support from joined-up corporate services, in particular through a disability unit to implement new responsibilities under disability legislation, which were conferred on the Commission in April 2000.

A function-based structure was gradually introduced so that structure now consists of three divisions: policy and public affairs; legal policy and advice; and operations and corporate services. Smaller specialist units dealing with race and disability are currently retained primarily to carry out policy development, while their operational functions have been merged into the units described above.

Australia

The Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission was established in 1986, with functions centred on the promotion of human rights and the enforcement of anti-discrimination legislation by dispute resolution. The Commission is composed of a President and up to five specialist full-time Commissioners, who each have responsibility for specific strands: human rights, sex discrimination, disability, race and aboriginal rights. They have high public visibility. Each Commissioner is supported by a dedicated policy unit which devises strategies and initiatives for the strand concerned. These are in turn given effect by general functional units serving the whole organisation. The Commissioners have considerable autonomy in the allocation of budgets, staffing, policies and programmes. The Commission’s Chief Executive Officer oversees the day to day working of the Commission.

This structure has developed from earlier structures, which gave very high levels of autonomy to the Commissioners. The current structure was adopted to reduce the considerable divergence of approach in the different areas, improve the budget allocation process and provide increased coherence for the Commission as a whole.

To top

7. Options for future structures of equality institutions

We have set out on the following pages three options for future structures for equality machinery. These are a single equality body and two options that build on the existing three Commission structure. We are keen to receive views on these options.

A new approach — a single equality body

The consultation document Towards Equality and Diversity stated that the government saw arguments in favour of a single statutory equality commission that would offer integrated guidance and support to individuals and businesses and help ensure a coherent approach to equality issues across the board.

Any body that delivered the benefits of coherence and integration would need capability to:

Promote equality on an integrated basis, taking account of the full range of barriers to equality and the needs of all groups covered by equality legislation; to engage with government, public service providers and business and catalyse change — and be heard by the public; to understand the commonalities of discrimination and develop and promote strategies for addressing them across the board.

Promote good practice to business, service providers and others in mainstreaming equality across the breadth of their operations. Businesses are increasingly addressing all facets of diversity in their people management and broader business strategies. Support from equality machinery needs to match this integrated approach and play a strong role in driving cultural change.

Serve clients through providing:

A single point of contact for individuals, providing information, advice and guidance across the full breadth of their equality rights — reflecting their real life experience.

A single point of advice to employers and service providers covering all discrimination grounds; and support and partnership to other organisations providing advice.

More effective support for individuals facing discrimination, especially discrimination on multiple grounds.

A better basis for fostering local networks focussed on the issues on the ground.

Become a centre of comprehensive knowledge and expertise, making best use of specialist research and legal capabilities; be a learning organisation, able to innovate, pilot, transfer success and be flexible in responding to new challenges.

Have the ability to engage with all stakeholders and NGOs, dealing with the full range of issues of concern; and make partnership working a key tool.

In our view, a properly tasked and resourced single equality body covering all those protected by equality law has the potential to meet these demands effectively — and more so than any structure not based on a crosscutting approach from the start. Without an integrated structure, it will be much harder to promote cultural change or address generic equality issues. A single body should make more effective use of resources, through increasing the proportion of funding going to frontline work, and avoiding duplication of functions between organisations. In particular, an integrated organisation would best serve the needs of those who will receive protection against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, age or religion under the Employment Directive.
A unified body should have national impact and authority and be influential internationally, underlining Britain’s leading role in equality matters.

A single equality body — risks and challenges

Establishing any new institutions would bring risks and challenges. Some potential concerns have been expressed about the impact of a more integrated structure.

There must be no loss of focus on the needs of any of the groups, or ‘strands’ covered by equality legislation. Any new body must serve all the strands effectively. The specialist expertise to meet their needs would need to be effectively secured in the new organisation.

Important work programmes underway in the existing Commissions would need to be successfully taken forward into any new body. For example the DRC’s programme of ensuring effective further implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act including its roll-out into the education sectors; in particular ensuring that disabled people themselves, businesses, and education providers all understand what their respective rights and responsibilities are. The same applies to the CRE’s work with over 40,000 public sector bodies on the implementation of the duty to promote race equality.

The interests of all the groups served must carry equal weight. It would be quite wrong for any group either to predominate or be marginalised. The mission, structures and processes of any new organisation would need to be designed to ensure these risks were minimised.

Any new body would need to engage impartially and openly with a wide range of stakeholders, including the less vocal and visible.

There would need to be a robust and well managed process of practical transition to new arrangements. This needs to be open, professional, and fully sensitive to the interests of staff of the existing Commissions and of their clients.

Any new institutions would have to take account of the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.

Some of these risks and challenges, particularly the first three set out above, could be more acute for a single body than options based on existing structures. We believe that they can be successfully addressed and stakeholders’ confidence maintained. Experience in other countries gives valuable insights into these issues.
Furthermore, the government accepts that any new body would need to be properly resourced, and be given maximum independence consistent with proper accountability.

Structure of a single equality body

Though this consultation does not address the detailed internal organisation of any of the options being considered, much interest has been expressed in the kind of structure that would be appropriate for a single equality body, were this to be the eventual choice made. As is clear from the account of unified equality bodies in other countries in Part 6, a range of organisational options would be possible. The two main options are organisation primarily on a functional basis (with units based on a service or activity such as such as promotion or policy or corporate services), or organisation by strand (with units based on individual strands and undertaking most activities within that unit). The two approaches could be combined, with a predominantly functional organisation containing dedicated units for one or two strands where there were good reasons for this. Whatever leading principle is chosen, any such body would need to balance the need for coherence across the organisation, so that an integrated approach to equality is delivered, with the need for proper focus on each strand. While structure is a matter of lively interest to stakeholders, the government believes that in principle, the Commissioners and Chief Executive of any single body should be free to decide its internal organisation in the light of the objectives and vision set for it by government.

Question 2:Do you think that a single equality body for Great Britain is a good approach?Question 3If you agree that a single equality body should be established, what powers do you consider it should have?To top

Part 8: Options based on existing structures

A number of proposals have been put forward for options that would build on cooperation among the existing Commissions. The aim would be to achieve greater coherence without the demands of creating a new organisation.

A single gateway

This model would focus on providing a single point of contact for information and advice on equality and diversity issues both for business and individuals. Beyond this, the Commissions would retain their own governance, policies and priorities.
A single gateway could be provided to the range of services delivered by the existing commissions, and those needed for the new strands. The gateway might be a contact centre service using a common brand. It would deliver straightforward advice across the diversity grounds through booklets and factsheets, and by email and the web. This advice would be joined-up wherever possible. More complex strand specific issues might be referred on to a second-tier service housed in the existing commissions, with capacity developed for the new grounds. Effective signposting would be key to success. The aim would be for the individual’s experience to be one of dealing with a single organisation.
There would need to be some pooling of resources by the Commissions to fund common contracts, and closer working and joint funding, as appropriate, on awareness raising and press office activity, for example.
While there would be value in a seamless advice service for individuals and businesses, this approach would fail to reap the broader gains of an integrated approach. It would bring only limited coherence across the other functions of the Commissions and would only partly deliver integrated promotion of equality. It would also fail to reflect the needs of the new strands, which would not have the support available to existing strands beyond the provision of advice. It is not easily reconcilable therefore with the government’s commitment (see 4.1) to evolving effective long-term institutional support for all those covered by equality legislation, both those covered by existing legislation and the new strands. Nor would it deliver the increased cost effectiveness of a single body. It might provide however a valuable staging post in moving to a more integrated structure. The gateway service would allow for more evidence gathering to help inform future decisions.

Question 4Do you think that a single gateway structure would be a good approach? An overarching Commission

This model aims at fostering closer working between the Commissions and increasing effectiveness through shared use of resources. The key feature would be a new overarching governance structure that would determine strategic priorities and direction and make key decisions on budget allocations. This overarching body, on which each strand would have a representative, might be supported by a board for each of the strands, which decides that strand’s priorities. These boards might comprise a small number of strand specific commissioners who would be accountable to the overarching board. Careful thought would be needed on the respective roles of the overarching board and the strand-specific boards. We would also need to consider how all parts of Britain could be adequately reflected in the new structure.
This model would speed the pace of co-operation between the Commissions and bring more coherence and consistency to their work. It could bring more effective resource use if it led to the shared provision of services e.g. human resources, IT etc. It might also incorporate the single gateway element described above. It could allow an agreed prioritisation of priorities and funding, while allowing for some ringfencing of funding for strand specific activity. It would aim to bring greater coherence without the disruption of full-scale institutional change. It could provide a stepping stone for possible moves to a more integrated structure. It would allow alternative initiatives and approaches to be piloted, the results of which could inform decisions about future integration.
It is difficult, however, to see how the new strands could be reflected in this model without creating new structures to serve them — in effect creating a new institution. Also, if joint strategy development is to be meaningful, it is arguably best delivered by a fully integrated organisation. Unless the overarching body had a very high level of control, tensions between the strand specific units or between them and the overarching board would be likely to limit what could be achieved. And more machinery at the top could work against focussing resources on delivery.

Question 5Do you think that a structure based on an overarching Commission would be a good approach?Question 6 Do you think that there are other organisational models that might work as well or better than those described above? Other options

A number of options have been proposed that we do not believe should be pursued. These include the prospect of six Commissions, one for each strand, and creating a new permanent Commission for the three new strands which would work alongside the existing Commissions. These would all perpetuate separation between the strands and because of the overheads of maintaining an additional organisation, be a less cost effective use of resources. It has also been suggested that responsibility for the new strands should be distributed among the existing Commissions. There are difficulties of fit however between the responsibilities of the existing Commissions and the three new strands; and this model would also provide only a very limited measure of integration.

To top

Part 9: Cross-cutting issues

A number of issues will need to be addressed whatever future machinery is chosen.

Equality and Human Rights

The terms of reference of the feasibility study announced in May committed us to considering ‘the relationship between possible new arrangements for promoting equality, and those for promoting and protecting human rights more widely.’ The Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights, which is currently taking such issues into account in its inquiry into the case for a Human Rights Commission, also emphasised the need for this consideration in its recent interim report.
The complementary nature of equality and human rights is reflected in the government’s vision of a society based on fair and equal treatment for all and respect for the dignity and value of each person. These principles underlie both equality and human rights legislation. These common threads have implications for any institutional support arrangements relating to the two areas. The government will consider these issues further over the coming months.
Historically, the field of human rights has centred on fundamental civil and political rights; such as rights to a fair trial, to freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of association. These are designed to safeguard individual rights in their relationship with the authorities of the state and ensure the fair and proper treatment of each person in relation to those rights. In contrast, Great Britain’s equality legislation has centred on social and economic protection, in particular protection from discrimination in employment and in the provision of education, goods and services. The work of the existing equality Commissions reflect this emphasis, for example in their work in narrowing the pay gap between the sexes, increasing ethnic minority representation in employment and improving disabled persons’ access to goods and services.
Nonetheless, discrimination law is beginning to go beyond regulating relationships between individuals: for example the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000 placed obligations on public authorities to promote equality of opportunity for all races across the breadth of their activities. This reflected the government’s commitment to combat institutional racism.
Similarly, one of the Human Rights Act’s aims is to drive cultural change, placing obligations on public authorities but also increasingly on individuals. Recent cases have placed responsibility on parents in relation to corporal punishment, and on employers with regard to religious and sexual orientation tolerance at work.
We are already aware of many different views on possibilities for institutional support; in particular those expressed to the Joint Committee of Human Rights in its recent evidence sessions and set out in their report. Consideration of these issues is complex and will require further detailed work. Not least it will need to reflect the distribution of responsibilities between the UK Government and the devolved administrations. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission was established in 1999 following the Belfast Agreement. The Scottish Executive has recently announced that it intends to set up a Scottish Human Rights Commission.
The government will continue to give consideration to these issues.

The Scottish and Welsh dimensions

New equality structures must reflect Scottish and Welsh needs and interests, provide a first class service to Scottish and Welsh people, and reflect their views and aspirations.
The government considers that any new structure should be established for the whole of Great Britain, in keeping with the distribution of powers to the UK and Scottish Parliaments and the National Assembly for Wales, under which the main equality legislation is a reserved matter. Equally, any new machinery must have a strong, authoritative presence in Scotland and Wales. This will require well-resourced offices in Scotland and Wales, with remits clearly tailored to Scottish and Welsh needs. These would build on the longstanding close co-operation between CRE, EOC and DRC in Scotland and Wales and draw in new capacity for the new strands. Their detailed role and organisation would need to be developed in conjunction with all key interests.
The Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales take a keen interest in equality issues. The Scottish Parliament has an Equal Opportunities Committee and the National Assembly for Wales has an Equality of Opportunities Committee. Both administrations have the power to promote equal opportunities. Through their emphasis on mainstreaming equal opportunities, they are vigorously pursuing equality in public service provision in housing, education, health and other areas. Any new equality body will need to interact well with the devolved administrations and legislatures.
In addition to well-resourced offices, other proposals have been put forward for ensuring that a new equality body would be responsive to Scotland and Wales. One suggestion, for example, is that there could be a ‘light touch’ central body co-ordinating three executive arms in England, Scotland and Wales. Such a structure would need to operate within the existing devolution settlements. We would need to consider how the autonomy of the territorial bodies could be reconciled with the central body’s overall accountability. In addition, we would need to ensure that points raised by the arms in Scotland and Wales about matters reserved to the UK Parliament (e.g. employment rights legislation) could be fully taken into account. There would need to be close working between the three executive arms to ensure that experience is shared.

Question 7The government intends to establish any new equality machinery for the whole of Great Britain, reflecting the devolution settlement. What arrangements need to be in place to meet the distinctive economic, political, legal and cultural circumstances in Scotland and Wales?The local and regional dimensions

Equality machinery needs to be accessible to all potential users, and deliver the best possible service widely. We want to ensure that current good practice in the existing Commissions is built upon effectively in any new arrangements.

Services can be made accessible at a number of levels. Helplines and websites are increasingly important gateways for the kind of advice, support and guidance offered by the current Commissions. But consideration also needs to be given to what kind of ‘shop front’ equality machinery should have.

There are a range of functions and roles that could be carried at local and regional level in order to maximise access to advice and support for end users. For example, the new machinery could include cost-effective regional offices to identify and address the specific concerns of particular areas.

Alternatively any new organisation could work closely with existing organisations that have a local presence. The Equality Authority in the Republic of Ireland is doing some work with their equivalent of the Citizens Advice Bureaux in order to signpost and raise awareness about the role and functions of the Authority. This work also extends to giving advisers equality training, in order to spread knowledge and best practice.

Question 8We would welcome your views on the type of services that need to be delivered at a local and regional level:

Advice and guidance to individuals?
Advice and guidance to businesses?
A ‘gateway’ or focal point into the work of any new equality machinery?
Promotion of equality to local employers and service providers?

Enforcement and promotion functions

It has been argued that, from business’ point of view, there would be advantage in assigning enforcement and promotion responsibilities to separate organisations in future. Some companies can find it difficult to be open with a commission in seeking advice on improving its practices, when that body is also responsible for enforcement.
There are strong arguments however for retaining the functions of promotion and enforcement in the same organisation. Having separate organisations would prevent lessons learnt flowing between enforcement on the one hand and promotion and guidance activities on the other. The two activities need to inform each other. Separation would lead to loss of expertise and duplication of effort. Without legal remedies as last resort, the body may be taken less seriously by business, hindering its effectiveness. Provided there is a reasonable balance between the advice and enforcement functions and proper separation of them in the body’s internal organisation (i.e. ‘Chinese walls’), it should be possible to manage any tensions in a way satisfactory for all its customers.

Question 9Do you agree that any new institution should carry out both promotion and enforcement activities? To top

Part 10: Arrangements from 2002-3 for the new strands

Alongside this consultation process, the government will make special arrangements to support the implementation of the regulations under the Employment Directive introducing protection from discrimination in employment on grounds of sexual orientation and religion. These will come into force in December 2003.

Since there is no statutory commission covering these strands it will be a priority for government to work to ensure that individuals and employers, in both the public and private sectors, understand their rights and responsibilities under new legislation. Publishing Equality and Diversity: The Way Ahead is the first part of that process (www.dti.gov.uk/er/equality). It brings together the results of various consultation exercises and summarises the government's legislative plans in a way which is accessible for a wide variety of audiences. The booklet sets out the government’s plans to raise awareness, prepare down-to-earth guidance to support legislation, and to provide practical advice. We will do this in collaboration with ACAS, the equalities Commissions and other organisations - including those in the voluntary sector - which have developed relevant knowledge and expertise.

The EOC, CRE and DRC have a number of other powers, such as the ability to investigate discriminatory practices, which can lead to positive outcomes for wider groups. The Commissions also support a small number of individual cases through free legal advice and representation, which often have strategic impact on the development of case law, bringing wider benefits.

We do not think that it would be appropriate to replicate these functions in the short term for sexual orientation and religion. Partly, this reflects the fact that legislation needs some time to settle down - supported by advice and guidance - before investigations and legal support can add significant value. In addition, we do not think it would be reasonable either to establish new organisations, or add significantly to the duties of the present Commissions at a time when the government is consulting openly about the future of equality institutions.

Legislation on sexual orientation and religion will, of course, be enforced in the same way as other equality laws: through the Employment Tribunal Service and the Courts. And, just as for these other grounds, those who complain will be able to enlist the support of friends, their trade union, or voluntary organisations with a particular interest in their case. Individuals can also call into their local Citizens Advice Bureau, where free legal advice and representation may be available if complaints of discrimination are common in the area.

In England and Wales, we have established the Community Legal Service (CLS) to ensure that people can get information about their legal rights and understand how to enforce them. Many of the organisations within the CLS offer some or all of their services for free, as do Law Centres and Pro Bono groups. We will be working with these organisations, and a wide range of advisory networks, to ensure that they, and others, have a detailed understanding of new legislation and are well placed to respond in a positive way to requests for help.

In Scotland, the Deputy First Minister in the Scottish Executive established a Working Group to make recommendations on legal advice and information provision. The Group reported last year and Scottish Ministers have announced a programme of development work. The Government will work with appropriate advisory networks and voluntary organisations in Scotland to ensure that the new legislation on discrimination is widely understood.

To top

Part 11: Next steps

The purpose of this consultation is to seek your views on the questions set out above. It is vital to have your views if we are going to make the right decisions on Britain’s future equality machinery. Getting this right is key to our aspirations for making Britain a fair and equal society.

We want a wide and deep debate. Many high quality contributions have been made already, and we look for more. We will disseminate these proposals widely and organise events in different parts of Great Britain to gather views.

Following this consultation, the government expects to reach a decision of principle on the broad shape of new arrangements in the spring. We shall then set out our emerging proposals for the new structure as a basis for further comment. This round will focus on the detailed powers, functions and organisation of any new arrangements.

Establishing new structures

Once a decision of principle is made, the next task will be to clarify the functions, powers and structure of the option chosen for any future machinery and begin to take forward detailed planning. We will develop the preferred option in detail openly and collaboratively, involving the Commissions and stakeholders. We recognise that all those who will be served by new arrangements should be able to influence their priorities and design.

We will ensure that the practical transition to the new arrangements is handled in a fully open and professional way, working in conjunction with the Commissions, their staff and staff representatives, and stakeholders generally. It will be important to minimise disruption and allow the Commissions to continue to work effectively in the interim.

To top

Part 12: How to comment How to respond

A questionnaire is enclosed as part of this pack. Please do take time to complete it if you can. It should be returned to the address shown on the form. Alternatively, you might find it easier to complete the form by downloading a copy from the Women and Equality Unit website — www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk and returning it by email to equality.consultation@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk. If you have a visual impairment and wish to respond orally, please telephone 020 7273 8828.

Consultation deadline

This consultation exercise closes on 21 February 2003. Please let us have your responses before then.

Questions about the consultation

If you think that anything in this document is unclear and would like clarification, please call the Project Team on 020 7273 8828.

Access to information and alternative formats

This document is available in a variety of formats to ensure that our proposals are widely accessible to those with an interest. The table overleaf sets out the options, and how to obtain a free copy. If you have a disability and need the information in a different format, please let us know by calling 020 7273 8828.

How to order further copies of this document

This document is available in a variety of formats to ensure that the information is widely accessible to those with an interest. In addition to internet access, further printed copies of this document can be obtained from publications order lines as set in the table on the next page. The table below lists each of the formats, together with details about how to obtain your free copy. If you have a disability and need the information in another format, please let us know by calling 020 7273 8828.

Ordering more documents

Main documents	Reference	From
Equality and Diversity: Making it Happen
In English	02/1353	0870 1502 500
In Welsh	02/1355	0870 1502 500
In Arabic	02/1357	0870 1502 500
In Chinese	02/1358	0870 1502 500
In Gujerati	02/1360	0870 1502 500
In Hindi	02/1359	0870 1502 500
In Braille	02/1369	0870 1502 500
On audio tape (summary)	02/02/CAS7	0870 1502 500
In large print	0000/0000	0800 028 8078
On 3.5" disk	0000/0000	0800 028 8078
Equality and Diversity: The Way Ahead
In English	02/1164	0870 1502 500
In Welsh	02/1367	0870 1502 500
In Arabic	02/1216	0870 1502 500
In Chinese	02/1217	0870 1502 500
In Gujerati	02/1219	0870 1502 500
In Hindi	02/1218	0870 1502 500
In Braille	02/1220	0870 1502 500
On audio tape (summary)	02/CAS5	0870 1502 500
In large print		0800 028 8078
On 3.5" disk		0800 028 8078

Commenting on the consultation process

If you have views about the way in which we have carried out this consultation process, or suggestions for future exercises, please write to: Philip Martin, Regulatory Impact Unit, Department of Trade and Industry, 1 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0ET.

To top back to the Equality Project homepage

back to homepage